Holding

A part‑time Certificate Course in Bengali is not equivalent to the higher secondary or graduate level required under Rule 5(c), and the High Court’s order is set aside.

Summary

The West Bengal Central School Service Commission advertised for Assistant Teacher posts, requiring candidates to have Bengali as a first, second or third language at secondary, higher secondary or any higher level. Respondent No.1, educated outside West Bengal, applied for an Arabic teaching post in a Bengali‑medium school and presented a one‑year part‑time Certificate Course in Bengali from Delhi University, though he had no Bengali at secondary, higher secondary or graduate level. After clearing the written test, his empanelment was cancelled on the ground of lacking the required language qualification, leading him to file a writ petition which was allowed by the Calcutta High Court and affirmed by a Division Bench. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the certificate course satisfied the statutory requirement under Rule 5(c) and held that it was an elementary‑level course, not equivalent to the higher secondary or graduate level mandated, and that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by sitting in appeal over the administrative decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a part‑time Certificate Course in Bengali from Delhi University satisfies the requirement of ‘must have succeeded in higher level of education in that language paper’ under Rule 5(c) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007.
Whether the Calcutta High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 by reviewing the merits of the administrative decision rather than merely examining for apparent error of law.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997s. 17(1), s. 17(2)

Subjects

teacher recruitmentlanguage qualificationeligibilitycertificate coursejudicial reviewArticle 226apparent error of lawWest Bengalappointmenthigher secondary equivalence

Judgment

[2019] 9 S.C.R. 1089 1089

WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION A
& ORS.
v.
ABDUL HALIM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5824 of 2019) B
JULY 24, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons
for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 – r.5 – West
C
Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 – Clause (d) of Sub-
section (2) r/w. Sub-section (1) of s.17 – The West Bengal Central
School Service Commission invited applications for the posts of
Assistant Teacher – Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 applied for
the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic in a Bengali medium school
in the format prescribed – Respondent No.1 was declared successful D
in the written test – After counselling, his recommendation/
empanelment and his selection was cancelled on the ground that he
opted for a Bengali medium school though he did not have Bengali
as a subject either at the Secondary or at the Higher Secondary or
at the graduation level – Writ petition – Single Judge of the High
E
Court held that respondent No. 1 had successfully completed the
certificate course in Bengali and Commission had wrongfully
cancelled his selection for the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic
in the school – Aggrieved, appellants filed appeal before the Division
Bench of High Court, which was dismissed – On appeal, held: The
documents annexed by the respondent No.1 revealed that the course F
was of elementary level – Also, respondent No.1 did not produce
any document or certificate certifying that his certificate course in
Bengali was of a standard equivalent to Bengali language at the
post Higher Secondary level – In this case, it is not in dispute that
the respondent No.1 who had been educated outside the State of
G
West Bengal, did not have Bengali as a subject at the Secondary,
Higher Secondary, graduation or post graduation level – The
interpretation of the last Clause of Paragraph 2 of the
advertisement and/or r.5 (c) of the Rules, which reads “must have
succeeded in higher level of education in that language paper” by
H
1089
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.

A the authorities as success in the language paper at the graduation
level or the post graduation level, or alternatively an examination
in the language paper of a level which is equivalent to the level of
the language as taught in the graduation level and not any part
time course conducted by a University is a plausible if not possible
interpretation which ought not to have been interfered with by the
B
Writ Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue
writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct
C quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement
of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of
power and neglect of duty by public authorities. [Para 29]
[1099-B]
2. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to
D see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent
error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated
by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error
is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error
requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has
to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there
E may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error
on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan
vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If the provision
of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more
constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision
F would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an
obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or
ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons
which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ
Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. [Para 30] [1099-C-E]

G 3. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide
enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary
and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived
at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the
decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record,
the same may be regarded as perverse. [Para 31] [1099-F]
H
WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE 1091
COMMISSION v. ABDUL HALIM

