School jobs for cash scam: Calcutta High Court junks State's appeal against CBI probe; says scam deepened chasm between haves and have-nots

The 'School Jobs for Cash' scam has widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots, observed the Calcutta High Court on Thursday while dismissing the West Bengal government's challenge to an order for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the scam [State of West Bengal vs Soumen Nandy].A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee dismissed the appeal filed against an April 21 order of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, who had ordered CBI investigation into the scam. "In the present case, the menace of corruption has accorded the undeserved with an unfair advantage over the deserved and deepened the societal chasm between haves and have-nots. This in turn, has precipitated widespread dejection and disillusionment among general masses. The collective suffering of those who have been wronged by the malevolent activities of morally debased individuals, necessitates urgency in action," the bench observed in its order. Therefore, an uninterrupted and conclusive investigation into the connected schemes of corruption is the only means by which the perpetrators can be brought to justice, the Court emphasised. The Court proceeded to note that officials and ministers of the ruling government were also among those named in the scam."Corruption is a reprehensible crime in a society and it is an assault on the faith of the common people upon officers and Ministers and people’s representatives. It defiles and degrades and shakes the confidence of the people at large upon the government. It causes psychological harm to the society at large leaving upon it indelible marks," the Court commented. The Court further remarked that the allegations made in the case were neither skirmishes nor bald, but speak of overt acts indicating the complicity of ministers and high-placed government officials. A mammoth amount of ₹111 crores and gold and jewellery valued at ₹5.08 crores have already been seized and attached, the bench pointed out. .The scam involves allegations of illegal recruitment of teachers and municipality employees. Earlier this year, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had ordered a CBI inquiry in the scam on an application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has been probing the scam since June 2022. In the appeal challenging this single-judge order, the State argued that Justice Gangopadhyay had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the same was not as per the roster. However, the division bench opined that the investigation into such a large scam cannot be stopped merely on technical grounds. "Such investigation cannot be scuttled on a purported plea that the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to direct CBI investigation. It is our considered view, overly technical arguments of procedural incongruity must be cast aside. In other words, a reticent approach by the Court for the purpose of satisfying every subtlety of interpretation ought to be discouraged," the bench opined. .The bench also noted that a status report filed by the ED before Justice Gangopadhyay painted a rather disquieting picture. "The contents of the report reveal that the alleged perpetrators of corruption in the recruitment of primary school teachers have concocted a larger nefarious scheme of manipulating the recruitment process across various municipalities in the State," the order stated. With these observations, the bench dismissed the State's appeal. .Senior Advocates Kalyan Bandopadhyay and Jaydip Kar, along with advocates Sirsanya Bandopadhyay and Arka Kumar Nag, appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, along with advocates Firdous Samim, Gopa Biswas, Mousumi Hazra, Payel Shome, Purba Mukherjee, and Sampriti Saha, appeared for the complainants. Deputy Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi along with advocate Samrat Goswami represented the ED. Deputy Solicitor General Billwadal Bhattacharya along with advocates Amajit De and Arijit Majumdar represented the CBI. .[Read Judgment]