Jobs for cash scam: Calcutta High Court cites conflict of interest in new Advocate General appearing for State

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday pointed out that recently appointed Advocate General Kishor Datta would have a "conflict of interest" in representing the West Bengal government in cases concerning the school jobs for cash scam. .Single-judge Justice Amrita Sinha noted that Datta had earlier appeared for one of the parties in the case and should, therefore, refrain from now representing the State government. "You (Datta) appeared for one of the parties in this litigation. And now you are appointed as the legal advisor of the State. So there is a direct conflict of interest," Justice Sinha said. .Notably, Datta had earlier appeared for Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee in the matter. However, he was later appointed as the Advocate General of West Bengal in December 2023. .In view of this development, Justice Sinha said, "The interests of a party and that of a State cannot be the same. If it becomes so, it will become very difficult to adjudicate this issue, not only for the court but for everyone. Let justice be seen to be done. So, now you are out and by default cannot appear before me as the AG in this case.".The judge today also asked the State government and other stake holders to sit together and come up with some solution to resolve the issue of filling up the ninety-five school job posts that had become vacant after investigations revealed that the persons holding the said posts were appointed illegally. "I have already given a suggestion to conduct further exams. Since most of these candidates, who were then (in 2014) eligible, might have crossed the age limits - so you can condone the same and consider appointing after conducting exams on the same terms as done earlier," Justice Sinha said. She, however, noted that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE) has refused to accept the said suggestion. To this, Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, representing the petitioners (unsuccessful candidates), told the bench that the State could simply refer to the merit list and the waiting list to make the new appointments. "There were many persons in the waiting list. They can consider appointing the ninety-five persons in the said list. However, for that they will have to produce the merit list first, which they are yet to do," the Senior Advocate submitted. .Meanwhile, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed its report spelling out the status of the probe in the case. The bench said it will hear the matter further next month.