Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Priyanka Naskar & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY
WPA 21187 of 2022
Priyanka Naskar & Ors.
-Versus-
The Union of India & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari
: Mr. Bikramjit Dutta
: Mr. Aniruddha Tewari
For the Union of India : Mr. B. Bhattacharya, DSGI
: Ms. Mary Datta
For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay
: Mr. Arka Kumar Nandy
For the WBBPE : Mr. Kishore Datta, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Saikat Banerjee
: Mr. Amitabh Chowdhury
: Mr. Ratul Biswas
: Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury
: Ms. Deblina Chattaraj
Heard on : 02.12.2022, 06.12.2022,
20.12.2022, 17.01.2023,
24.01.2023, 06.02.2023,
07.02.2023, 06.02.2023,
05.04.2023, 10.04.2023,
12.04.2023, 19.04.2023,
02.05.2023, 03.05.2023
& 11.05.2023
2
Hearing concluded on : 11.05.2023
Judgment on : 12.05.2023
Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J .:
1.
This writ application has been filed by 140 writ petitioners who
were qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test 2014 (TET 2014 in short)
and participated in 2016 recruitment process, but did not get
appointment. The recruitment process was held by the West
Bengal Board of Primary Education which was to be held in
accordance with West Bengal Board of Primary School Teachers
Recruitment Rules 2016 (said Rules, in short) which came in to
effect from 2nd March, 2016.
2. In Rule 6 Sub Rule 3 of the said Rules the following
provision has been made:
"In the matter of appointment, priority
shall be given to those eligible
candidates who possess the minimum
qualifications as specified by the
National Council for Teacher Education
and MHRD and thereafter, the eligible
candidates with the relaxed
qualification specified by the MHRD,
may be considered and if candidates
with relaxed qualifications are
considered as teachers, such teachers
under the relaxed qualification norms
shall be appointed with an
undertaking to acquire the minimum
qualifications specified in the National
Council for Teacher Education within a
period of 2 years from the date of
appointment."
3. Under the said sub Rule 3, 8 notes are there which would be
taken in to consideration, if required.
4. When the petitioners filed the petition they wanted the authorities
to file a report disclosing name, numbers, rank, category etc. of
the non-trained candidates who have been recruited by the Board
from TET 2014 including the date of recruitments and to treat the
petitioners equally with the non trained candidates etc.
5. During the course of hearing the petitioners disclosed various
particulars collected from the publication made by the Board in
its website showing that there were serious illegalities in
preparation of panel of 2016 recruitment process when viewed in
respect of untrained candidates at the time of recruitment and
while disclosing such particulars, they made it clear that all their
allegations of illegalities in recruitment are in respect of untrained
candidates at the time of recruitment who were given
appointment against 2016 Recruitment process and at the same
time it was made clear that they do not have any grievance in
respect of the trained candidates who were ( trained at the time of
recruitment) and were given appointment in the 2016
Recruitment Process. Therefore, the candidates who were trained
at the time of recruitment are outside the scope of this matter.
The petitioners prayed for filing supplementary affidavit which
was granted and from the supplementary affidavit to the writ
application it became evident that all the petitioners had qualified
TET 2014 and participated in the 2016 recruitment process and
they were called in the interview but did not get the job.
6. This court directed the Board to file one report as to the
petitioners breakup of total score sheet of TET-2014 along with
the breakup score of the last empanelled candidates in their
respective medium category and district, who participated in the
recruitment process of 2016.
7. From the said breakup, the petitioners found and alleged that the
particulars given therein are absolutely false as because the
lowest number of empanelled candidates was shown in the report
as 14.191 whereas throughout West Bengal 824 candidates who
scored below 13 were appointed and the petitioners prepared a
tabular sheet to that effect and enclosed it as annexure B to their
exception to the report filed by the Board dated 11.01.2023. Such
exception was filed in the form of an affidavit affirmed on 24th
January, 2023. It was also stated in the said exception that list of
last empanelled candidates of different categories namely
General /SC/ST/OBC-A/OBC-B were not given. I have found
that there was no reply of the Board in respect of the allegations
as aforesaid in their affidavit in opposition filed dealing with all
pleadings of the petitioners.
8. From the pleadings of the petitioners it is found that they wanted
marks of last empanelled candidates of different categories like
SC, ST, OBC etc. But no such particulars were supplied and
produced by the Board despite direction given by this court. In
the affidavit in opposition of the Board, Board maintained silence
in this regard. This is nothing but suppression of facts from
petitioners as well as from the court.
