Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors vs State of West Bengal & Ors
- Citation2024 SCC OnLine Cal 3862
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Supreme Court remands a body of litigation to be heard by a Division Bench constituted for that purpose, the terms of the remand order define the Bench's jurisdiction: where that order describes the controversy by reference both to the categories of appointment involved and to the period within which the writ petitions were instituted, the Bench's jurisdiction is confined to petitions answering both descriptions, and petitions falling outside them must be released for want of jurisdiction rather than decided. When a writ petition alleging irregularities in a public selection process is filed by unsuccessful candidates, the petition will not fail on grounds of delay and laches if subsequent investigation by appropriate authorities reveals that widespread fraud and systemic corruption vitiated the entire selection process, transforming the litigation into one of public interest. A selection process for public employment conducted by a statutory authority becomes invalid where the tender process for engaging the agency responsible for scanning and evaluating examination answer sheets was closed and non-transparent, in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A selection process is vitiated where the original answer sheets are destroyed and the mirror images thereof are not preserved in the authority's server as required, rendering it impossible to segregate legitimately selected candidates from those fraudulently appointed. Where CBI investigation recovers electronic data containing scanned images and evaluation marks of answer sheets that are accepted and acted upon by the statutory authority conducting the selection, and where the authority finds significant discrepancies between these recovered marks and the marks recorded in its server, the recovered data is admissible in evidence. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes no format for the certificate issued under it but only conformity with the essential requirements of that section, and a certificate is not vitiated merely because the person issuing it had by then moved to another organisation. Further, Sections 3 and 58 of that Act are not excluded by Section 65B and do not mutually exclude it: a fact which would otherwise attract Section 65B needs no further proof where it has been admitted, and where the genuineness and authenticity of the data stand proved by the admissions and conduct of the Article 12 authorities who accepted and acted upon it, insisting on further proof would be an idle formality. Once the recovered answer sheets are held admissible, they may be directed to be uploaded on the selecting authority's own server and website and made available to the public for viewing, so that the transparency of the selection process, or the lack of it, is placed in the public domain. Where it is established that candidates who submitted blank answer sheets were awarded passing marks and appointed, and where the selecting authority's own statistical report discloses alleged irregularities — manipulated answer-sheet marks together with rank jumping — in 8.50% to 44.87% of the recommendations made across the four categories of the selection process, the entire selection process stands vitiated and cannot be salvaged by attempting to segregate individual appointees. All appointments made in a selection process subsequent to the expiry of the validity period of the selection panel are null and void and cannot confer any rights upon the appointees. The remuneration and benefits drawn by persons appointed outside the panel, after expiry of the panel, or on the strength of blank answer sheets are proceeds of crime, and such persons may be directed to return them to the State exchequer with interest, recoverable in default as arrears of land revenue. Appointments made in a public selection process breach Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution where appointment letters are issued in excess of the declared vacancies and in excess of the recommendations made, the appointing body having no authority to issue an appointment letter in favour of a candidate whom the recommending commission has not recommended. The right to education, being part of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, entails a right to receive education from duly qualified personnel. Where a selection process for teaching and non-teaching staff of State-funded schools is so mired that it was incapable of throwing up the best in accordance with merit, retaining the appointments made under it is contrary to public interest, and individual interest must yield to public interest. Where the conduct of the statutory authority and the government demonstrates persistent non-cooperation, stonewalling of inquiries, and an attempt to protect illegal appointees by creating supernumerary posts, the Court is entitled to conclude that the entire selection process was designed as a mechanism for perpetuating fraud and should be cancelled in its entirety rather than attempting a partial remedy. A court exercising constitutional jurisdiction in a writ petition may mould reliefs based on subsequent events that have come to light during the pendency of the litigation, particularly where such events result from court-directed investigation and reveal facts unknown to the petitioner at the time of filing, provided all parties are put on notice and the principles of natural justice are observed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
WPA 30649 of 2016 Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2613 of 2018 Basanta Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22522 of 2018 Saddam Hossain Biswas & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22523 of 2018 Purbita Ray & others. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22550 of 2018 Prasanta Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & others.
With Signed By : SUBHA KARMAKAR WPA 22773 of 2018 High Court of Calcutta Jearul Islam & Ors. 22 nd of April 2024 12:36:10 PM Vs. 2
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22780 of 2018 Kapil Kumar Mistry & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22782 of 2018 Sk. Insan Ali & others. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22785 of 2018 Rupali Nath & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22973 of 2018 Senarul Islam & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & others.
With
WPA 16844 of 2019 Swagata Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18355 of 2019 IA NO: CAN/1/2020 Mousumi Mondal Vs. W.B. Central School Service Commission & Anr.
With
WPA 19273 of 2019 Mamoni Basak Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 3
With
WPA 19278 of 2019 Masuma Parveen Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19749 of 2019 Chandra Rani Paul Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20404 of 2019 Julekha Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20776 of 2019 Phalguni Rakshit Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20778 of 2019 Soma Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21665 of 2019 Biswajit Debnath & others. With State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18100 of 2019 Pradyut Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 4
WPA 18627 of 2019 Haimanti Kundu & others. Vs. West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
WPA 20045 of 2019 Debashree Patra Vs. West Bengal Central School Service Commission & anr.
With
WPA 21923 of 2019 Kartick Sau & others. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22119 of 2019 IA NO:CAN/1/2020 Shampa Sarkar Vs. The WB Central School Service Commission & anr.
With
WPA 23259 of 2019 Satadal Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 23454 of 2019 Mohasin Kamal & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 23946 of 2019 Moumita Samanta & Ors. Vs. W.B. Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With 5
WPA 4835 of 2020 Md. Jinnat Sk Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 8078 of 2020 Nadia Parvin Mou Vs. The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
WPA 8555 of 2020 Ajoy Mondal Vs. West Bengal Central School Service Commission & anr.
With
WPA 11455 of 2020 Mallika Thander Vs. The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & anr.
With
WPA 7592 of 2021 Rina Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 8003 of 2021 Amarjeet Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 8264 of 2021 Hafizur Rahaman & anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10938 of 2021 IA NO:CAN/1/2021 6
Tridib Sundar Bahadur Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10947 of 2021 IA NO:CAN/1/2024 Gobinda Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10949 of 2021 Prasanta Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10960 of 2021 Sudip Bala Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13700 of 2021 IA NO: CAN/3/2023 CAN/4/2023 CAN/5/2023 CAN/6/2023 CAN/8/2023 CAN/13/2023 CAN/16/2023 CAN/17/2023 CAN/18/2023 CAN/20/2023 CAN/21/2023 CAN/22/2023 CAN/23/2023 CAN/24/2024 CAN/25/2024 CAN/26/2024 CAN/27/2024 CAN/28/2024 CAN/29/2024 CAN/30/2024 CAN/31/2024 CAN/32/2024 7
Setab Uddin & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13701 of 2021 IA NO: CAN/1/2022 Md Abdul Gani Ansari Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13721 of 2021 Sovan Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13727 of 2021 Suvankar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13863 of 2021 Shireen Mustafi Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13885 of 2021 Kanai Haldar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 15137 of 2021 Md Ismail Hossain & anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 15154 of 2021 Ainal Hoque 8
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16443 of 2021 Ruksana Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16444 of 2021 Samsuzzaman Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16448 of 2021 Runa Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16450 of 2021 Nasrin Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16476 of 2021 Md Masikul Anam Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16481 of 2021 Mostafizur Rahaman & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16484 of 2021 Ashoke Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 9
With
WPA 16487 of 2021 Sukanta Malik Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16489 of 2021 Pallabbi Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16505 of 2021 Rekha Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16519 of 2021 Prasanta Barui Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16858 of 2021 Bilkis Khatun & anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16859 of 2021 Ishita Debsarma & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16860 of 2021 Raghabendra Garai & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 10
WPA 16879 of 2021 Tama Hossain & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16880 of 2021 Rubia Khatun & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16889 of 2021 Rakibur Sk & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16896 of 2021 Shrabani Saha & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16902 of 2021 Soma Biswas & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16930 of 2021 Anima Ghosh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16948 of 2021 Poli Das& Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16960 of 2021 11
Md. Tasiul Haque Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16968 of 2021 Mithun Sarkar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 17273 of 2021 IA NO: CAN/1/2022 Nasrin Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18379 of 2021 Kalyan Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18381 of 2021 IA NO: CAN/1/2023 Sarmin Nahar Khatun & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18383 of 2021 Barnali Saha & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18385 of 2021 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Haimanti Bitter & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 12
WPA 18387 of 2021 Baki Balla & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18388 of 2021 Mogibar Rahaman & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18460 of 2021 Saranjit Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18470 of 2021 Hara Sankar Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18487 of 2021 Prokash Ghosh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18491 of 2021 Amit Let Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18496 of 2021 Atikuzzaman Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18499 of 2021 Rijia Begum 13
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18801 of 2021 Sangita Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18994 of 2021 Lipi Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18995 of 2021 Samim Islam Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19475 of 2021 Dilruba Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19477 of 2021 Shilpa Patra Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19478 of 2021 Monoj Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19580 of 2021 Sewly Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 14
With
WPA 20906 of 2021 Prosanta Ruidas & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21258 of 2021 Barnali Bhar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21261 of 2021 Sk.Toyab Rahaman Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21263 of 2021 Samim Seikh & anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21266 of 2021 Sumaitri Biswas & anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21267 of 2021 Md Jasimuddin & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21268 of 2021 Anup Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 15
WPA 21317 of 2021 Rathin Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21430 of 2021 Priyanka Dutta Samaddar @ Priyanka Samaddar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 781 of 2022 Sudip Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1618 of 2022 Dipti Saha & anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5538 of 2022 IA NO:CAN/2/2022 CAN/3/2022 CAN/4/2024 CAN/5/2024 CAN/6/2024 Anindita Bera Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5786 of 2022 Rajkumar Middya Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5788 of 2022 Papia Tahmin Vs. 16
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6550 of 2022 Pamela Das & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7346 of 2022 Salauddin Hossain & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7347 of 2022 Meherunnessa Khatun & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 8059 of 2022 IA NO: CAN/1/2024 Soma Sinha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16935 of 2022 Amit Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20389 of 2022 IA NO: CAN/1/2022 Md Rukumuddin Sk Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 17
WPA 21332 of 2022 Suman Chakraborty & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21334 of 2022 Srikanta Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21340 of 2022 Debasmita Pradhan & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21344 of 2022 Madhusudan Pal & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21346 of 2022 Moumita Ghosh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21349 of 2022 Sk Hasib Imam & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21350 of 2022 Swarup Sarkar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 25380 of 2022 IA NO: CAN/1/2023 18
CAN/3/2023 CAN/4/2023 CAN/5/2023 CAN/6/2024 CAN 7/2024 Subhamay Bhunia & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 26770 of 2022 Prabir Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 27886 of 2022 Sk Mustafa Ali & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 28197 of 2022 Riya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 85 of 2023 CAN 3 of 2024
Gopinath Bhanja & Ors. Vs. Setab Uddin & Ors
With .
