SSC 'Group-D' Recruitment Scam: Calcutta High Court Upholds Single Judge Order Directing Former WBSSC Advisor To Disclose His Assets

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday upheld a Single Judge's order directing former West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) advisor S.P. Sinha to furnish details about his properties to the Court while adjudicating upon a plea pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the WBSSC.

Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay in the impugned order had directed S.P. Sinha, the Advisor of the School Service Commission and the Convenor of the Five-Member Committee constituted by the Education Department to disclose in an affidavit details about his assets after suspecting corruption during the recruitment of staff in different schools by the SSC in recent years.

Against this order, the Commission had moved a Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta seeking a stay. But the Division Bench on Tuesday, declined to issue a stay on the impugned order and instead directed Sinha to carry out the order of the Single Judge. 

However, the Division Bench ordered that such affidavit of assets shall be filed before the Court in a sealed cover and should not be divulged or circulated to the litigating parties or their counsels. 

"Taking into account the thought process behind the direction passed upon the appellant to file affidavit of assets, we do not find any element warranting interference at this stage. However, we make it clear that such affidavit of assets shall remain in a sealed cover and shall not be divulged or circulated to the litigating parties or the Counsels and shall be appropriately dealt with at the time of final decision to be taken on the issues involved therein."

The time for filing such an affidavit was also extended by 5 days. 

Justice Gangopadhyay had issued such a direction after having noticed certain incriminating materials, which created an impression that there has been illegal recommendation in favour of the candidates, who secured lesser marks than the other deserving candidates and the appointments have been made on the basis thereof.

The Bench further opined that although the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, Courts must be careful and cautious while issuing such a direction to disclose assets in the form of affidavit so that it may not be disclosed or divulged to the litigating parties.

"Securing an affidavit of assets is for specified purposes and dependent upon the consequences and circumstances perceived in course of the proceeding but should not be used as pleading, which the parties have exchanged in course of the said proceeding", the Bench observed further. 

The Bench further clarified that the observations made against the appellant in the impugned order should not be construed as final but tentative in nature and, therefore, shall not stand in the way at the time of final disposal of the proceeding.

Opining further that there has been a prima facie finding that illegal appointments have been made and that technicalities should not act as a hurdle while determining the truth, the Court underscored, 

"Though a prima facie finding has been made that illegal appointments have been surfaced in course of the proceeding and, therefore, the technicalities should not be projected as a hurdle or obstacle in pursuit of securing the justice. The finding is made on the basis of the perceived notion, which is always tentative in nature and for carriage of the proceeding and, therefore, there cannot be any apprehension in the mind of the litigants that such finding has a larger impact at the time of final hearing of the proceeding."

Background 

In 2016, the State government had recommended the appointment of about 13,000 non-teaching staff in different government aided schools and accordingly the WBSSC had conducted examinations and interviews periodically and thereafter a panel had been constituted. The term of the panel had ended in 2019. However, subsequently, there were widespread allegations that the Commission had made several irregular recruitments close to almost 500 even after the expiry of the panel.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta had earlier set up an inquiry committee headed by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bagh, former judge of the Calcutta High Court. The other members of the committee includes Asutosh Ghosh, Member of West Bengal School Service Commission, Paromita Roy, Deputy Secretary (Administration), West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and advocate Arunava Banerjee, a practicing lawyer of the High Court.

The Division Bench had earlier imposed a stay for 2 weeks on Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay's order which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into the alleged recruitment scam. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had ordered a CBI probe despite the fact that the Division Bench had quashed Justice Gangopadhyay's earlier order wherein a similar CBI probe had been ordered into the alleged recruitment scam.

Subsequently, the Division Bench had extended the interim order granting stay for a period of 4 weeks after noting that the record reflects a 'shocking state of affairs' pertaining to the alleged illegal recruitments. 

Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Md. Abdul Gani Ansari and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 97

Click Here To Read/Download Order