9. In respect of in holding of aptitude test the chairman of Board in
his report said that aptitude tests were taken but from the
evidence adduced by the interviewers and the candidates it has
been proved before this court that no aptitude test was taken. In
this regard the order passed by this court in this matter on
06.02.2023 (not challenged till now) in required to be quoted:
"Pursuant to the order passed on
06.02.2023 evidence of the following named
Teachers who took interview of some
candidates in 2016 recruitment process for
Teachers of Primary Schools (conducted by
West Bengal Board of Primary Teachers) of
different districts namely Hooghly, Uttar
Dinajpur, Coochbehar and Murshidabad were
taken up. The real question was whether
aptitude test of the candidates were taken or
not. From the table below the reply to the real
question would be found.
SL NAME NAME OF THE Evidence on real
NO DISTRICTS question
1. Mr. Rabindranath Hooghly No Aptitude Test
Bhattacharya
2. Md. Rafique Alam Uttar Dinajpur Aptitude test was
taken
3. Sri Provat Kumar Cooch Behar No Aptitude Test
Roy
4. Mr. Ratan Bala Murshidabad Aptitude Test was
taken but no
separate question
for interview or
Aptitude Test
5. Mr. Arun Kanti Hooghly No Aptitude Test
Neogy
6. Abdul Khalique Uttar Dinajpur Aptitude Test was
Ansari taken
7. Sri Raja Das Cooch Behar No Aptitude Test.
Viva for 10 marks
8. Mr. Nibir Kr Som Murshidabad No Aptitude Test.
Viva for 10 marks
9. Mr. Nanda Dulal Hooghly No Aptitude Test
Biswas
10. Md. Javid Alam Uttar Dinajpur Aptitude Test was
taken but no
guideline was there.
11. Sri Bhupal Chandra Cooch Behar Total 10 marks for
Roy interview including
aptitude test. No
separate direction
for aptitude test.
12. Golam Sabir Murshidabad Interview was for
10 marks but said
aptitude test was
taken.
13. Mr.Tarun Kr. Hooghly Total mark was 10.
Chatterjee Aptitude test was
taken. No guideline
for aptitude test
was given.
14. Md. Izhar Anwar Uttar Dinajpur Aptitude Test was
taken. No
guidelines were
given.
15. Sri Gurudas Mandal Cooch Behar No Aptitude Test
16. Mr. Tushar Kanti Das Murshidabad Evidence on the
real question was
not taken for
special reason.
17. Mr. Prithish Kr. Dey Hooghly No Aptitude Test. We
were never told
about aptitude test.
We were told for
taking viva voice of
10 marks.
18. Md. Maruf Alam Uttar Dinajpur Aptitude test was
taken and guide
lines were given.
Aptitude test means
confidence and
body language of
the teacher.
19. Sri Sankar Das Cooch Behar No Aptitude Test.
20. Mr. Bikash Mondal Murshidabad No aptitude test.
Only oral test for 10
marks was taken.
21. Mr. Sisir Majhi Hooghly No instruction for
taking aptitude
test. Total marks
for interview were
22. Uma Shankar Bhakta Uttar Dinajpur Aptitude Test was
there but no
guidelines were
given.
23. Sri Anup Acharjee Cooch Behar No instruction was
there for taking
aptitude test.
24. Mr. Ashoke Kr. Majhi Hooghly Total marks for
interview were 10.
No separate
instruction for
aptitude test.
25. Nakul KiskuN Uttar Dinajpur Does not know what
is aptitude test.
26. o
Sri Tapan Kumar Das Cooch Behar We were not told to
take aptitude test.
Only told to take
interview.
27. Mr. Sandip Hooghly No instruction was
N
Chakraborty there for taking
aptitude test.
28. Sri Jayanta Kumar Cooch Behar No direction to take
Pal any aptitude test.
29. Mohanlal Singh Uttar Dinajpur Aptitude test was
w taken.
30. Sri Dwipendra Cooch Behar Only told to take
a
Sangma interview. No
separate marks for
s aptitude test.
N o q u e s t i o n asked by the appearing
parties to the above interviewers. The evidence
recorded are kept on record.
It is to be noted that:
a) There was no formal
engagement letters for acting as an
interviewer. All of the interviewers
were called over phone to take
interview.
b) There was no guideline for
awarding marks for aptitude tests.
A large number of interviewers
were notintimated by the
Board/DPSC's that there is one
aptitude test a different test
altogether, also beside interview.
c) One interviewer (Md. Maruf
Alam) said that he took aptitude
test but when asked what was an
aptitude test his reply was,
aptitude test mean confidence and
body language of a candidate."
10. Therefore the marks given to the candidates against aptitude test
is a wholly illegal and false exercise to hoodwink all concerned
including the court.
11. The Board has not given any reply in respect of awarding 9.5/10
marks to a large number of candidates, which is absurd and an
impossibility, specially to those whose academic score and TET
score were very low. The table given below substantiate this
allegation apart from the 121 pages booklet (spiral binding) which
is on record.