4. However, the power of the Court to examine the A
reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable
the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of
a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in
appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers
reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks
B
that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to
manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a
decision is not perfect. [Para 32] [1099-G-H; 1100-A]
5. In entertaining and allowing the writ petition, the High
Court has lost sight of the limits of its extraordinary power of
judicial review and has in fact sat in appeal over the decision of C
the respondent No.2. [Para 33] [1100-B]
6. In this case, it is not in dispute that the Respondent
No.1 who had been educated outside the State of West Bengal,
did not have Bengali as a subject at the Secondary, Higher
Secondary, graduation or post graduation level. The D
interpretation of the last Clause of Paragraph 2 of the
advertisement and/or Rule 5 (c) of the Rules, which reads “must
have succeeded in higher level of education in that language
paper” by the authorities as success in the language paper at
the graduation level or the post graduation level, or alternatively E
an examination in the language paper of a level which is equivalent
to the level of the language as taught in the graduation level and
not any part time course conducted by a University is a plausible
if not possible interpretation which ought not to have been
interfered with by the Writ Court. [Para 34] [1100-C-D]
F
7. This Court cannot but take judicial notice of the fact that
universities do not usually allow students to opt for a language
subject at the graduation level if the subject was not cleared at
the Higher Secondary level. As observed, documents annexed
by the Respondent No.1 reveals that candidates who have studied
the language at some level before the graduate level are debarred G
from admission to the Certificate Course, which makes it obvious
that the course is of elementary level. [Para 35] [1100-E]

H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.

A 8. Significantly, the Respondent No.1 has not produced any
document or certificate of the Delhi University certifying that
the certificate course in Bengali is of a standard equivalent to
Bengali language at the post Higher Secondary level.
[Para 36] [1100-F]
B Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna AIR 1960 SC 137 :
[1960] SCR 890 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1960] SCR 890 relied on Para 30

C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5824
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2016 of the High Court
at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 3324 of 2015
D Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ekta Pradhan, Ms. Dharitry
Phookan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Debal Banerji, Sr. Adv., Pijush K. Roy, Mrs. Kakali Roy, Rajan
K. Chourasia, Suhaan Mukerji, Ms. Astha Sharma, Amit Verma,
Ms. Kajal Dalal, Ms. Dimple Magpal (for M/s. PLR Chambers and
E Co.), Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the
F Appellants and Mr. Debal Banerji, learned senior counsel for the
Respondent No.1.
3. This appeal is against a final Judgment and order dated
27.6.2016 of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dismissing an
appeal being FMA No.3324/2015 filed by the Appellants against an order
G dated 19.4.2010 passed by the Single Judge allowing Writ Petition
No.21512(W) of 2009 filed by Respondent No.1 inter alia cancelling
the candidature, empanelment and selection of the Respondent No.1 for
the post of Assistant Teacher in Arabic (Pass) in Jiaruddintola High
School, a Bengali medium school in District Malda in West Bengal,
hereinafter referred to as “School”.
H
WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE 1093
COMMISSION v. ABDUL HALIM [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

4. The West Bengal Central School Service Commission issued A
an advertisement No.01/AT/08 dated 26.8.2008 inter alia in the issue
of the Bengali daily “Aajkaal” published on 27.8.2008,inviting applications
for the posts of Assistant Teacher as specified in the said advertisement.
5. It appears that there were vacancies inter alia in the posts of
two categories of teachers, that is, the pass category for which the B
essential minimum educational qualification was Bachelor’s Degree in
the Pass course from any UGC recognized university having the
concerned subject as a combination subject of at least 300 marks at the
degree level or 200 marks in the old 2-year Degree course, and the
Honours/Post Graduate category for which the essential minimum
qualification was Bachelor’s Degree with Hons. or alternatively Master’s C
Degree in the concerned subject from any UGC recognized university.
For both the above categories qualification in Teachers’ Training such
as B.T, B.Ed, P.G.B.T etc. was desirable.
6. In exercise of power conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section
(2) read with Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the West Bengal School D
Service Commission Act, 1997 and in supersession of the West Bengal
School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to
the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2006, the Government of West Bengal
framed the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of
Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter E
referred to as the “Rules”). Rule 5 of the Rules provides as follows:-
“ 5. Additional essential qualification of candidate.- A
candidate willing to be selected as a Teacher in any School or
Madrasah, having Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Oriya
or Santhali or Telegu or Urdu as the medium of instruction, must F
have Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Oriya or Santhali or
Telegu or Urdu, as the case may be, as first or second or third
language at any of the Secondary or Higher Secondary or
Graduation level -
(a) at Secondary level or the Board or Board of Madrasah or G
equivalent; or
(b) at Higher Secondary level of the Council or equivalent; or
(c) at any subsequent higher level of education in that language
paper.”
H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.

