Calcutta High Court Division Bench Stays Single-Judge Order Terminating 32,000 Teachers in School Jobs Scam
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court has intervened in the controversy surrounding the termination of 32,000 teachers in West Bengal. The order of single-judge Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, which had set aside the appointment of these teachers, has been stayed by the division bench. Justices Subrata Talukdar and Supratim Bhattacharya, the members of the bench, emphasized that Justice Gangopadhyay was within his jurisdiction to investigate the aspects related to the discovery of fresh material by the board. However, they also noted that the single-judge had a duty to hear the respondent-teachers before passing any order.
The bench highlighted the importance of granting natural justice, safeguarding accrued rights, considering delays and waivers, and respecting the precedential value of judicial decisions in maintaining the system of adversarial litigation. It firmly stated that justice hurried is justice buried and emphasized the need for judicial intervention when termination of jobs, which were previously protected, is carried out without providing affected parties with a meaningful right of defense. Consequently, an interim stay on the termination of jobs has been implemented until September 2023. The bench directed the board to conduct a selection exercise before the end of August 2023, as ordered by Justice Gangopadhyay, and scheduled the matter to be heard by a division bench in September 2023.
On May 12, Justice Gangopadhyay had cancelled the appointments of 36,000 teachers, citing a recruitments scam known as the school jobs for cash scam. The judge discovered that "untrained" candidates with lower scores in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) were appointed through fraudulent means, including the manipulation of aptitude test marks conducted only on paper. Furthermore, the judge found that the selection of eligible candidates was conducted by an outside agency, a third party not affiliated with the Education Board, in violation of the Recruitment Rules. Consequently, the single-judge nullified the appointments made in 2016 for all 36,000 candidates who were untrained at the time.
This order was challenged by multiple teachers and the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE) before the division bench led by Justice Talukdar. The petitioners argued that despite scoring higher marks than the appointed candidates, they were unjustly denied employment.
Counterarguments Presented Against Justice Gangopadhyay's Order
During the hearing, advocate Tarunjyoti Tiwari, representing the original writ petitioners, argued that there were numerous jobless youth who scored lower marks but were appointed, while his clients with higher marks were denied employment. Tiwari asserted that the impugned order before the division bench was justified in this context.
Another advocate representing some teachers pointed out that Justice Gangopadhyay had previously dismissed similar petitions on the basis of a six-year delay. The counsel argued that the current order seemed to be a second thought by the judge.
Additionally, the advocate highlighted an interview given by Justice Gangopadhyay to a newspaper in December 2022, where he expressed his intention to take away the jobs of the appointed candidates. The counsel argued that the judge should have recused himself from hearing the matter but failed to do so.
The counsel further contended that the judge assumed the role of a prosecutor and based his order heavily on Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which pertains to search and seizures during investigations. This approach was questioned by the advocate.
Another argument put forth by the counsel was that the single-judge did not have any material before him when issuing the order. Additionally, it was pointed out that similar petitions had been dismissed by another single-judge, Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, in the previous year. The counsel emphasized that the orders of Justice Bhattacharyya were not considered, and according to court rules, any disagreement between two single judges should be referred to a division bench for resolution. However, in this case, that process was not followed, which the counsel deemed problematic.
TAGS: Calcutta High Court division bench single-judge order termination 32 000 teachers school jobs for cash scam stay cause of action fresh material jurisdiction right of hearing representative capacity loss of jobs meaningful right of defense justice hurried is justice buried interim stay selection exercise recruitment scam untrained candidates Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) aptitude test violation of Recruitment Rules nullified appointments jobless youth higher marks second thought recusal role of prosecutor Section 165 of CrPC material before the judge disagreement between single judges referral to division bench.
