Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shrabani Khan & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 July, 2025
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
WPA 13484 of 2024
Shrabani Khan & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Bikram Banerjee
Mr. Arka Nandi
Mr. Sagar Dey
Ms. S. Das
.....Advocates
For the State : Mr. Swapan Kr. Dutta
Mr. Rajat Dutta
.....Advocates
Heard lastly on : 27.03.2025
Judgment on : 11.07.2025
Jay Sengupta, J:
1. This is an application, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the
Certificate Pass Course in Library and Information Sciences is a mandatory
2
qualification to apply for the post of librarian in a sponsored public library
and cancelling the appointments made in violation.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted as
follows. The petitioners having passed out higher secondary examination and
possessed a pass certificate in Library and Information Science applied for
and participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the notification
dated 17.03.2023 for the post of librarian of a sponsored public library
having the status of Rural/Area/Primary Unit Library. The qualifications for
participation in the librarian of a sponsored public library having the status
of Rural/Area/Primary Unit Library as per the old rules/notification dated
03.07.1997 having number 945-EDN (MEE), which stated as follows.
Qualification for direct recruitment, essential: (a) A pass in the Madhyamik
Examination or its equivalent and Pass Certificate in Library Science from
any of the following Institutions:- (i) Training Centre attached to the Bengal
Library Association, (ii) Training Centre attached to the District Library,
Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home, Rahara, (iii) Training Centres attached to
Janata Colleges at Kalimpong and Banipur, (iv) Any other training centre
recognized by the Govt. of West Bengal for the purpose. (b) Knowledge of
Bangali or Nepali (for hill area of Darjeeling district only). The legislature
while making the notification dated 1997/Rule dated 1997 intentionally kept
the mandatory qualification as pass in the Madhyamik Examination or its
equivalent and Pass Certificate in Library Science in any of the above
mentioned institutions) for recruitment in the post of Rural Librarian for
around 25 years considering all aspects and the new qualifications as per
3
new rule for the said post were as mentioned in as follows. Name of the Post
was Librarian of a sponsored Public Library having the status of
Rural/Area/Primary Unit Library. The new legislation stated that the
candidates must possess pass in Higher Secondary Examination and pass
certificates in Library Science. In the new notification serial no. (ii) was
brought into effect which stated that the candidate with Bachelor's degree in
Library and Information Science were also eligible to apply. The legislative
intent in keeping the old rule and the new rule into consideration was that
that a person passing out Higher Secondary and "Certificate in Library and
information Science" were only eligible for applying in the post of Librarian in
Rural Library. As per new rule a person was having a Bachelors' Degree in
Library and Information Science was also eligible to apply only if, the said
candidate/candidates were possessing "Certificate in Library and information
Science". A candidate/candidates only having Bachelors' Degree in Library
and information Science, and not having "Certificate in Library and
information Science" could not apply even if the new rule was taken into
consideration. Any candidate not having "Certificate in Library and
information Science" could not apply for the rural library. It was not within
the knowledge of the petitioner that person's/candidates only having
Bachelors' Degree in Library and information Science had applied to this
post. The petitioners had categorically demonstrated in the pleadings before
this Court and had made two of them as added respondents as far as the
petitioners got information from sources. Several candidates only having
Bachelors’ Degree in Library and Information Science had been allowed by
4
the respondents to participate in the selection process without having a
“Certificate in Library and Information Science” and such a process was
highly illegal and hence, candidates who participated or appointed only
having Bachelors’ Degree in Library and information Science should be
withdrawn / removed by the respondents. The syllabus of the Certificate in
Library Science and Bachelors’ Degree in Library and information Science
were distinctively different. The State in none of their affidavits had denied
this point. The curriculum for the two posts were completely different and
were designed to cater to different objectives. Reliance was placed on Devesh
Sharma Vs. Union of India 2023 SCC Online SC 985. Here it was a
consistent policy of the State Government to exclude the qualification
namely, Bachelor of Library and Information Science from the post of
Librarian in a Public Sponsored Library having the status of Rural Library
and hence, in view of which persons only having Bachelor of Library and
Information Science could not apply to the said post.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted as
follows. The petitioners having only Certificate in Library and Information
Science with full knowledge about the procedure, method, criterion of
essential qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the post of Librarian as
mentioned in the Notification dated 15.03.2023 admittedly applied and
participated in the recruitment process and thus, accepted the same without
any demur or objection but on being unsuccessful, questioned the said
Notification at a belated stage which was not permissible in law. Reliance
was placed upon the decision in the case of Rekha Sharma reported in 2024
5
SCC Online SC 2109. It was held therein that the candidates who
consciously took part in the process of selection could not be permitted to
question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents
for making selection, on their having been declared unsuccessful. They could
not also question the result. The writ petition was also barred by the
principle of estoppel and acquiescence. The petitioners had no locus standi
to challenge the same selection process in which they participated and failed.