MAT 124 of 2023
Hafizur Rahaman & Ors.
Vs. Setab Uddin
With
MAT 244 of 2023 IA No.: CAN/1/2023 19
Soumen Kumar Das & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 245 of 2023
Arup Sarkar & Ors.
Vs. Subhamay Bhunia & Ors.
With
MAT 290 of 2023 Pritisha Das & Ors.
Vs. Subhamoy Bhunia & Ors.
With
MAT 304 of 2023 Nirupam Das & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 362 of 2023 CAN 1 of 2023 Shyamal Dutta & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 557 of 2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023 Brajadulal Giri & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1062 of 2023 Kushik Ghosh & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 20
WPA 1066 of 2023 Rima Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1070 of 2023 Rumpa Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1072 of 2023 Laltu Mistry Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1075 of 2023 Soumen Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1369 of 2023 Gopal Manna & Others.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Others.
With
WPA 1466 of 2023 Taimur Rahaman & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Others.
With
WPA 3771 of 2023 Sultana Khatun & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4206 of 2023 21
Mousumi Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4841 of 2023 Biman Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4989 of 2023 Sanchita Das & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5087 of 2023 Lopa Mudra Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5379 of 2023 Sewli Ghosh & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5604 of 2023 Ratan Bauldas & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5609 of 2023 Samima Yasmin & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2081 of 2023 Ali Zinna & Ors.
Vs. 22
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2149 of 2023 Sukanta Malik Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2151 of 2023 Subir Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2154 of 2023 Ataul Ali Mallick Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2172 of 2023 Monia Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2175 of 2023
Asanur Ali Mallick Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2179 of 2023 Sampa Debnath Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2182 of 2023 Sk Ekramul Ali Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
23
With
WPA 2215 of 2023 Hirak Sinha Roy & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2496 of 2023 Riya Roy Khanra Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2760 of 2023 Barnali Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2967 of 2023 Gopinath Bhanja & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2984 of 2023 Shrabanti Halder Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3126 of 2023 Subrata Ghosh & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3399 of 2023 Shraboni Dutta & Anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 24
WPA 3652 of 2023 Abbus Sk.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3658 of 2023 Rumpa Kar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3661 of 2023 Paramita Rit Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3664 of 2023 Ratan Let Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3666 of 2023 Sumaitri Biswas & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3846 of 2023 CAN/1/2024 Baby Biswas & Anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3859 of 2023 Asima Nayak.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 25
WPA 3926 of 2023 Lubana Parvin Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3931 of 2023 Pallabi Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3935 of 2023 Ganesh Mahata.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3990 of 2023 Suvadip Manna Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4117 of 2023 Kalyan Kumar Giri Vs. State of West Bengal & others.
With
WPA 4213 of 2023 Pragati Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & others.
With
WPA 4313 of 2023 Sarama Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4522 of 2023 Sreenandaa Bhattacharyya & Ors.
26
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4556 of 2023 Susmita Pal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5134 of 2023 Ananya Mahapatra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5464 of 2023 Sima Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5526 of 2023 Namita Adak & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5531 of 2023 Hasanur Jaman and Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5797 of 2023 Prasanjit Paul & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5799 of 2023 Md Mamun Rasid & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
27
With
WPA 5953 of 2023 Brajadulal Giri & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6164 of 2023 Sanatan Mondal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6210 of 2023 Jhuma Malakar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6213 of 2023 Jui Barman Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6282 of 2023 Pratima Maiti, Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6577 of 2023 Kuheli Ghosh and Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & others.
With
WPA 6854 of 2023 Nafisa Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 28
WPA 6859 of 2023 Shaoli Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6915 of 2023 Arpita Hazra Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7370 of 2023 Palash Mondal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7528 of 2023 Setab Uddin & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7831 of 2023 Jayati Pal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7952 of 2023 Supriti Paria Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 9105 of 2023 Pravati Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 9327 of 2023 29
Krishnendu Dutta & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10387 of 2023 Rita Gayen Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10614 of 2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023 Khayrul Anam Mondal & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 12557 of 2023 Md. Golam Yeasdani & others.
Vs. State of West Bengal & others.
With
WPA 13588 of 2023 Mithun Sarkar & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 14824 of 2023 Prabir Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 17679 of 2023 Aribillah Gazi Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18401 of 2023 Jagannath Sadhukhan & Ors.
30
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19126 of 2023 Nazima Begum Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19604 of 2023 Arpita Seth Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19605 of 2023 Arnab Datta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19869 of 2023 Bibhas Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21000 of 2023 Pradyut Ghosh.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21211 of 2023 Priyanka Mukhopadhyay.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22796 of 2023 Taslim Arif Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
31
With
WPA 23761 of 2023 Barnali Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 24247 of 2023 Aditi Jana Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 26848 of 2023 Yakub Alam Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 366 of 2024 Suman Kumar Dey Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13113 of 2018 Tulasi Santra Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18034 of 2018 Krishnapada Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20034 of 2019 Mahadeb Duley & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 32
WPA 3665 of 2021 Srikanta Mandal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10772 of 2021 Tathagata Nandy & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 12266 of 2021 IA NO: CAN/1/2021 CAN/2/2021 CAN/3/2021 CAN/4/2021 CAN/5/2021 CAN/6/2022 CAN/8/2024 CAN/9/2024 Sandeep Prasad & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 17068 of 2021 Jhantu Das & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18585 of 2021 IA NO: CAN/5/2023 CAN/6/2024 CAN/7/2024 CAN/8/2024 CAN 9/2024 CAN/10/2024 Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19977 of 2021 33
Milan Roy & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20070 of 2021 Rishav Sarkar.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6754 of 2022 Sanchita Payra Chanda & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 8598 of 2022 Anirban Bhattacharya Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10211 of 2022 Most Nur Momtaj & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 14630 of 2022 Soumen Bhattacharya & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 14670 of 2022 Delip Ruidas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 15359 of 2022 Sovan Sahoo & Ors.
Vs. 34
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19053 of 2022 Tonmay Bera & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19916 of 2022 Joyanta Das & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20028 of 2022 Sanjib Maity & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 27164 of 2022 Sarbani Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 27166 of 2022 Asha Singha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 27168 of 2022 Arjun Barui & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 250 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 CAN/2/2023 CAN/3/2023 Achinta Kr. Mondal 35
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 259 of 2023 IA No.: CAN 1 of 2023 CAN 2 of 2023 CAN 3 of 2023 CAN 4 of 2024 Samiran Maity & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 274 of 2023 IA No.: CAN 1 of 2023
Achinta Kr Mondal & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 275 of 2023 Aritra Saha Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
With
MAT 276 of 2023 IA No.: CAN/ 1/ 2023 CAN/ 2/2023 Susovan Satpathi & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 284 of 2023 IA No.: CAN 1 of 2023 36
CAN 2 of 2023
Arnab Paul Chowdhury & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
With
MAT 318 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Rakhi Das Maity & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 334 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Prodip Kumar Roy & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 336 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Bablu Sardar & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 338 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Pandab Gorai & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 342 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Tanmoy Dey and Ors.
37
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 343 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Gobinda Biswas & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 344 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Juel Sarkar & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 345 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Nuralam Sk. & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 346 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Papiya Dutta & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 358 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Biplab Sarkar & Ors.
Vs. 38
Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 359 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Nimai Barman & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 361 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Anup Dutta & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 382 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Bishnupriya Mondal & Ors.
