A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors. addresses a recurring controversy in public employment relating to the determination of the cut-off date for possessing minimum educational qualifications. The dispute arose from recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in West Bengal, governed by the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 6(2) as amended on 22.12.2020. The appellants were candidates enrolled in the 2020–2022 Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) batch whose examinations were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative paralysis of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. Apprehending disqualification on age grounds, the appellants approached the High Court seeking equitable relief.

The Single Judge permitted provisional participation in the recruitment process. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision by treating 29.09.2022 as the recruitment notification date and holding that the appellants lacked the requisite qualifications on that date. The Supreme Court rejected this approach, holding that Rule 6(2) merely incorporates the NCTE-prescribed qualifications prevailing at the time of recruitment and does not prescribe any cut-off date for acquisition of qualifications. The Court clarified the settled position that where rules do not specify a cut-off date, the date mentioned in the recruitment advertisement, or alternatively the last date of application, would govern eligibility.

The judgment reinforces transparency in recruitment, prevents arbitrary exclusion of candidates affected by systemic delays, and reaffirms judicial restraint against importing cut-off dates not contemplated by statutory rules. The Court further exercised its Article 142 powers to ensure completion of the recruitment process in the interests of justice.

Keywords:
Rule 6(2); D.El.Ed.; Cut-off date; Recruitment notification; NCTE qualifications; Public employment

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The controversy stems from recruitment to primary school teaching posts regulated by the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, framed under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. The eligibility framework under Rule 6 adopts the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under statutory mandate. An amendment introduced on 22.12.2020 substituted Rule 6(2) to align qualifications with those “prevailing as on the date of publication of recruitment notification”.

The appellants belonged to the 2020–2022 D.El.Ed. batch, whose course completion was disrupted due to the COVID-19 outbreak and administrative delays within the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. The anticipated conclusion of the course by 30.06.2022 did not materialise. As recruitment was expected in October 2022, the appellants feared exclusion due to age constraints.

They invoked Article 226 jurisdiction seeking directions either for expeditious completion of examinations or postponement of recruitment. The Single Judge accepted the Board’s assurance and allowed provisional participation. Subsequently, the Division Bench reversed this relief, interpreting Rule 6(2) as prescribing a rigid eligibility cut-off tied to 29.09.2022. This interpretation led to exclusion of the appellants despite their qualifications being completed before the interview stage.

The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to clarify the scope of Rule 6(2), the legal status of recruitment notifications, and the governing principles for determining eligibility dates in public service recruitment.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants enrolled in the D.El.Ed. 2020–2022 course, the minimum qualification for appointment as Primary Assistant Teachers in West Bengal. Ordinarily, the course commences on 01 July and concludes on 30 June of the second year. However, due to the pandemic and governance vacuum within the Board, the examinations were severely delayed.

Anticipating recruitment in October 2022 and fearing age-bar disqualification, the appellants approached the Calcutta High Court seeking mandamus to expedite declaration of results or to restrain recruitment. During hearings, the Board assured that Part-I results would be declared on 29.09.2022 and that TET-qualified candidates undergoing D.El.Ed. training would be allowed to participate. On this assurance, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition.

On the same day, the Board issued a notification indicating initiation of recruitment and later, on 21.10.2022, issued the formal recruitment notification inviting applications from TET-qualified trained candidates including appearing candidates of the 2020–2022 batch. The appellants applied accordingly. They completed their course on 29.11.2022, with final results declared on 30.12.2022, before interviews concluded.

Private respondents challenged this inclusion, contending that eligibility must exist as on 29.09.2022. The Division Bench accepted this contention, excluded the appellants, and set aside the Single Judge’s order. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Rule 6(2) prescribes a cut-off date for acquiring minimum educational qualifications?
ii. Whether 29.09.2022 or 21.10.2022 constitutes the valid recruitment notification?
iii. Whether candidates completing qualifications after advertisement but before selection can be excluded?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that Rule 6(2) merely incorporates NCTE qualifications and does not fix a cut-off date. They argued that systemic delays beyond candidates’ control should not result in exclusion. Reliance was placed on Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) to contend that eligibility must be assessed with reference to the recruitment advertisement or last date of application. It was further argued that 21.10.2022 was the actual recruitment notification expressly permitting appearing candidates.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that eligibility must exist on the date of advertisement and that Rule 6(2) mandates possession of qualifications as on publication of notification. They argued that relaxation granted by the Board was impermissible and contrary to statutory rules, relying on settled principles against altering recruitment criteria mid-process.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Rule 6(2), West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016
ii. Section 23, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
iii. National Council for Teacher Education Act, 2009
iv. Article 142, Constitution of India

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench committed a clear error in interpreting Rule 6(2) as prescribing a cut-off date. The provision merely incorporates the qualifications prescribed by NCTE prevailing at the time of recruitment. The Court emphasised that Rule 6(2) does not regulate the timing of acquisition of qualifications.

The Court clarified that the notification dated 29.09.2022 was preparatory in nature and lacked essential elements such as vacancy details. The recruitment notification was unequivocally dated 21.10.2022, which explicitly invited applications from appearing candidates.

The Court reaffirmed settled law that where rules do not specify a cut-off date, eligibility must be determined by the date specified in the advertisement, or failing that, the last date of application, relying on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court. The Court further held that the appellants had completed their qualifications before interviews and before final selection, rendering exclusion unjust.

Invoking Article 142, the Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and directed continuation of the recruitment process commenced on 21.10.2022.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment is that Rule 6(2) does not prescribe a cut-off date for acquiring qualifications and cannot be judicially expanded to do so. Eligibility must be assessed in accordance with the recruitment notification when rules are silent. Recruitment authorities cannot exclude candidates who complete qualifications before selection, particularly when delays are institutional.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that recruitment notifications play a vital role in ensuring transparency and preventing arbitrariness. It cautioned against hyper-technical interpretations that defeat substantive justice, especially in extraordinary situations like post-pandemic disruptions.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Recruitment rules must be strictly construed without importing unstated cut-off dates.
ii. Where rules are silent, eligibility dates must flow from the recruitment notification.
iii. Systemic delays cannot prejudice otherwise eligible candidates.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces fairness in public recruitment and curbs arbitrary exclusion rooted in rigid formalism. It harmonises statutory interpretation with constitutional equity, ensuring that procedural delays do not extinguish legitimate aspirations. The decision also strengthens doctrinal clarity on eligibility cut-off principles while reaffirming judicial responsibility to remedy administrative injustice through Article 142.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1
ii. Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262
iii. Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016
ii. National Council for Teacher Education Act, 2009
iii. Constitution of India