In the matter of preparation of panel (Para 7 of Notification dated
15.03.2023) for recruitment to the post of Librarian, there was no
discrimination in awarding marks for Academic and Professional Results for
the candidates having both Bachelor Degree in Library and Information
Science and the candidates having only Certificate in Library and
Information Science. The allegation of discrimination thus fell flat. The
Notification dated 15.03.2023 contained policy decision of the Government
based on rational justification relating to method and qualification required
for recruitment to the post of Librarian in the Sponsored Public Library so as
to widen the scope to a large number of candidates with better qualifications,
both Certificate in Library and Information Science and Bachelor of Library
and Information Science. Reliance was placed upon the judgement in the
case of State of Jharkhand vs Ashok Kumar Dangi & ors reported in
(2011)13 SCC 383 (para 17 &18) holding that the State Government must
have liberty and freedom in framing policy and judicial review or any
direction in matters of policy was uncalled for. The decision in the case of
Devesh Sharma Vs Union of India & ors reported in 2023 SCC Online 985
6
cited on behalf of the petitioners concerning appointment to the post of
Primary Teachers dealt with a Notification dated 28.06.2018 which made
B.Ed degree holders eligible for appointment. The Rajasthan Board of
Secondary Education in an advertisement excluded B.Ed degree holders.
This action was challenged. The fact situation of this decision was totally
different from the fact situation of the instant petition. The cited decision on
behalf of the petitioner had no application in this case. The petitioners had
not made out any prima facie case. The petition was liable to be dismissed.
4. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the writ
petition, the affidavits and the written notes of submissions.
5. It is elementary that while construing a meaning of something, that
thing is to be read in its entirety or as an organic whole.
6. From the notification in question, the qualification for direct
recruitment was clearly laid down. At the top, there was a heading ‘Essential’
and below it, four numbers of broad conditions were laid down, enumerated
as (i) to (iv).
7. In the first essential condition, it was provided that a candidate has to
pass higher secondary examination and possess a pass certificate in Library
and Information Science from any of the three named and in other training
centres recognised by the Government of West Bengal. The third condition
was basic knowledge in computer application and the fourth one was
knowledge in Bengali or Nepali (for the hilly areas of Darjeeling and
Kalimpong District).
7
8. If the above referred second condition is to be read as an additional
condition to the first condition of having passed Higher Secondary
Examination and obtaining such certificate, then it would have been
meaningless to have the second condition mentioned there at all. Afterall, it
is quite obvious that if a person passes Higher Secondary Examination and
obtains such passed certificate in Library Information Science, one may
apply for the post and he is not excluded from applying if he has any
additional kind of degree or certificate as for example, the Bachelor degree in
Library and Information Science. Thus, trying to portray the second
condition as an additional one to the first one is absurd and belies any logic.
9. From a plain reading of the conditions it is quite clear that candidates
with Bachelor Degree in Library and Information Science were also eligible to
apply for the post on direct recruitment.
10. As has been mentioned earlier, upon reading the conditions as a
whole, it appears that the third and the fourth conditions are absolutely
necessary, ones which would be in addition to either the condition No.1 or
the condition No.2.
11. That apart, it is settled law that the candidates who had consciously
taken part in the process of selection could not be permitted to question the
Notification or the recruitment process on their having been declared
unsuccessful. On this, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rekha Sharma (supra).
8
12. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this
application.
13. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, however, without any order as to
costs.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels
for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link