Vs. Laxmi Tunga & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20022 of 2019 Pampa Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20029 of 2019 Mallika Mandal & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20039 of 2019 39
Javed Hyder & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3654 of 2021 Saikat Adhikari & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10764 of 2021 Prasenjit Mandal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 12270 of 2021 IA NO:CAN/1/2022 CAN/2/2022 CAN/3/2022 CAN/7/2023 CAN/8/2024 CAN/9/2024 CAN/10/2024 Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 17048 of 2021 Sampa Roy & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18589 of 2021 Saikh Dil Mahammad & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18590 of 2021 Amit Ghosh Vs. 40
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18593 of 2021 Biswajit Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19975 of 2021 Prodip Dey & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 8614 of 2022 Sanju Panda & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10213 of 2022 Sayani Deb & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 14525 of 2022 Abhranil Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 14634 of 2022 Joydeb Mondal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 15360 of 2022 Uttam Das & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
41
With
WPA 17340 of 2022 Sk Nagimul Haque Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19060 of 2022 Kanchan Rani Maicap & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 20030 of 2022 Titab Roy & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 27161 of 2022 Krishna Nandi & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With MAT 443 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Arup Ratan Show & Ors.
Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 457 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Subhadip Saha & Ors.
Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
With
MAT 458 of 2023 IA NO: CAN/2/2023 CAN/3/2024 CAN/4/2024 42
Subhadip Paik & Ors.
Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
With
MAT 476 of 2023 Kousik Mukherjee.
Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 502 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Goutam Patra & Ors.
Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 470 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Debasis Roy & Ors.
Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 480 of 2023 Arpita Maiti Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 521 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Kaji Enamul Hoque & Ors.
Vs. Sabina Yeasmin & Ors.
& State of West Bengal & Ors.
43
With
WPA 30653 of 2016 Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 30065 of 2017 Prasanta Kumar Dey Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 12662 of 2018 Biswajit Biswas & others.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13105 of 2018 IA NO: CAN/1/2018(Old No:CAN/8494/2018) Munshi Wasim Asgar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22777 of 2018 Abu Torap Molla & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22971 of 2018 IA NO:CAN/1/2020(Old No:CAN/2737/2020) Ashrafun Nessa & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18352 of 2019 IA NO:CAN/1/2020 Madhumita Mondal Vs. 44
W.B. Central School Service Commission & anr.
With
WPA 21154 of 2019 Swastika Jana Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22076 of 2019 Madhumita Pan & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 23064 of 2019 Sabari Adak @ Sabari Adak Modak Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 23480 of 2019 Tumpa Pal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 23481 of 2019 Mahamud Hasan Gazi Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3476 of 2020 Snehangshu Rout Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 6887 of 2020 Apu Bej Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
45 With
WPA 7425 of 2020 IA NO:CAN/1/2020 Kakali (Ranjit) Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7616 of 2020 IA NO:CAN/1/2020 Sathi Mondal Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7630 of 2020 IA NO:CAN/1/2020 Sarmistha Pandit Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 8536 of 2020 Latarani As.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2898 of 2021 Moumita Paul Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2903 of 2021 Mousumi Ghosh Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7982 of 2021 Bapi Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
46
With
WPA 8266 of 2021 Monika Sarkar.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10316 of 2021 Sabita Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10929 of 2021 Laxmi Paul.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 16936 of 2021 Sk. Najirul Hoque & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18475 of 2021 Ilias Sk Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19000 of 2021 Arpita Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21312 of 2021 Srimanta Maity & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 47
WPA 21386 of 2021 Arif Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1637 of 2022 Debasish Chaudhury Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5405 of 2022 Priti Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 5406 of 2022 IA NO:CAN/1/2022 CAN/3/2022 CAN/4/2022 CAN/5/2022 CAN/6/2022 CAN/7/2022 CAN/11/2023 CAN/12/2023 CAN/21/2023 CAN/22/2023 CAN/23/2023 CAN/24/2023 CAN/25/2023 CAN/26/2023 CAN/27/2024 CAN/28/2024 CAN/29/2024 CAN 30/2024 CAN 31/2024 CAN/32/2024 CAN/33/2024 CAN/34/2024 CAN/35/2024 CAN/36/2024 CAN/37/2024 CAN/38/2024 Babita Sarkar.
Vs. 48
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 13431 of 2022 Sreejeeta Dey Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22845 of 2022 Abbasuddin Mollah Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 25379 of 2022 Paly Debnath & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 26756 of 2022 Baneshwar Bera & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 27457 of 2022 Pradip Hait & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 160 of 2023 Kuheli Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 199 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
Vs. Priyanka Shaw & Ors.
49
With
MAT 950 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Babita Sarkar.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1079 of 2023 Julekha Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1080 of 2023 Dipanwita Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1083 of 2023 Isha Sk. & Anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 1086 of 2023 Rumki Sutradhar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 1302 of 2023 Tanmoy Sinha & Ors.
Vs. Babita Sarkar & Ors.
With
MAT 1304 of 2023 Supratim Manna & Ors.
Vs. Babita Sarkar & Ors.
50
With
WPA 2077 of 2023 IA NO:CAN/1/2023 Moumita Mondal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2511 of 2023 Bulti Manna Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 2982 of 2023 Dilip Kumar Mondal & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3463 of 2023 Monsur Rahaman.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4519 of 2023 Sumanta Suin & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4715 of 2023 Shilpi Saha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 7031 of 2023 Srimanta Ghorai Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With 51
WPA 9315 of 2023 Biswajit Biswas & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10617 of 2023 Nandita Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 10724 of 2023 Ramjan Khan & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 14104 of 2023 Rita Sarkar (Das) Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 18400 of 2023 Mihir Baral & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21210 of 2023 Falguni Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 21999 of 2023 Bangiya Nyajya Adhikar Pratistha Mancha & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 22860 of 2023 52
Lipika Pal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 23204 of 2023 Apu Bej Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 23652 of 2023 Mira Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 24930 of 2023 Arindam Sarkar & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 25669 of 2023 Shah Alamgir Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
53
For the petitioner in WPA 7592 of Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, 2021 to WPA 13701/2021,WPA Ld. Sr. Advocate 13727/2021 to WPA 21268/ 2021, Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, WPA 781/2022, WPA 1618/2022, Mr. Bikram Banerjee, WPA 5786 of 2022 to WPA 7347 of Mr. Arkadeb Biswas, 2022,WPA 28197 of 2022, WPA Mr. Arka Nandi, 18401 of 2023, WPA 21211 of Ms. Dipa Acharyya 2023, WPA 18585 of 2021, WPA Mr. Sondwip Sutradhar, 20070/2021, WPA 8598 of 2022, Mr. Saikat Sutradhar, WPA 14630/2022, WPA 27164 of Mr. Sutirtha Nayek, 2022, WPA 27166 of 2022, WPA Ms. Shalini Ghosh, 27168/2022, WPA 18589/2021 to Ms. Sinjini Chakrabarti WPA 18593/2021, WPA Mr. Baibhav Roy 8614/2022, WPA 14634/2022, Ms. Sagarika Goswami WPA 27161/2022, WPA Mr. Sagar Dey 7616/2020, WPA 7630/2020, WPA Ms. Saptaparni Raha 7982/2021 to WPA 19000/2021, Ms. Suryatapa Das WPA 5405/2022, WPA 5406/2022, ...
WPA 2077/2023, WPA 3463/2023, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, WPA 18400/2023, WPA Ld. Sr. Advocate.
21210/2023 Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. Payel Shome, Ms. Sampriti Saha, Ms. Purba Mukherjee Mr. Avijit Kar, Ms. Mohona Das
For the appellant in MAT 950 of Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, 2023 Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. Payel Shome, Ms. Sampriti Saha, Mr. Avijit Kar, Ms. Mohona Das
For the respondents in MAT 85 of Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, 2023, MAT 124 of 2023, MAT 250 Ld. Sr. Advocate of 2023 to MAT 382 of 2023, MAT Mr. Firdous Samim, 1302 of 2023, MAT 1304 of 2023, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. Payel Shome, Ms. Sampriti Saha, Mr. Avijit Kar, Ms. Mohona Das 54
For the writ petitioners in WPA Mr. Prasenjit Mukherjee 20045 of 2019, WPA 22119 of Mr. Golam Mohiuddin, 2019, WPA 8078 of 2020, WPA Ms. Puja Mondal 8555 of 2020, WPA 11455 of 2020, WPA 13700 of 2021, WPA 17679 of 2023, WPA 8536 of 2020,
For the petitioner in WPA Mr. Asish Kr. Chowdhury 19278/2019 Mr. Ashif Iquebal, Mr. Rameshwar Sinha, Ms. Debanjana Sen,
For the respondent no.6 to 8 in Mr. Anindya Bose, WPA 21665 of 2019. Mr. Apalak Basu, Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta, Ms. Pritha Bhaumik Ms. Aayushi Mukherjee
For the petitioners in WPA 3846 of Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 2023. Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta, Ms. Aayeshi Mukherjee
For the writ petitioner in WPA Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., 2967 of 2023 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. A. Chakraborty
For the petitioner in WPA 5406 of Mr. Vishak Bhattacharya, 2022(CAN 12 of 2023). Ms. Biyanka Bhattacharya
For the added respondent of CAN Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, 27 of 2024 in WPA 5406 of 2022 Ms. Shreyeta Mitra and WPA 10960 of 2021 55
For the added party-respondent in Mr. Ujjal Ray, CAN 17 of 2023 in WPA 13700 of Mr. Arpa Chakraborty 2021.