A The said advertisement No. 01/AT/08 inter alia set forth the
eligibility criteria for the teaching posts advertised. Paragraph/Note 2 of
the said advertisement read:-
“Medium of instruction…… Vacancies are mainly in Bengali
medium schools (excluding Madrasahs). Candidates applying for
B School (excluding Madrasah) with particular language as medium
must have that language of the medium as first or second or third
language at Secondary level of the West Bengal Board of
Secondary Education/West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education
or from any equivalent Board or at Higher Secondary Level of
the West Bengal Council of High Secondary Education or from
C any equivalent Board/Council or must have succeeded at any
subsequent higher level of education in that language paper.”
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the Respondent No. 1
applied for the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic in a Bengali medium
school in the format prescribed. It appears that the Respondent No.1
D was educated outside the State of West Bengal and he did not have
Bengali as a subject either at the Secondary level or at the Higher
Secondary level or at the graduation or post graduation level.
8. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that he had successfully
completed a one year Certificate Course in Bengali conducted by the
E University of Delhi, Department of Modern Indian Languages and
Literary Studies. The syllabus for the said Certificate Course, which
was a part time course comprised of:-
1. Paper -I : Grammar and Translation - 100 Marks

F 2. Paper -II : Composition and History of Literature - 100 Marks
3. Paper III : Oral (Reading, Writing and Conversation) - 100 Marks
9. The break up of marks in the three papers is as follows:-

Paper – I : Grammar and Translation 100 Marks
G (a) Elementary Grammar 50 Marks
(b) Translation from English to 25 Marks
Language concerned
(c) Translation from the Language 25 Marks
concerned to English
H
WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE 1095
COMMISSION v. ABDUL HALIM [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

A
Paper – II: Composition and History of Literature 100 Marks
1) Paragraph writing 15 Marks
2) Story writing 15 Marks
3) Letter writing 15 Marks
4) Comprehension 25 Marks B
5) History of Literature 30 Marks

Paper- III: Oral Reading, Writing and Conversation 100 Marks

C
10. The Respondent No.1 has annexed Statement of Marks
awarded to him by the University of Delhi in the Certificate Course
examination in Bengali. It appears that he obtained aggregate of 155
Marks out of 300 Marks. The Respondent No.1 obtained 57 Marks on
100 in the 1st Paper, 53 Marks on 100 in the 2nd paper and 45 on 100 in
the 3rd paper (Oral). D
11. It appears that after applying pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement along with copies of all certificates including the certificate
course in Bengali, the Respondent No.1 was issued admit card to appear
for the 9th Regional Level Selection Test scheduled to be held on
21.12.2008. E
12. The Respondent No.1 was successful in the Written Test after
which a letter dated 25.5.2009 was issued to the Respondent No.1 asking
him to appear for a personality test scheduled to be held on 6.7.2009.
The letter inviting the Respondent No.1 for the personality test read:-
“7. You are requested to appear for the Personality Test on the F
assumption that you fulfil the requirements of educational
qualifications etc. in terms of Advertisement made by the
Commission in connection with the Examination.
………………..
G
Please note that your candidature is liable to be rejected at any
stage, if you are found ineligible according to the terms of
Advertisement No.01/AT/08 dated 26.08.08, the WBSSC Act,
1997, the WBSSC (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the
Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 and in terms of provisions of Indian
H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.

