WB Govt Moves Calcutta High Court Against Single Judge Order For CBI Probe Into Alleged Teacher Recruitment Scam

The West Bengal government on Tuesday moved a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court challenging a Single Bench order that had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into the alleged illegal appointment of assistant teachers for Class 9 and Class 10 in State-run schools pertaining to the West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST). 

The Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee agreed to hear the plea. The Court is likely to take up the matter for hearing sometime this week. 

On Monday, a single-judge Bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay ordered a CBI probe into the matter and further directed that the investigation should be conducted under the supervision of a Joint Director of the CBI and a preliminary report should be submitted by March 28.

Earlier, the Single Bench had cancelled the appointment of six assistant teachers in Murshidabad, noting that they were illegally appointed following a recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission. It had also directed that the salaries of the illegally appointed teachers should be stopped immediately. 

Opining that the police authorities are controlled by the State machinery and that an independent agency is required to impartially probe into the allegations, the Single Bench had further noted,

"It is not that, I do not have any confidence upon the Police of this State. But the Police is controlled by the State and in effect they are chained by orders from different quarters. Otherwise I have the belief that the Kolkata Police or the Police of the State is fully capable to inquire into the matter. Therefore, I am directing the CBI to hold this enquiry which has happened in this State, by statutory authority of this state, as an agency outside the control of this State."

Justice Gangopadhyay had further remarked that such a scam with regards to public employment could not have taken place without the complicity of people in power in the State machinery.

"CBI shall also enquire about the involvement of the persons, invisible now, under whose hands the officers of the Commission, if at all, danced like a puppet and committed illegality. CBI shall also enquire whether there is any money trail in respect of such appointments when admittedly, as appears from the aforesaid report of the Chairman (who is a new one in the Commission and has given a fair report to this Court) the appointed persons were not at all in the panel or in the waitlist...I believe that CBI will not leave any stone unturned while enquiring the matter. It is to be known who is the mastermind in this dirty game", it was underscored further.

It was also noted that it is 'extremely upsetting' that candidates had been appointed as Assistant Teachers when their names were not in the list – either the merit list or the waitlist. The Court had also taken on record the enquiry report filed by the Chairman of the Central School Service Commission wherein it has been stated that the concerned candidate's were neither in the merit list nor in the waiting list and therefore could not have been recommended for appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher for classes 9 & 10. It had been further stated that such recommendation had been extended by the Commission 'by mistake'.

 In a similar matter, Justice Gangopadhyay last week had come down heavily on the Commission by observing that such illegally recruited candidates had been recommended by the Commission not due to a 'mistake' but because of a 'deliberate illegal action' on the part of the Commission.

"Though the School Service Commission has taken shelter under the expression 'mistake', this court wholly disbelieves such shroud of the Commission now placed on its face. This cannot be a mistake. These are deliberate illegal action otherwise the wait-listed candidates in serial nos. 229, 242, 250, 265, 289 and 302 could not have been recommended selectively by the Commission", the Court had further observed in its order dated February 21.