For the added respondents of CAN Mr. Sakti Pada Jana 1 of 2023 in WPA 13700 of 2021 Mr. Subhajyoti Das
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, 13700 of 2021 Sr. Advocate Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the appellants in MAT Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 85/2023, WPA 5526/2023, WPA Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, 5538 of 2022, WPA 25380 of 2022, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, MAT 124 of 2023, MAT 245 of Ms. Pranati Das, 2023, WPA 362 of 2023, WPA 5526 Mr. Anish Chakraborty of 2023, WPA 5531 of 2023, WPA 5797 of 2023, WPA 5799 of 2023, WPA 6164 of 2023, WPA 10614 of 2023, WPA 18585 of 2021, WPA 7370/2023 and MAT 458 of 2023 and For the added respondents in WPA 19273 of 2019, 19278 of 2019, 19749 of 2019,20776 of 2019, 20778 of 2019, 13700 of 2021, 1618 of 2022, 8059 of 2022, 5538 of 2022, 25380 of 2022, 10614 of 2023, 18585 of 2021, 12270 of 2021, 18475 of 2021, 2077 of 2023
For the respondent in WPA 362 of Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 2023 Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty 56
For the State in WPA 23761 of Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick,Ld. 2023 and WPA 26848 of 2023 A.G.P. Ms. Mrinalini Majumdar
For the State in WPA 16858 of Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick,Ld. 2021, WPA 1066 of 2023, WPA A.G.P. 1070 of 2023, WPA 4206/2023, WPA 15359 of 2022 WPA 19053/2022.
For the addition of party in WPA Mr. Shaktipada Jana, 13700 of 2021. Mr. Subhojyoti Das
For the petitioner in WPA 366 of Mr. Amitava Choudhuri, 2024. Mr. N. Roy, Mr. Chandan Chakraborty
For the State in WPA 2613 of Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay, 2018, WPA 18034 of 2018, WPA Ms. Lipika Chatterjee 19749 of 2019, WPA 8614 of 2022, WPA 5406 of 2022, WPA 16936 of 2021, MAT 1302 of 2023, WPA 1080 of 2023, WPA 1072 of 2023, WPA 18627 of 2019, WPA 3846/23, MAT 199 of 2023, WPA 6213 of 2023 WPA 20070 of 2021, WPA 2903 of 2021 WPA 10316 of 2021 WPA 3463 of 2023
For the addition of party in WPA Mr. S.P. Lahiri,
13700 of 2021, WPA 5406 of 2022. Mr. Rajesh Naskar
For the appellant in MAT 244 of Mr. Soumya Majumdar, 2023. Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, Ms. Prisanka Ganguly, Mr. Soumyadeep Sarkar 57
For the writ petitioner in WPA Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, 4556 of 2023 Mr. Prisanka Ganguly, Mr. Soumyadip Sarkar
For the added respondent in WPA Mr. Anirban Sen, 5406 of 2022 Mr. Anindya Lahiri Mr. Samrat Dey Paul Ms. Pranati Das Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the added respondent in MAT Mr. Soumya Majumdar, 1302/2023 Mr. Anindya Lahiri Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul Ms. Pranati Das Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the writ petitioners in WPA Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, 4556 of 2023 Ms. Prisanka Ganguly, Mr. Soumyadeep Sarkar
For the added respondent nos.476 Mr. Amiya Kumar Datta, to 642 in WPA 12270 of 2021. Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, Mr. Swadesh Priyo Ghosh, Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Ms. Sananda Bhattacharya, Ms. Barna Das
For the added respondent nos.9 to Mr. Amiya Kumar Datta, 20 in WPA 20022 of 2019. Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, Mr. Swadesh Priyo Ghosh, Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Ms. Sananda Bhattacharya, Ms. Barna Das
For the respondent nos.118 to 362 Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Ld. Sr. in WPA 18585 of 2021 and for the Advocate applicants in CAN 11 of 2024 and Mr. Suman Sengupta, CAN 12 of 2024. Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh 58
For the State in WPA 22522 of Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ld. 2018, WPA 13700 of 2021, WPA Jr. Standing Counsel 25380 of 2022, WPA 12270 of 2021, WPA 14525 of 2022, WPA 5406 of 2022, MAT 85 of 2023, MAT 557 of 2023, MAT 250 of 2023, MAT 274 of 2023, WPA 5393 of 2023.
For the SSC in WPA 2613 of 2018, Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandopadhyay WPA 20778 for 2019, WPA 21923 of 2019, WPA 18034 of 2018, WPA 20039 of 2019, WPA 30065 of 2017, WPA 8536 of 2020, WPA 18627 of 2029, WPA 18352 of 2019
For the State in WPA 16859 of Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Ld. 2021, WPA 18385 of 2021, WPA AGP 19478 of 2021, WPA 21332 of Ms. Iti Dutta 2022, WPA 20022 of 2019.
For the WBBSE Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chouwdhury 5406 of 2022, WPA 10964 of 2021. Ms. Shreyata Mitra
For the applicant in WPA 18585 of Mr. Pramit Kumar Roy, 2021. Ms. Sahedli Sen, Mr. Rajiv Mullick, Ms. Ayantika Saha, Mr. A. Bandopadhyay
For the applicant in CAN 6 of 2024 Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, in WPA 18585 of 2021 and in CAN Mr. Rajib Mullick, 7 of 2024 in WPA 25380/22. Ms. Ayantika Saha, Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Mr. R. D. Banerjee 59
For the applicant in CAN 7 of 2024 Mr. Pramit Kumar Ray, Ld. Sr. in WPA 18585 of 2021. Advocate Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Ms. Saheli Sen, Mr. Rajib Mullick, Ms. Ayantika Saha
For the applicant in WPA 25380 of Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, 2022, MAT 304 of 2023, For the Mr. Rajiv Mullick, petitioners in WPA 7952 of 2023, Ms. Ayantika Saha CAN 5 of 2024 in WPA 25380 of 2022.
For the applicant in CAN 7 of 2024 Mr. Sounak Ghosh, in WPA 25380 of 2022. Mr. Anindya Sundor Das, Mr. R. D. Banerjee
For the petitioner in WPA 20045 of Mr. Prasenjit Mukherjee 2019, WPA 22119 of 2019, WPA Mr. Golam Mohiuddin 8078 of 2020 to WPA 11455 of Ms. Puja Mondal 2020, WPA 13700 of 2021, wpa 17679 OF 2023, WPA 18352 of 2019, WPA 8536 of 2020
For the applicants in CAN 21 of Mr. L.K. Gupta, Ld. Sr. Advocate 2023 and CAN 22 of 2023 in WPA Mr. S. Banerjee, 5406 of 2022. Mr. A.B. Das, Ms. S. Chongdar, Mr. S.N. Ghosh
For the applicant in CAN 3 of Mr. Jaydip Kar, Ld, Sr. Advocate 2023 and CAN 4 of 2023 in WPA Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Ld. Sr. 25380 of 2022, and appellant in Advocate MAT 290 of 2023. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. A.B. Das, Ms. S. Chongdar, Mr. S.N. Ghosh 60
For the petitioner in MAT 304 of Mr. Jaydip Kar, Ld. Sr. Advocate 2023, MAT 557 of 2023, WPA 5953 Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, of 2023. Ms. Saheli Sen, Mr. Rajib Mullick, Ms. Ayantika Saha
For the petitioner in WPA 7952 of Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, 2023, the applicant in CAN 5 of Mr. Rajib Mullick, 2023 in WPA 25380 of 2022. Ms. Ayantika Saha
For the applicant in CAN 21/23/ Mr. L. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate CAN 22/23 in WPA 5405 of 2022. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Abhisek Baran Das, Mrs. Srijoni Chongdar, Mr. Sudipta Nayan Ghosh
For the applicant in CAN 3/23 Mr. L. K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate CAN 4/23 in WPA 25380 of 2022. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Abhisek Baran Das, Mrs. Srijoni Chongdar, Mr. Sudipta Nayan Ghosh
For the petitioners in WPA 5953 of Mr. Joydeep Kar, Ld. Sr. Advocate 2023. Mr. Abhrotosh Majumdar, Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Ms. Saheli Sen, Mr. Rajiv Mallick, Ms. Ayantika Saha
For the applicant in CAN 3 of 2024 Mr. Sourav Sengupta in MAT 85 of 2023.
For the State in WPA 23652 of Mr. Bhaskar Prasad, Vaisya, Ld. 2023. AGP Mr. Gourav Das 61
For the State in WPA 16484 of Ms. Rupsha Chakrbaorty 2021
For the appellant in MAT 476 of Mr. Tapas Singha Roy 2023.
For the petitioner in WPA 14670 of Ms. Lakshmi Shaw 2022.
For the addition of parties in MAT Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyaa, 458 of 2023. Mr. G.K. Das, Mr. Kapil Chandra Sahoo
For the ED in WPA 13700 of 2021, Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, LD.
