The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is applicable only to in-service teachers and does not extend to fresh candidates lacking teacher training qualifications at the relevant time. The Court declined to entertain claims for appointment by untrained candidates filed after the expiration of the selection panel, upholding precedent and statutory interpretation for teacher eligibility in school service recruitments. This judgment is binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal and serves as persuasive authority elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/22766/2025 of SUPRITI MANDAL AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0456792025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Education Law; Recruitment under RTE Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act applies exclusively to in-service teachers and not to fresh candidates. Petitioners, who applied as fresh candidates without the requisite teacher training and sought appointment years after the panel had expired, were ineligible for consideration. The selection process was completed and the panel expired prior to the writ petition; the Court found no scope to adjudicate such stale claims. Reliance on the statutory proviso was expressly rejected based on its language and intent. Appropriate channels for redress were available but pursued belatedly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific prior judgments are cited in the available judgment text. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory interpretation of the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, 2009. The distinct application of the proviso for in-service teachers, not fresh candidates. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners applied in 2016 for the Upper Primary teacher selection test as fresh candidates without teacher training qualifications. They later obtained training in 2018 onwards. Their documents were uploaded in the second phase, but they were marked ineligible and their grievances were dismissed by the Grievance Redressal Committee in 2021. The panel expired in 2025, and the writ was filed after all selection processes had concluded. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (on statutory interpretation and limitation principles) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The second proviso to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, 2009, applies solely to in-service teachers and cannot be invoked by fresh candidates lacking required training at the time of application.
- Claims for appointment made after conclusion of the selection process and panel expiry are not justiciable, especially where prior grievance redressal opportunities were available.
- RTE Act’s exceptions for lack of qualifications have a narrow application strictly interpreted in favour of statutory eligibility.
- Writ relief is less likely when sought at a belated stage post completion of selection and expiry of the selection panel.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the language of the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, 2009, and concluded, based on its plain meaning, that its benefit is limited to in-service teachers and cannot be claimed by fresh candidates.
- The petitioners’ failure to possess the mandatory teacher training qualification at the time of application in 2016 rendered them ineligible, as explicitly recognized by both the Grievance Redressal Committee and the selection authority.
- The Court noted that the selection process for fresh candidates had concluded, and the selection panel had expired by 25th September, 2025, making any further consideration of eligibility moot.
- The Court gave significant weight to the timing of the present writ petition, which was filed years after grievances should have been raised and after the grievance redressal process was exhausted and the recruitment panel had lapsed.
- The reliance on the second proviso to Section 23(2) was specifically rejected as inapplicable, and thus, the petitioners could not claim relief.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Sought consideration for appointment as assistant teachers in Upper Primary based on acquiring teacher training after the 2016 notification.
- Argued that, after accommodating trained candidates, untrained candidates should be considered if vacancies remain.
- Relied on the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, 2009, claiming it entitled them to be eligible as they had applied when untrained.
State Respondents and WBCSSC
- Selection was completed and the panel expired; no scope to consider the petitioners at a belated stage.
- Untrained candidates are not eligible for appointment in the selection process initiated in 2016.
- Petitioners did not participate in the personality test held in 2021–2022.
Factual Background
The petitioners participated in the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 (Upper Primary) as fresh candidates without holding a teacher training qualification at the time of application. They later obtained the necessary qualifications in 2018 and beyond. While uploading documents in the second phase of the process, petitioners were found ineligible and their grievances were dismissed by the Grievance Redressal Committee in 2021. The selection process for fresh candidates was completed and the panel expired in September 2025. The writ petition was filed after all these events had concluded.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment interprets the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court holds that this provision, on its plain wording, is applicable only to in-service teachers and is not intended to apply to fresh candidates. No expansive or liberal interpretation was applied, and statutory eligibility requirements for appointment remain strict.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or changes in evidence requirements are set by this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court confirms and follows existing statutory interpretation and precedent regarding eligibility criteria under the RTE Act and the limited application of statutory exceptions. No breaking precedent or split verdict.