'Total Disrespect To The Court Which Is A Dangerous Trend': Calcutta HC Imposes Rs 3.8 Lakh Costs On WB Primary Education Board President

The Calcutta High Court on Friday imposed costs to the tune of Rs 3.8 lakhs on the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education Manik Bhattacharya on finding that there was an attempt to distort an earlier order of the Court pertaining to the Primary Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) of 2014 in order to avoid compliance.

Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay observed that the respondent authority had deliberately tried to distort the clear and unambiguous operative part of the Court's earlier judgment thus committing a serious illegality.

"I find that the respondents are desperately trying to distort the clear and unambiguous operative portion of the said judgement and order passed by the said writ court for no reason at all, except harassing the candidates/petitioners who came before this court and pointed out the errors and wrongs committed by the respondents…The respondents have shown the courage of fools to modify the clear and unambiguous order of the court and have instead followed their own which wholly shows

The respondents have done so and the President of the Board is a respondent here", the Court observed.

It further added, 

"Respondents should keep in mind that court's orders are not things with which they can play by taking different stance and taking shelters under different legal principles existing or not existing. I say that the respondents have clearly failed to act fairly and, I say - with ill intention which is writ large in the actions of the respondents."

Accordingly, the Court ordered the President of the Board to pay Rs. 20,000 to 19 petitioners individually within 2 weeks from the communication of the order copy.

"As it is clear that the respondents have caused enough harassment to the petitioners and have made deliberate attempt to distort the order of the court passed in the above writ applications in respect of which even this court was invited to interpret the order which is not required at all I impose a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to each of the candidates individually as costs and thus, the total cost of this matter shall be Rs. 3,80,000/-. This cost is to be paid not from the Board‟s fund but by the person who is actually controlling the Board, i.e., the President of the Board. This cost is to be paid by the President of the Board from his own pocket and is to be sent to the petitioners by issuing cheques from his own bank account to the petitioners by two weeks from date of communication of the order", the Court ordered.

The Court further warned that the timeline fixed by the Court must be strictly adhered to.

"If the timeframe fixed above is not followed by the respondents which include the president of the Board, the Board shall be debarred from taking any step after expiry of the said period from giving appointment in any post of primary teachers from the date of expiry of the time period given till the directions as above are fully complied with", the Court said.

In the instant case, the Court was adjudicating upon writ applications by 19 candidates who had moved the High Court seeking to be considered for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School. The petitioners had been declared unsuccessful in clearing the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET), 2014.

Subsequently, they had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act asking for the concerned OMR sheets, question papers and answer key. After examining the documents, the petitioners found that the answers shown in the answer key in respect of six questions were grossly incorrect.

Accordingly, the petitioners moved the High Court claiming that had the marks been awarded to them in respect of those six questions, they would have qualified in TET 2014. Thereafter, the High Court in 2018 had directed the respondent authority to award marks to the petitioners in respect to those six questions and consider them for appointment if found eligible.

However, the petitioners had to again move the Court on the grievance that they had not been awarded marks despite the Court's earlier orders as a result of which they had not been considered for appointment in the 2020 selection process.

Whereas, the Board and its representatives submitted that it had complied with the Court's earlier directions.

"Where the key answer provided by the Board was not found to be correct by the Expert, the marks awarded to the petitioners for the said questions were deducted as the petitioners themselves questioned the correctness of the key answers provided by the Board and having done so, they cannot ask for marks for the wrong key answer", the Board had averred.

The Court however dismissed such a contention by noting that out of the six questions which ran into controversy, "the experts have stated that one question was wrong, one question was confusing and four options in respect of other four questions were wrong."

It was further observed that in the earlier order, the Court had clearly instructed that "marks were to be awarded to the petitioner/petitioners who attempted the wrong question/options in the key answers."

Furthermore, the Court observed with anguish that the respondent authorities had defied the Court's earlier directions in a bid to harass the petitioners.

"I have found from the pleadings and submissions that the petitioners had to come to this court time and again from the year 2018 till date by filing writ applications one after another in this court just for getting the right thing done, by the respondents, which has not been done. I hold that the whole intention of the respondents is to harass the petitioners by not awarding them marks as was directed by the court and their intention is to show the door of the court to the candidates time and again who are dying for a service of a primary school teacher. In my view the respondents have committed a grave (I repeat grave) wrong to the petitioners by not awarding them six marks", the Court opined.

Directions issued

The Court accordingly issued the following directions to the respondent authority,

• By seven days from the date of communication of this order the respondents shall take steps for awarding six marks to the petitioners.

• If after awarding six marks to the petitioners the petitioners qualify in TET 2014, the respondent concerned shall issue them TET certificates by seven days thereafter

• Offline applications filed by the petitioners (who will qualify in TET 2014 as indicated above) pursuant to the order passed by this court have to be considered and the TET 2014 qualified petitioners are to be called in the interview by two weeks thereafter. If the petitioners qualify in the interview, no further impediment shall be created for giving them appointment in the post of teachers in primary schools.

Case Title: Payal Bag & Others v. State of West Bengal & Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order