WPA 13701 of 2021, WPA 17273 of DSGI 2021, WPA 5538 of 2022, WPA Mr. Samrat Goswami 12266 of 2021, WPA 12270 of 2021 and WPA 5406 of 2022.
For CAN 23 of 2023 and CAN 31 of Mr. S.P. Lahiri, 2024 in in WPA 13700 of 2021 and Mr. Rajesh Naskar the applicant in CAN 23, 24 & 25 in WPA 5406 of 2022.
For the respondent no.4 in WPA Mr. Rittwik Pattanayak,
18355 of 2019. Mr. Prosenjit Debnath
For the respondent no.641 and Mr. Rittwik Pattanayak 642 in WPA 18593 of 2021.
For the applicant of CAN 22 of Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv., 2023 in WPA 13700 of 2021. Mr. Rittwik Pattanayak, Mr. S. Khandakar, Mr. S. Ghosh, Ms. Swati Jha 62
For the MAT No. 457 of 2023 Mr. Sakhawat Khandakar Mr. Sounak Ghosh Ms. Swati Jha
For the petitioner in WPA 366 of Mr. Amitava Chowdhury, 2024. Mr. Moniruzzaman, Mr. N. Roy, Mr. Chandan Chakraborty
For the applicant in WPA 5406 of Mr. Arup Kumar Lahiri, 2022. Mr. Debojyoti Dey
For the applicant in WPA 18381 of Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, 2021. Md. Hafiz Ali, Mr. Debojyoti Dey, Mr. Shanta Sarkar
For the appellant in MAT 259 of Mr. Anindya Bose, 2023. Mr. Soumyo Sankar Chini
For the respondent no.7 in WPA Mr. Anindya Bose, 21665 of 2019. Ms. Snehal Seth
For the petitioner in WPA 6282 of Mr. Anindya Bose 2023.
For the petitioner in WPA 1369 of Mr. Sudipta Das Gupta 2023
For the respondent nos.6,7 and 8 Mr. Anindya Bose, in WPA 4556 of 2023. Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta, Ms. Pritha Bhowmik, Mr. Apalak Basu 63
For the added respondent nos. 6 to Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta 8 in WPA 21665 of 2019 Ms. Pritha Bhaumicki Mr. Apalak Basu
For the appellant in MAT 259 of Mr. Anindya Bose 2023 Mr. Soumya Sankar Chini
For the State in WPA 3399 of Mr. Munmun Tewary, 2023, WPA 3990 of 2023. Mr. Sanatan Panja
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Shaktipada Jana, 13700 of 2021. Mr. Subhojyoti Das
For the appellant in MAT 443 of Mr. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman, 2023, MAT 502 of 2023, MAT 470 Mr. Shaharaya Alam, of 2023, MAT 521 of 2023, MAT Mr. M. Nazar Chowdhury, 250 of 2023, MAT 274 of 2023, Mr. Amit Gupta, MAT 334 of 2023 (Item No.135) to Mr. R. D. Banerjee, MAT 382 of 2023 (Item No.146). Mr. Raja Adhikary
For the added party in MAT 250 of Mr. Rajnil Mukherjee, 2023. Mr. M.F. Rahaman, Ms. Debolina Sarkar, Mr. M.F. Rahaman, Mr. Subham Das, Ms. Satabdi Dey
For the addition of party in WPA Mr. Keshab Chandra Das 13700 of 2021.
For the petitioner in WPA 23259 of Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, 2019 Ms. Rabia Khatoon, Ms. Soma Mal, Ms. June Modak, Mr. Juel Rana 64
For the applicant in WPA 13700 of Mr. Raju Bhatacharyya 2021.
For the WBCSSC Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Ms. Supriya Dubey, Mr. Sunit Roy Ms. Debolina Chakraborty
For the added respondent nos.363 Mr. Dilip Kumar Maity, to 408 and 803 In WPA 18585 of Mr. Chandan Maity 2021.
For the respondent Mr. Subir Sanyal, nos.21,25,27,30,39,40,41,411,422 Mr. Chitto Priya Ghosh, ,413 in WPA 12266 of 2021, For Mr. Sourajit Mukherjee, the added respondent nos.9-20 in Mr. Amiya Kumar Datta, WPA 20022 of 2019, For the added Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, respondent nos.476-642 in WPA Mr. Swadesh Priya Ghosh, 12270 of 2021 Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Ms. Sananda Bhattacharya, Ms. Barna Das
For the applicant in WPA 5406 of Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, 2022 and For the respondents in Ms. Proniti Das, WPA 362 of 2023 Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the writ petitioners in WPA Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, 12662 of 2018, WPA 22777 of Mr. Rajiv Ghosh, 2018, WPA 21312 of 2021 Mr. Babhru Bahan Bera
For the State in WPA 16450 of 21, Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, WPA 18994 of 21, WPA 21430 of Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee 21, WPA 4313 of 23, WPA 8598 of 22, WPA 18590 of 21, MAT 458 of 23, WPA 19000 of 21 and WPA 10617 of 23 65
For the State in WPA 2496 of 2023 Mr. Malay Singh Ms. Neelam Singh
For the State in MAT 480 of 2023 Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Jr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Kushal Biswas
For the State in WPA 22523 of 18 Mr. Sanjib Das and added respondent no.15, in WPA 18585 of 2021
For the added parties/applicants Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, in WPA 5406 of 2022. Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Nilankan Banerjee
For the added parties/applicants Mr. P. S. Bhattacharyya, Ld. Sr. in CAN/29/24, CAN/30/24 in Adv., WPA 13700 of 2021 Mr. Nilankan Banerjee
For the writ petitioners in WPA Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, 22522 of 2018 to WPA 22973 of Mr. Rajib Ghosh, 2018, WPA 21923 of 2019, WPA Mr. Babhru Bahan Bera 4835 of 2020, WPA 21317 of 2021, WPA 21332 of 2022 to WPA 21350 of 2022, WPA 3859 of 2023, WPA 6859 of 2023, WPA 9327/2023, WPA 9315/23, WPA 12662/18 to WPA 22971 of 2018, WPA 21312 of 2021, WPA 9315 of 2023, WPA 14104 of 2023, WPA 21999 of 2023, WPA 25669 of 2023 WPA 4715 of 2023 66
For the petitioners in WPA 16844 Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, of 2019 to WPA 21665 of 2019, Mr. Rajib Ghosh, WPA 21923 of 2019, WPA 10387 of Mr. Babhru Bahan Bera 2023, WPA 24247 of 2023, WPA 18352 of 2019, WPA 8003 of 2021, WPA 7982 of 2021, WPA 22860 of 2023, WPA 7982 of 2021, WPA 22971 of 2018, WPA 21154 of 2019,
For the applicants in MAT 284 of Mr. Rajiv Ghosh 2023
For the applicants in WPA 2967 of Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Adv., 2023. Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the applicants in WPA 5538 of Mr. Pratik Dhar, Ld. Sr. Avocate 2022, WPA 25380 of 2022, MAT 85 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, of 2023 to MAT 245 of 2023, WPA Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, 5526 of 2023, MAT 458 of 2023, Ms. Pranati Das, WPA 6164 of 2023, WPA 18585 of Mr. Anish Chakraborty 2021, WPA 5406 of 2022, MAT 1302 of 2023 MAT 124 of 2023, WPA 10614 of 2023, WPA 18470 of 2021.
