Cash For Jobs Scam | Clear Conflict Of Interest: Calcutta High Court Objects To Appearance Of AG Who Earlier Appeared For Interested Parties

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday objected to the appearance of Advocate General Kishore Datta as an advisor of the State in the ongoing cash-for-jobs, recruitment scam matter which is being investigated by the CBI & ED and monitored by the High Court.

A single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha noted that Datta had earlier appeared for interested parties in the litigation and said that his participation as the Advocate General in the proceedings would be a clear case of conflict of interest. It said:

"I only see you [Datta] as the AG. [Since you had appeared for the parties earlier] your presence cannot be for the State in this matter at least. I am not getting the benefit of hearing submissions from the legal advisor of the state in this matter. I wanted the legal advisor of the state's presence, but that is not possible as there is a conflict of interest. When the interest of the party and the interest of the state becomes the same. then it is very difficult to adjudicate. Not only for the court but also for everybody. Let justice be seen to be done. So you are out by default."

The Court was hearing the ongoing matter where it is monitoring the investigation of the CBI and ED.

On earlier occasions, the Bench had perused reports filed by the agencies regarding the progress of their investigation. 

On this occasion, the Court considered the possibility of allowing the unsuccessful candidates who participated in the impugned recruitment processes to rewrite the exam in order to benefit meritorious candidates against available vacancies.

The Court also called for the report of the ED on its progress regarding its investigation into Leaps & Bounds a company tied to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee and allegedly used to siphon off funds generated from the recruitment scam. The report was supplied in a sealed cover.

The Court called for suggestions from counsels participating for the aggrieved parties and the state regarding the best ways to ensure equity for the aggrieved candidates.

It said: "Let sane heads handle this and take a call. Don't leave it to someone who just does not know. Sane heads should decide. List on 6th February."

Case: Soumen Nandy v State of WB

Case No: WPA 9979/2022