12. In support of their allegations as to corruption in awarding marks
in the interview the petitioners has filed a booklet (Spiral Binding)
of 121 pages on the basis of which it has been alleged that
candidates whose marks were very poor in Secondary, in Higher
Secondary and in TET, have been given 9.50 and 10 marks i.e.
full marks out of the full marks 10 (i.e. the perfect ten) in the
interview and aptitude test (no aptitude test was taken at all) and
the allegation that there was no aptitude test which have been
proved before me from evidence of the candidates and from the
interviewers which are kept on record. Here to elicit the truth I
had to exercise my power under Section 165 of the Evidence Act.
13. For example, some particulars as has been given in the said 121
pages booklet (Spiral Binding) which has been prepared from the
particulars published in the web portal of the Board, by the Board
some candidate's marks are reproduced hereinbelow which shows
that the marks awarded to such candidates whose results are
very poor in Secondary and in Higher Secondary examinations
and also in TET are wholly absurd assessment in interview and
unless some extraneous factors (which includes corruption) as
has been alleged by the petitioners and now has come to light
from the investigation by CBI & ED, such absurd marking could
not have been made by the Interview Boards in different districts.
While looking to the following particulars it has been noted by me
that in academic assessment and TET:
(i) The maximum marks that could be given against
Secondary Examination score of a candidate was 5.
(ii) The maximum marks that could be given to a candidate
against Higher Secondary Examination score of a candidate was
10.
(iii) The maximum marks that could be given to a candidate
against TET was 5.
Therefore, the maximum marks that a candidates can get
against the above three heads is (5+10+5) =20
14. Now I give example of a candidate before giving a table prepared
from the document on record i.e. the 121 page booklet. This
candidate has got 2.866 in TET (out of 5) 1.462 in Secondary (out
of 5) and 3.050 in Higher Secondary (out of 10) totalling to 7.378
but has been awarded 9.50 marks in interview and aptitude test
(Aptitude Test was not taken) out of 10. Whose total score became
16.878 and thus he became eligible for appointment as a Primary
School Teacher. Huge number of such absurd awarding of marks
has come to light though the said booklet prepared from
particulars published by the Board.
Name TET+MP+HS (Total Interview Marks
Marks)
PUTUL BARMAN 7.378 9.50
SINGHA
MONIMALA BARMAN 7.687 9.50
MD ALIUL ISLAM 7.743 9.66
LASKER
TRIPTI BARMAN 7.827 9.50
KAMALESH 7.869 9.50
DEBSARMA
POLY GHOSH 7.876 9.50
SANAT BARMAN 7.882 9.50
SUJATA ROY 7.921 9.50
MAJOJ BARMAN 7.946 9.50
DILIP TIRKI 7.983 10.00
MANOJ SINHA 8.013 9.50
DIPAK PAUL 8.029 9.50
DEBASISH 8.029 9.50
BHOWMICK
NAZIR HOSSAIN 8.036 9.50
MOLLAH
GOLSENA PARVIN 8.058 9.50
PRODHAN
SONATAN GHOSH 8.073 9.50
SIRAZUS SALEKIN 8.074 9.50
SUBHASH SARKAR 8.095 9.50
JANU SARKAR 8.106 9.50
HARADEV BARMAN 8.112 9.50
GOUTAM MONDAL 8.119 9.50
TUMPA DAS 8.133 9.50
AMARESH CHANDRA 8.141 9.50
ROY
ABDUL BARI 8.142 9.50
PRABIN SARKAR 8.147 9.50
ASOK CHANDRA 8.147 9.50
BARMAN
LABANYA RAY BAKSHI 8.148 9.50
SHEPHALI ROY 8.151 9.50
KRISHNA CHARAN 8.406 10.00
SARDAR
SALMA KHATOON 8.421 10.00
MORJINA KHATUN 8.455 10.00
NASHIR AKHTAR 8.570 10.00
SUSMITA PAUL 8.633 10.00
DHIMAN MONDAL 8.668 10.00
CHANDRA PRASAD 8.675 10.00
SHARMA
PURUSHOTTAM 8.757 10.00
KUMAR
SIMA CHOWDHURY 8.811 10.00
SONALI MALLICK 10.26 10.00
SWAPAN 10.026 10.00
CHAKRABORTY
SURAJIT PRAMANIK 10.026 9.50
APARNA DAS 10.026 8.50
SAMIRAN KIRTANIA 10.027 9.66
CHANDAN GANGULY 10.028 9.50
KABIRUL BISWAS 10.031 9.50
GOUROV PAL 10.031 9.50
PRANAB DAS 10.032 10.00
DIPTEDU DAS 10.032 9.50
SUJAN KUMAR 10.033 9.50
BISWAS
BAPI GHOSH 10.034 9.50
TAPAN KUMAR 10.035 10.00
HALDER
TARUN KANTI 10.036 10.00
BISWAS
UMA DAS 10.036 9.50
PINTU MONDAL 10.037 9.50
15. The Board has not given any reply in respect of the allegation of
the petitioners in the pleadings as to non empanelment of
reserved category candidates in the panel for general category
candidates of those reserved category candidates who got better
marks than the general category candidates in open competition.