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Kalyan Bandyapadhyay, Ld. 13700 of 2021. Sr. Adv., Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty 67
For the added respondent WPA Mr. Kalyan Bandyapadhyay, Ld. 16844 of 2019 to WPA 5786 of Sr. Adv., 2022 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the added respondent WPA Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 19273 to WPA 20778 of 2019, WPA Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, 1618/2022, WPA 5538 of 2022, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul WPA 25380/2022, WPA Ms. Pranati Das, 10614/2023, WPA 18585/2021, Mr. Anish Chakraborty WPA 18585 of 2021, WPA 2077 of 2023
For the respondent Nos. 118 to Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, 362 in W.P.A. 18585 of 2021 and Sr. Adv., for the applicants in CAN 11 & 12 Mr. Suman Sengupta, of 2024 Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh
For the appellant in WPA 7370 of Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Ld. Sr. 2023. Adv., Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the applicants in CAN 5 of Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Ld. Sr. 2021 in WPA 12266 of 2021, For Adv., the appellants in MAT 334 of 2023 Mr. P.S. Deb Barman, to MAT 343 of 2023, MAT 345 of Mr. Debasis Nandi 2023, MAT 359 of 2023 to MAT Mr. Amit Gupta, 382 OF 2023, WPA 12270 of 2021, Mr. Aninda Bose, MAT 443 of 2023, MAT 502 of Mr. Raja Adhikary, 2023, MAT 470 of 2023 MAT 521 Mr. S. Alam, of 2023, MAT 250 of 2023, MAT Md. M. Nazar Chowdhury, 274 of 2023, applicants of CAN 7 Mr. Marghoob Ahmed Salik of 2023, CAN 9 of 2024 and CAN Mr. R. D. Banerjee 10 of 2024 in WPA 12270 of 2021, applicants of CAN 32 of 2024 and CAN 38 of 2024 in WPA 5406 OF 2022, applicants of CAN 5 of 2023 and CAN 10 of 2024 in WPA 18585 of 2021. 68
For the State in WPA 24247 of Mr. Avijit Sarkar, 2023 Mr. Suman Singh
For the writ petitioner in WPA Mr. Mukul Lahiri, Ld. Sr. Adv., 12270 of 2021 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the applicants in MAT 244 of Mr. Soumya Majumder, 2023, WPA 4556 of 2023, MAT Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 1302 of 2023, WPA 5406/2022 Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, Mr. Samrat Dey Pal, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Prisanka Ganguly, Mr. Soumyadeep Sarkar
For the petitioner in WPA 3859 of Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjee 2023, WPA 6210 of 2023, WPA 6213 of 2023 & WPA 6859 of 2023
For the appellant in MAT 1302 of Mr. Soumya Majumder, 2023 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Prisanka Ganguly, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Anirban Sen, 5406 of 2022 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the added respondent in WPA Mr. Anirban Sen, 25380 of 2022 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty 69
For the respondent in WPA 362 of Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 2023 Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the respondent in WPA 3846 of Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 2023 Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta, Ms. Aayushi Mukherjee
For the petitioner in WPA 4556 of Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, 2023 Mr. Prisanka Ganguly, Mr. Soumyadip Sarkar
For the added respondent nos.9 to Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, 20 in WPA 12270 of 2021 and For Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, the added respondent nos.476 to Ms. Bratati Pramanick 640 in WPA 20022 of 2019
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya, 5406 of 2022 Mr. Pratik Majumdar, Mr. Snehasish Dey
For the appellants in MAT 318 of Mr. Utkarsh Kaushik, 2023, MAT 276 of 2023 Ms. Devyani Ashra
For the writ petitioner in WPA Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 3846 of 2023 Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta, Ms. Aayushi Mukherjee
For the writ petitioner in WPA Mr. Puspal Chakraborty, 4556 of 2023 Mr. Prisanka Ganguly, Mr. Soumyadip Sarkar 70
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Anindya Lahiri, 19273 of 2019, WPA 19278 of Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, 2019, WPA 19749 of 2019, WPA Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, 20776 of 2019, WPA 20778 of Ms. Pranati Das, 2019, WPA 7532/2023, WPA Mr. A. Chakraborty 2077/2023, WPA 18475/21, WPA 10614 of 2023
For the appellants/writ petitioners Mr. Anindya Lahiri, MAT 85 of 2023, MAT 124/23, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, MAT 245/23, WPA 5526/23, WPA Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, 6164/23, WPA 5531/23, WPA Ms. Pranati Das,
5797 of 2023, WPA 5799/23. Mr. A. Chakraborty
For the added respondent in WPA Mr. Mukul Lahiri, Sr. Adv., 12270 of 2021 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. A. Chakraborty
For the respondent nos. 385 and Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, 386 in WPA 5406 of 2022 Mr. Aniruddha Mitra
For private respondent Nos. 6 & 7 Mr. Partha Sarkar in WPA 13701 of 2021 and private respondent no. 6 in WPA 10949 of 2021 and Private respondent no. 6 in WPA 13863 of 2021 and private respondent no. 7 in WPA 18487 of 2021.(candidates for Classes IX & X)
For the petitioner in WPA 5134 of Md. Sarwar Jahan, 2023 Ms. Tapati Sarkar
For the petitioner in WPA 3476 of Mr. Rama Haldar 2020 71
For the applicant in CAN 9 of 2024 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, in WPA 18585 of 2021 Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Souvik Dere, Mr. Anis Chakraborty
For the respondent nos. 6 and 7 in Mr. Susanta Pal, WPA 20404 of 2019 Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, Mr. Debasish Kar
For the appellants in MAT 276 of Mr. Utkarsh Kaushik, 2023 and MAT 318 of 2023 Ms. Devyani Ashra
For the CBI Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, LD. DSGI Mr. Arijit Majumdar, Ms. Supriti Sarkhel
For the State in WPA 16844 OF Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld.G.P., 2019, WPA 19273/2019, WPA Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 19278/2019, WPA AGP, 21665/2019,WPA 15137 OF 2021, Mr. Suman Dey WPA 17273/2021, WPA 18379/2021, WPA 18470/2021, WPA 5810/23, WPA 18475/2021, WPA 21261/2021, WPA 27164/2022, WPA 12662/2018, WPA 21268 OF 2021,WPA 1079 OF 2023, WPA 2077/23, WPA 3846 OF 2023, , WPA 8059 OF 2022, WPA 13105 OF 2018, WPA 5604 OF 2023, WPA 9105 OF 2023
For the State in WPA 4841 of 2023 Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P., Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, A.G.P., Mr. Sanjib Das
For the State in WPA 16481/2021, Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P WPA 16948/ 2021, WPA Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 18801/2021, WPA25380/2022, AGP, WPA 30065/2017, WPA 1083/23 Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh WPA 19060 OF 2022, WPA 6859/23 72
For the State in WPA 13863 of Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 2021, WPA 12266 of 2021 AGP, Mr. Niloy Baran Mondal
For the State in WPA 13863 of Mr. Anirban Ray, GP 2021, WPA 12266 of 2021 Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. AGP, Mr. Joydip Banerjee
For the State in WPA 23652/2023 Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. AGP, Mr. Gourav Das
For the State in WPA 22785/2018, Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P. WPA 16487 OF 2021, WPA Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 16960/2021, WPA 18379/2021, AGP, WPA 18995/2021, WPA Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee 5538/2022, WPA 7346/2022, WPA 21334/2022, WPA 20034/2019, WPA 18401/23, WPA 27168/23, WPA 1072 OF 2023, WPA 10213/22, WPA 18400/23, WPA 21999 OF 2023
For the State in WPA 19749/2019, Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP WPA 8264/2021, WPA Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 16487/2021, WPA 18381 /2021, AGP, WPA 20906/2021, WPA 1072 OF Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay, 2023, WPA 6213 OF 2023, WPA 8614/2022, WPA 16936/2021, WPA 5406/2022, WPA 1080 OF 2023, WPA 3846/2023
For the State in WPA 16968 of Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, 2021, WPA 19477/2023 Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya
For the State in WPA 21266 of Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP 2021, WPA 21267 of 2021, WPA Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 21340 of 2021, WPA 6550 of 2022 AGP, Mr. Ranjan Saha 73
For the State in WPA 18589 of Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 2021 AGP,
For the State in WPA 23652 of Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. 2023, WPA 30065 of 2017 AGP, Mr. Gourab Das
For the State in WPA 13863/21, Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. WPA 12266/21 AGP Mr. Nilay Baran Mandal
For the State in WPA 24247 of Mr. Avijit Sarkar, 2023 Ms. Suman Singh
For the WBBSE Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
For the respondent no.6 in WPA Mr. Tanmoy Biswas, 16844 of 2019. Ms. Antara Mukherjee
For the applicant/added party in Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, CAN 29 of 2024, CAN 30 of 2024 Sr. Adv., and for respondent no.6 in WPA Mr. Nilankan Banerjee 13700 of 2021 and WPA 5406 of 2022 in CAN 28 of 2024
For the petitioners in WPA 6210 of Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, 2023 and WPA 6213 of 2023 Sr. Adv., Mr.Nilankan Banerjee
For the petitioners in WPA 13700 Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, of 2021. Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Anindya Bose,
For the added parties in CAN 2 of Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, 2023 in MAT 458 of 2023 Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. G.K. Das, Mr. Kapil Chandra Sahoo 74
For the applicants of CAN 19 of Mr. Anindya Bose 2023 in WPA 13700 of 2021
For the State in WPA 20776 of Mr. Santanu Kr. MIira, 2019 & WPA 16505 of 2021 Mr. Amartya Pal
For the added respondent nos. 476 Mr. Amiya Kumar Dutta, to 642 in WPA 12270 of 2021 and Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, added respondent nos. 9-20 in Mr. Swadesh Priya Ghosh, WPA 20022 of 2019 Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Ms. Sananda Bhattacharya, Mr. Barna Das
For the added respondents in WPA Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, 10960 of 2021 and WPA 5406 of Ms. Shreyeta Mitra 2022 with CAN 27 of 2024
For the appellant in MAT 476 of Mr. Tapas Singha Roy 2023
For the petitioner in WPA 366 of Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, 2024 Mr. N. Ray, Mr. Chandan Chakraborty
For the added respondent in CAN Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, sr. adv.
