School Jobs for Cash Scam: Calcutta High Court reserves order in appeal against single-judge order to quash appointment of 36k teachers

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court Wednesday reserved its verdict, the appeal filed against the order of a single-judge cancelling appointments of over 36,000 teachers..A bench of Justices Subrata Talukdar and Supratim Bhattacharya said it would pronounce its verdict in the matter on May 19.The appeal filed by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE) against the order of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay.During the hearing held on Tuesday, the division bench sought to know from the original writ petitioners whether all the 36,000 persons, whose jobs are now affected, could be alleged to have played fraud on the authorities to get the said jobs."For a moment, even if we think that the Board faulted, but how can you say that even these people (36,000 teachers) acted fraudulently and they should be dismissed from their services? They are doing what they were supposed to do. They were said to get training, they got it. Yet, they need to be dismissed (from their service)?" the division bench asked. .By an order passed on May 12, Justice Gangopadhyay had cancelled the appointments of 36,000 teachers saying he could smell "stinking rats" in the recruitments scam known as school jobs for cash scam.The single-judge was hearing matters related to illegal recruitment in schools in West Bengal, when he was told that in the recruitment process held in 2016, thousands of "untrained" candidates were appointed despite them scoring less in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and other counts.The Court noted that to recruit such candidates who scored less, they were given extra marks or maximum marks in aptitude tests which were shown to be conducted only on paper. The judge noted that no selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection of eligible candidates and instead it was done by one outside agency, a third party which was not at all a part of the Education Board.This was in clear violation of the Recruitment Rules, the single-judge had said.He had, therefore, cancelled appointments of all the 36,000 candidates, who were untrained at the time of the recruitment process in 2016..Before the division bench, advocate Tarunjyoti Tiwari, appearing for the original writ petitioners, highlighted the fact that his clients did not got the job despite scoring more marks than the 36,000 appointees."The hard fact is that there are thousands and thousands of youth, who are jobless. These people got less marks and we got more than them. Yet they got the jobs. Thus, the order impugned before this bench is justified," Tiwari argued.One of the advocates, appearing for some teachers, pointed out that on April 3, Justice Gangopadhyay had dismissed similar petitions on the ground that the same were filed after a delay of six years."So this impugned order is nothing but a second thought of the judge," the counsel argued.The advocate further highlighted the fact in December 2022, Justice Gangopadhyay had given an interview to a newspaper on this very issue."In December 2022, the judge had given an interview to a newspaper saying he will take away the jobs of these people. So basically, he should have recused himself from hearing the matter. But he did not," the counsel argued.The counsel further argued that the judge stepped into the shoes of a prosecutor and passed this order as he premised his order, wholly on section 165 of CrPC, which deals with search and seizures of material by investigating officers during a probe.Another advocate said that while passing the order, the single-judge did not have any material before him."He also did not hear us before passing an order against us. Also, there were no prayers or pleadings to cancel the appointments. But the judge just noted that the a previous board chief was arrested, some other officials were arrested etc. Is this how an order is passed. The judge, with due respect, premised his order on extraneous considerations," the advocate argued.Further, the counsel pointed out that similar petitions were dismissed by another single-judge Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, last year."Justice Gangopadhyay did not consider the orders of Justice Bhattacharyya. How can this be allowed? It is our court's rule that if there is a disagreement between two single judges, the issue has to be referred to a division bench. But that was not done. The judge just did not consider all this," the counsel highlighted.