Thus the Board has violated the law declared by the Supreme
Court and has committed extreme illegality.
16. Though the relevant Rule 7 of recruitment rules of 2016
mandates constitution of selection committee, no selection
committee was constituted for the purpose of selection of eligible
candidates and preparation of panel of such candidates for
appointment of teachers. It was done by one outside agency, a
third party which was not at all a part of the Board and this third
party was named as 'confidential section' of the Board. This is
clear violation of Recruitment Rules. The Board has maintained
total silence in this regard.
17. From the gross illegality in the selection procedure in the
recruitment exercise of 2016 conducted by the Board it is clear
that the Board and its officials including its former President
(who is now in custody after arrest by Enforcement Directorate for
transaction of huge money in the recruitment procedure)
conducted the whole affair like affair of a local club and now it is
gradually coming to light by investigation of Enforcement
Directorate that jobs for primary school teachers were actually
sold to some candidates who had the money to purchase the
employment. A corruption of this magnitude was never known in
the State of West Bengal. The former Education Minister, the
former President of the Board and a number of middleman
through whom the jobs were sold like a commodity are now
behind the bars and the CBI and ED investigation is being
continued now in full seeing.
18. It is a matter to be noted that board in its affidavit in opposition
while dealing with all pleadings of the petitioners instead of
addressing the allegation of corruption and illegalities in the
recruitment process raised some niceties of law and some
principles of law but however nice or however laudable those
principles may be this court as a court of justice will fail to deliver
justice, knowing fully well that sense of justice is much above
sense of law, if the writ application is thrown out on such nicities
of law as this will mean that in the name of preserving the law the
corruption would be protected which a constitutional court can
never do keeping in mind the soul of our constitution and the
constitutional conscience, I must say that in this recruitment
scam stinking rats are being smelt.
19. The board placed some judgment before me in support of the
nicieties of legal principles which I do not find have any
applicability in the face of the magnitude of stinking corruption in
the recruitment exercise of 2016 conducted by the Board. Those
judgments are not required to be mentioned at all in the factual
situation of the case as those are bright stars of the space much
much above the ground realities in which the unemployed youths
live with tears in their eyes because this recruitment scam is a
crime against the society and also a fraud where the Board and
its former Chairman was well aware of the rules of recruitment
but cared a fig and started a play to hoodwink all concerned. I will
only say that fraud unravels everything.
20. The affidavit in opposition of the board was filed when all
pleadings of petitioners including the particulars placed in the
court and were served and kept on record and Board did not deal
with those allegations and those material facts and necessary
particulars.
21. In such circumstances I allow the writ petition. The appointment
of all 36,000 (thirty six thousand) (more or less) candidates who
were untrained at the time of recruitment in 2016 recruitment
process conducted by the Board in the post of primary teachers
are cancelled for various reasons as have been elaborated above.
22. The Board shall immediately arrange for a recruitment exercise
for candidates who were untrained at the time of recruitment
(including candidates who have obtained training qualification in
the meantime) within a period of 3 (three) months from date only
for the candidates who participated in 2016 recruitment process
where both interview and aptitude test of all examinees shall be
taken and the whole interview process has to be videographed
carefully and preserved. It will be a recruitment process under the
same Rules and legal procedures under which 2016 recruitment
process was conducted. No new or any other candidate shall be
allowed to take part in such recruitment test.
23. The primary teachers who are employed now in Primary Schools
against the recommendation of the Board in respect of 2016
selection process shall be allowed to work in the respective
primary schools where they are working now for a period of 4
(four) months from date at the remuneration equal to a Para
Teacher of Primary School and if any of such teachers are
recommended again by the Board after the selection process as
has been directed above, those candidates shall work in the
Schools where they are working now and they shall get notional
benefit of their seniority with no monetary benefit at all but the
salary of primary teachers for the coming 4 (four) months shall
not be given to them if they are employed again. The present
employed candidates who will not succeed in the above
mentioned selection process, their services shall be terminated.
24. If any candidate who appeared in 2016 recruitment process has
crossed the age bar in the mean time or will cross the age bar
within 3 (three) months from date they shall be allowed to take
part in the recruitment exercise. Crossing the age bar now will
not create any impediment for them to participate and get
selected in the recruitment process.
25. This whole imbroglio including corruption involved in the matter
has taken place due to the former President of the Board who
knew the Rules of recruitment but violated the rules and
therefore, if the Government thinks the entire expense for holding
the new recruitment exercise can be realised from the estate of
the former President of the Board.
No costs.
(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)