13 of 2021 in WPA 13700 of 2021 Mr. Niraj Gupta, Ms. Afroja Nusrat, Mr. Hafizul Islam
For the petitioner in WPA 18034 of Mr. Kamal Mishra, 2018 Mr. Pratap Sanfui
For the added parties in CAN 2 of Mr. Gourango Das, 2023 in MAT 1458 of 2023 Mr. Kapil Chandra Sahoo
For the petitioner in WPA Mr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati, 4117/23, WPA 4213 of 2023, WPA Mr. Pritam Chowdhury, 6577 of 2023 and WPA 160 of Mr. Safik Dewan, 2023 Mr. Sourav Mondal 75
For the applicant in WPA Mr. Tamal Taru Panda 30065/2016, WPA 5406/2022 (CAN 26/2024)
For the applicant in CAN 12 of Mr. Vishak Bhattacharya, 2023 in WPA 5406 of 2022 Ms. Ruchika Chatterjee, Ms. Biyanka Bhattacharya
For the petitioner in WPA 362 of Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, 2023 Mr. Pritam Majumdar, Mr. Rahul Deb Goenka, Mr. Mainak Singh Barma
For the added party in CAN 26 of Mr. Arup Kr. Lahiri, 2023 in WPA 5406 of 2022 Mr. Debojyoti De
For the petitioner in WPA 18627 of Mr. Santanu Maji, 2019, WPA 23946 of 2019,WPA Ms. Sayani Biswas 19053 of 2022 and WPA 19060 of 2022
For the added party in CAN 1 of Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, 2023 in WPA 18381 of 2021 Md. Hyafiz Ali, Mr. Shanta Sarkar, Mr. Debojyoti De
For the ED Mr. Dhiraj Triwedi, Ld. DSG Mr. Samrat Goswami
For the CBI Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi Mr. Arijit Majumder Ms. Supriti Sarkhel
For the respondent no.4 in WPA Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak, 18355 of 2019 Mr. Prasenjit Debnath
For the applicants in CAN 22 of Mr. Pratik Dhar, Ld. Sr. Advocate 2023 in WPA 13700 of 2021 Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak, Mr. S. Khandakhar, Mr. S. Ghosh, Ms. Swati Jha 76
For the respondent nos.641 & 642 Mr. Ritwick Pattanayak in WPA 12270 of 2021
For the respondent no.4 in WPA Mr. Ritwick Pattanayak, 18355/2019 Mr. Prasenjit Debnath
For the applicant CAN 6 of 2024 in Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Ld. Sr. WPA 25380 of 2022 Advocate Mr. Yuvraj P. Narvankar, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Supratim Dhar, Ms. Madhupriya, Mr. Hebzur Rahaman
For the added respondent nos. 3, Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, 5, 6 & 7 in WPA 18355 of 2019 Mr. Mahadeb Sarkar, Mr. Bikash Chowdhury
For the petitioners in WPA 4313 of Ms. Kakoli Samajpaty 2023 Ms. Sangita Jangra Mr. Subhronil Roy
For the appellant in MAT 85 of Mr. Arunava Ghosh, 2023 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Mr. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the added respondent in WPA Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. 13700 of 2021 Adv., Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Mr. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty
For the writ petitioner in WPA Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., 2967 of 2023 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Ms. Tannistha Lahiri, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul, Mr. Pranati Das, Mr. Anish Chakraborty 77
For the petitioner in WPA 4313 of Ms. Kakali Samajpaty, 2023 Ms. Sangita Jangra Mr. Subranil Ray
For the respondent no. 4 in WPA Ms. Kakali Samajpaty, 21430 of 2021 Ms. Sangita Jangra Mr. Subranil Ray
For the added respondent in CAN Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee 13 of 2023 in WPA 13700 of 2021 Mr. Niraj Gupta Ms. Afroja Nusrat
For the applicant in MAT 345 of Ms. Debyani Ashra 2023, MAT 359 of 2023
For the SSC in WPA 2613/2018, Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyoapdhyay WPA 18627/2019, WPA 21923/2019, WPA 18034/2018, WPA 20039/2019, WPA 30065/2017, WPA 8536/2020
For the added respondent in WPA Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, 5406 of 2022 Mr. Aniruddha Mitra
For the applicant in CAN 31/24 in Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya, Sr. WPA 13700/2021 Advocate Mr. A. Maitra, Mr. S. P. Lahiri
For the petitioners in WPA Mr. Shuvro P. Lahiri 21430/21, WPA 4313/2023
For the added respondents of CAN Mr. Shuvro P. Lahiri 23/23 in WPA 13700/21 and CAN Mr. R. Naskar 23/2023, CAN 24/2023 and CAN 25/2023 in WPA 5406/2022
For the petitioners in WPA 4313 of Mrs. Kakali Samajpaty, 2023 and for the private Ms. Sangeeta Jangra respondent in WPA 21266 of 2021 78
For the added respondent of Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, CAN/1/24 in WPA 10947/2021 Ms. Parna Mukherjee, Ms.Barnali Gantait
For the petitioner of CAN 34/24 in Mr. Yudhisthir Maity WPA 5406 of 2022
For the applicant in WPA 5406 of Mr. Anirban Sen 2022
Heard on : January 15, 2024, January 16, 2024, January 17, 2024, January 18, 2024, January 19, 2024, January 24, 2024, February 5, 2024, March 4, 2024, March 6, 2024, March 7, 2024, March 8, 2024, March 11, 2024, March12, 2024, March 13, 2024, March 14, 2024, March 19, 2024, March 20, 2024
Judgement on : April 22, 2024 79
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ 80 CONTENTIONS OF WRIT PETITIONERS ........................................................................................................... 81 CONTENTIONS OF WRIT PETITIONERS COMPLAINING OF RANK JUMP .......................................................... 93 CONTENTIONS OF CBI .................................................................................................................................... 97 CONTENTIONS OF SSC .................................................................................................................................... 98 CONTENTIONS OF SELECTED CANDIDATES OF GROUP-D .............................................................................. 100 CONTENTION OF ADDED RESPONDENTS ...................................................................................................... 113 CONTENTION OF WRIT PETITIONERS IN WPA 7370 OF 2023 ........................................................................ 121 CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS IN MAT 274 OF 2023 AND MAT 443 OF 2023 .............................................. 123 CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES OPPOSING THE WRIT PETITIONS ....................................................................... 130 ISSUES.......................................................................................................................................................... 152 JURISDICTION .............................................................................................................................................. 154 MAINTAINABILITY........................................................................................................................................ 158 CITED AUTHORITIES ON MAINTAINABILITY................................................................................................................ 159 ANALYSIS OF THE CITED AUTHORITIES ON MAINTAINABILITY ........................................................................................ 166 NATURE OF THE WRIT PETITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 167 DELAY ON PART OF WRIT PETITIONERS AND MAINTAINABILITY ..................................................................................... 172 COURT'S ORDERS ON THE WRIT PETITIONS .............................................................................................................. 178 AFFIDAVITS AND REPORTS OF SSC .......................................................................................................................... 193 AFFIDAVITS AND REPORTS OF BOARD ...................................................................................................................... 206 REPORTS OF CBI ................................................................................................................................................. 207 ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT ............................................................................................................................... 214 INFERENCES FROM THE ROLE OF ARTICLE 12 AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................... 218 FINDINGS ON MAINTAINABILITY ............................................................................................................................. 222 CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 65B OF THE EVIDENCE ACT ............................................................... 225 UPLOADING OF OMR SHEETS....................................................................................................................... 246 REMAINING ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 247 OPTIONS AVAILABLE............................................................................................................................................. 247 FIRST OPTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 248 SECOND OPTION ................................................................................................................................................. 248 THIRD OPTION .................................................................................................................................................... 257 ILLEGALITIES IN THE SELECTION PROCESS .................................................................................................... 259 RELIEFS ........................................................................................................................................................ 262 EXCEPTION................................................................................................................................................... 270 DIRECTIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 272 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 275 80
Preface
1. Several writ petitions and few appeals have been heard
by this Division Bench, relating to the 2016 selection process
conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service
Commission (SSC for short), in terms of the order dated
November 9, 2023 passed by the Supreme Court.
2. Initially, in terms of such order dated November 9,
2023 of the Supreme Court, we had commenced hearing of
the matters on January 29, 2024. In the midst of hearing,
learned counsel for one of the parties had submitted that, his
clients would require inspection of the documents sought to
be relied upon in the proceedings. Pursuant to such request
being made, hearing of the matters had been adjourned and
directions for giving inspection were passed on February 5,
2024. Further directions had been passed to facilitate the
inspection. Subsequently, hearing of the matters had
commenced on March 4, 2024. The matters have been heard
practically on a day-to-day basis and for the substantial
period of the day on the dates of hearing. Learned counsels for
the parties has submitted written notes on argument. 81
Contentions of Writ Petitioners
3. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners has drawn the
attention of the Court to the fact that, the 2016 selection
process conducted by SSC for recruitment to the post of
Group D and C in terms of the West Bengal School Service
Commission (Selection of Persons for the Appointment to Non-
Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 and to the post of Assistant
Teacher in classes IX and X in terms of West Bengal School
Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Post of
Teachers for Classes IX and X in Secondary and Higher
Secondary Schools) Rules, 2006 and to the post of Assistant
Teacher in classes XI and XII in terms of West Bengal School
Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to Post of
Teachers for Classes XI and XII in Higher Secondary Schools)
Rules, 2016 are under challenge. He has pointed out that in
one of such writ petitions being WPA No. 12266 of 2021
(Sandeep Prasad & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) the
writ petitioners approached the learned single Judge pointing
out 25 examples where candidates were recommended by SSC
after expiry of the panel prepared in relation to recruitment
process in respect of Group D appointments. Similar writ 82
petitions had been filed in respect of Group C appointments.