A Penal Code without assigning any reason as well as in terms of
ITEM NOS. 17, 18 and 19 of the Application Form meant for 9th
RLST (AT), 2008.”
13. The Respondent No.1 was asked to produce all documents in
support of his eligibility in original, which he did, at the time of the
B personality test. The Respondent No.1 was, thereafter, empanelled for
the post of Assistant Teacher in Arabic on the basis of results of 9th
Regional Level Selection Test (AT) 2008. The Appellant thereafter
invited the Respondent No. 1 for counselling on 21.8.2009 for
recommendation of his candidature for the post of Assistant Teacher in
Arabic of the Pass category.
C
14. On the date of counselling i.e., 27.8.2009 the Respondent No.1
opted for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Arabic In Jiaruddintola
High School, District- Malda.
15. After counselling, while the Respondent No.1 was awaiting
D appointment letter, he received an impugned communication cancelling
his recommendation/empanelment and his selection to the School on the
ground that he had opted for a Bengali medium school though he did not
have Bengali as a subject either at the Secondary or the Higher
Secondary or the graduation level.

E 16. The Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.2151(W) of 2009
in Calcutta High court, challenging the impugned communication on the
ground that he was eligible for the post, since he had successfully
completed the Certificate Course in Bengali from the Delhi University.
17. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, no one
F appeared on behalf of the Appellants. Nor had any affidavit in opposition
been filed on behalf of the Appellant. The learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition ex parte observing that the case of the Respondent
No.1 in Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition remained
uncontroverted.
18. The Single Judge held that the Statement of Marks dated
G
9.5.2008, issued by the University of Delhi, showed that the Respondent
No.1 had successfully completed the Certificate Course in Bengali,
obtaining 155 out of 300 Marks, and further proceeded to hold that in
view of Paragraph 2 of the advertisement referred to above and, in
particular, the last Clause, which read “must have succeeded at any
H
WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE 1097
COMMISSION v. ABDUL HALIM [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

subsequent higher level of education in the language paper”, the A
Respondent No.1, who had passed Certificate Course in Bengali from
University of Delhi, was justified in contending that the Commission had
wrongfully cancelled his selection for the post of Assistant Teacher of
Arabic in the school. The Single Judge, therefore, directed the Appellant
No.2 to offer appointment to the Respondent No.1 within a week.
B
19. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.4.2010
passed by the Single Judge, the Appellants filed an appeal being F.M.A.T.
No.1296 of 2010, later numbered as FMA 3324 of 2015, which was
dismissed by impugned order dated 27.6.2016 which is under appeal.
20. The Division Bench rejected the argument advanced on behalf C
of the Appellants that a one year part time Certificate Course in Bengali
from the University of Delhi was not a course contemplated in Rule 5(c)
of the 2007 Rules. The Division Bench found that the Respondent No.1
indisputably did not come under Rule 5(a) or Rule 5(b). The question
was whether he came under Rule 5(c). The Division Bench answered
the aforesaid question in favour of the Respondent No.1 holding as D
follows:-
“Since the Rules do not specifically state that Certificate Course
is not a course which is subsequent to higher level of education
and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner fulfilled the parameters
of Rule 5(c), the learned Single Judge was justified is passing the E
order impugned”
21. The Division Bench, by its order under appeal, directed
Appellant No.2 to recommend Respondent No.1 for appointment as
Assistant Teacher of Arabic (pass) in Bengali to the school.
F
22. The Division Bench and the Single Bench have erred in arriving
at the finding that the Respondent No.1 had fulfilled the requirements of
Paragraph 2 of the Advertisement and/or Rule 5(c) of the Rules.
23. With the greatest of respect, the Division Bench as also the
Single Judge failed to appreciate that the question of eligibility of the
G
Respondent No.1 for the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic, in terms
of Paragraph 2 of the Advertisement and/or Rule 5(c) of the 2007 Rules,
necessitates an enquiry into and determination of the factual issue of
whether Bengali taught in the Certificate Course conducted by the
Department of Modern Indian Languages and Literary Studies of the
H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.

A University of Delhi was of a level higher than the level of Bengali taught
at the Higher Secondary level of the West Bengal Council of Higher
Secondary Education or any equivalent Board.
24. A part time Certificate Course in a language, conducted by a
University for graduates, is not necessarily of a level higher than the
B Higher Secondary level of the West Bengal Council of Higher Education
or equivalent Board or for that matter, higher than the Secondary level
of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education or an equivalent
Board
25. A Certificate Course could very well be a basic course for
C graduates who are beginners in the language. The syllabus for the
Certificate Course in Bengali shows that out of three papers of 100
marks each, in which candidates are tested there is one Oral Paper of
100 marks for ‘Reading’ ‘Writing’ and ‘Conversation’, which are generally
tested at the primary or at best the middle school level. Moreover the
Certificate Course is not meant for candidates who have studied Bengali
D earlier.
26. The reasoning of the Division Bench that the Single Bench
was justified in allowing the writ petition, since the rules do not specifically
state that the Certificate Course is not a course which is subsequent to
higher level of education is patently misconceived. It is preposterous to
E expect that statutory rules for appointment of teacher in the State of
West Bengal, would not only have to prescribe the minimum
qualifications, but also specify which of the certificates issued by Boards
or Universities all over the country could not be considered as of standard
equivalent to the standard of Bengali taught by a University at the under
F graduate level.
27. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over
an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision
making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the
G decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for
intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a
fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some
H
WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE 1099
COMMISSION v. ABDUL HALIM [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would A
necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has
been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner, or whether
there has been lapse in performance by the respondents of a legal duty.
29. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions
or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even B
administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right
is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public
authorities.
30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see
whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. C
The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent
on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face
of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to
establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning,
on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said
to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in D
Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If the
provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more
constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would
not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious
misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or E
disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly
wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of
writ of Certiorari.
31. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough
to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious F
that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable
to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be
supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as
perverse.
32. However, the power of the Court to examine the G
reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court
to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to
examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision.
The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but

H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.

A a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have
taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not
interfere, because a decision is not perfect.
33. In entertaining and allowing the writ petition, the High Court
has lost sight of the limits of its extraordinary power of judicial review
B and has in fact sat in appeal over the decision of the respondent No.2.
34. In this case, it is not in dispute that the Respondent No.1 who
had been educated outside the State of West Bengal, did not have Bengali
as a subject at the Secondary, Higher Secondary, graduation or post
graduation level. The interpretation of the last Clause of Paragraph 2
C of the advertisement and/or Rule 5 (c) of the Rules, which reads “must
have succeeded in higher level of education in that language paper” by
the authorities as success in the language paper at the graduation level
or the post graduation level, or alternatively an examination in the
language paper of a level which is equivalent to the level of the language
as taught in the graduation level and not any part time course conducted
D by a University is a plausible if not possible interpretation which ought
not to have been interfered with by the Writ Court.
35. This Court cannot but take judicial notice of the fact that
universities do not usually allow students to opt for a language subject at
the graduation level if the subject was not cleared at the Higher Secondary
E level. As observed above documents annexed by the Respondent
No.1 reveals that candidates who have studied the language at some
level before the graduate level are debarred from admission to the
Certificate Course, which makes it obvious that the course is of
elementary level.
F 36. Significantly, the Respondent No.1 has not produced any
document or certificate of the Delhi University certifying that the
certificate course in Bengali is of a standard equivalent to Bengali
language at the post Higher Secondary level.
37. The judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained
G and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no
order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.

H