In this context, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the
affidavit of SSC affirmed on November 18, 2021 and November
22, 2021. The learned single Judge by an order dated
November 21, 2021 passed in WPA 12266 of 2021 had
appointed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to
investigate the illegalities and the money trail, if any. An
appeal had been carried against such order dated November
21, 2021 when the Appeal Court by an order dated December
6, 2021 found serious irregularities in the recruitment process
and held that a constitutional Court can go deeper into the
matter in the interest of justice and mould the relief
accordingly. He has contended that, the issue of non-
maintainability of the writ petitions had been decided by the
Division Bench and that the Division Bench had found the
writ petitions to be maintainable.
4. On the aspect of maintainability, Mr. Bhattacharya
has contended that, such issue is no longer germane at this
stage of the proceeding, as the Court proceeded all throughout
in exercise of constitutional powers, in order to ensure Articles
14 and 15 of the Constitution of India were not violated. In
support of his contentions, he has relied upon 2003 Volume 83
6 Supreme Court Cases 581 (T. K. Rangarajan vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu and others), 2016 Volume 4
Supreme Court Cases 160 (Dharam Pal vs. State of
Haryana and Others), and 2018 Volume 12 Supreme
Court Cases 61 (Bharati Reddy vs. State of Karnataka
and Others). He has contended that, in facts of the present
case, since a scam relating to public appointments has been
discovered a Constitutional Court should not hesitate to
enforce compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that, the Division
Bench appointed a four-member committee consisting of a
representative of SSC, a representative of the Board, a
practising advocate of the Court under the Chairmanship of
Justice Ranjit Kumar Bag (retired) for a thorough investigation
with regard to the selection process. Such committee had
made a thorough investigation and made several
recommendations. He has pointed out the recommendations
and the findings of such committee.
6. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that, SSC filed
several affidavits in the matters admitting illegal appointments
and sought to justify them under the garb of inadvertent
mistakes. In this regard, he has referred to the affidavit of SSC 84
affirmed on November 3, 2021 in WPA 13700 of 2021, affidavit
affirmed on March 11, 2022 by SSC in WPA 18590 of 2021,
affidavit affirmed by SSC in March 2022 in WPA 21268 of
2021, affidavit of SSC affirmed on March 11, 2022 in WPA
21258 of 2021, affidavit affirmed in March 2022 by SSC in
WPA 18802 of 2021, affidavit affirmed in March 2022 by SSC
in WPA 18381 of 2021, affidavit affirmed on March 10, 2022
by SSC in WPA 18387 of 2021, affidavit affirmed on March 9,
2022 by SSC in WPA 18379 of 2021. He has also relied upon a
report of SSC where according to him, SSC effectively
admitted the illegality with regard to candidates not being in
the merit list at all but still made it to the panel. SSC had
admitted that, the beneficiaries of such illegal act did not have
any legal right to challenge the same.
7. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, an appeal was
preferred against various orders of the learned single Judge
pertaining to different writ petitions relating to the 4
categories of the recruitment. Such appeal had been
dismissed by a judgement and order dated May 18, 2022.
8. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that, CBI produced
an interim report with regard to another kind of discrepancy
being the manipulation of the Optical Marks Recognition 85
(OMR) answer scripts. The learned single Judge has passed an
order dated September 20, 2022 with regard thereto. CBI has
filed an affidavit dated December 7, 2022 which stated that
scanning of all original OMR sheets had been done at the
office of the SSC by M/s NYSA. He has pointed out that, SSC,
Board or the state government including several candidates
who are private respondents in WPA 13700 of 2021 did not
challenge such affidavit of CBI.
9. Mr. Bhattacharya has pointed out that, CBI filed
several interim reports before the learned single Judge on the
basis of which learned single Judge directed SSC to file an
affidavit. Thereafter SSC has filed an affidavit affirmed on
2023 wherein it admitted that SSC appointed M/s NYSA for
scanning and assessing the OMR answer scripts in relation to
the recruitment processes. Such affidavit had also
acknowledged that 2,819 OMR sheets and four answer strings
were lesser than the marks of the candidates kept in the
server of SSC. Similar affidavits had been filed in respect of
the other 3 categories of the selection processes. He has
pointed out that, these affidavits were the first threshold
reaction of SSC.
86
10. Mr. Bhattacharya has pointed out that, SSC has filed
an affidavit before the Supreme Court admitting that the
Chairman of SSC in exercise of executive powers directed
destruction of the OMRs, answer scripts and other papers
within a year after keeping a mirror image of the same. He has
contended that, such decision was arbitrary and illegal and in
violation of Section 8 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
11. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, SSC still retains
the mirror image of the OMR sheets in respect of the
candidates and in support of such contention, he has referred
to 3 affidavits of 3 of the petitioners, namely, Anindita Bera
affirmed on January 24, 2024, Nasrin Khatun affirmed on
February 5, 2024 and Setab Uddin affirmed on February 5,
2024. He has contended that, SSC supplied copy of OMR on
January 18, 2024 from the data stored in the SSC database.
Such OMR for at least one candidate had been given from the
database in 2018. SSC had published some OMR sheets in
terms of the order of the Court dated December 14, 2022.
OMRs published in 2018 and 2022 are the same and
identical. He has contended that, SSC is still in possession of
the OMR answer sheets.
87
12. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, the Court by an
order dated February 5, 2024 gave opportunity to all
interested parties in the litigation to inspect the OMR sheets
from the CBI authorities. After taking such inspection, none
has disputed the veracity of the OMR sheets in possession of
CBI. On the contrary, one of the candidates had admitted the
OMR sheet to be genuine and questioned the authority of
marks awarded to that particular candidate in variance with
the OMR sheet.
13. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, CBI from time
to time filed several reports which disclose that OMR sheets
recovered were shown to the SSC who checked and found
serious manipulations. Accordingly, the learned single Judge
had directed SSC to publish the list of beneficiaries of such
manipulations. List of beneficiaries of manipulations had been
directed to be published in respect of appointments for classes
IX and X as well as for Group C and D. He has pointed out
that, the list published by SSC shows that candidates who
secured zero in the OMR sheets were given more than
qualifying marks and subsequently appointed. Supreme Court
had stayed the publication of the list for appointment of
Assistants Teachers for classes XI and XII. 88
14. Mr. Bhattacharya has pointed out that, SSC
terminated the appointments of the beneficiaries of the
illegalities by invoking Rule 17 of the Rules. SSC had also
stated in an affidavit that there may be more candidates who
were wrongly recommended for appointment by SSC and
prayed for time for verifying the records. In this regard, he has
referred to page 334 of volume 2 of the compilation. He has
pointed out that, till date, SSC did not conclusively identify
the total number of illegalities. He has pointed out that before
the Division Bench, SSC by an affidavit affirmed on December
20, 2023 stated that with regard to the issue of rank jump for
appointments of classes IX and X, out of 183 candidates, 122
candidates have been removed and 61 were still remaining.
Subsequently, by another affidavit affirmed on January 5,
2024, SSC had stated that out of the remaining 61 candidates
40 candidates were neither in the panel nor in the wait list
and stated that 2 more candidates were identified. He has
contended that, SSC was still in the process of identifying the
illegal appointments.
15. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, the vires of Rule
17 had not been challenged by appointees. Appointments had
been cancelled. He has contended that, vires can be 89
challenged if the Rule was in violation of the parent statute
and if the same was arbitrary. According to him, Rule 17 does
not suffer from any infirmity especially on the ground of
violation of the principles of natural justice since there is no
scope for any pre decisional hearing in case of appointments
made in public employment which was vitiated by fraud or
illegalities.
16. Referring to Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, SSC acted upon
the disclosures made by CBI. He has contended that, primary
document is the scanned copy of the OMR and that such
scanning was prepared at the office of SSC. Assessment had
been made on the basis of such scanned copy. Without
prejudice to his contention, he has relied upon 2014 Volume
10 Supreme Court Cases 473 (Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer
and Others) and 2020 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 1
(Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal and Others) with regard thereto. He has
contended that, requirement of certificate under Section 65B
(4) was procedural in nature and can be relaxed by the Court
wherever the interest of justice so justifies. He has also relied
upon paragraph 18.21 of Murphy on Evidence, 5th edition for 90
the proposition that, if the Court's conscience is satisfied that
the evidence is relevant, the Court has inherent powers to
take the affidavit of documents on record for proper
adjudication.
17. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that, powers under
Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862 should be
exercised by a Constitutional Court in order to effectively
adjudicate the disputes, without even deciding on the
question of admissibility of evidence. He has pointed out that,
SSC is the creator of the OMR which invariably contains the
signature of the respective candidates, signature of the
respective invigilators, a barcode which is unique to each
OMR and a unique identification number along with the
question booklet number to which it relates to. Moreover, SSC
had accepted the electronic data seized by CBI during the
course of the investigation. SSC had compared and checked
such data with the digital records available in the servers of
SSC and admitted the genuineness of the retrieved OMR. He
has contended that, CBI in its affidavit affirmed on December
7, 2022 filed in WPA 13700 of 2021 adequately described the
manner in which, such electronic data was retrieved.
According to him, there has been sufficient compliance with 91
the provisions of Section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. He has pointed out that, requisite certificate had been
produced by CBI and filed by way of an affidavit affirmed on
January 15, 2024.
18. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, appointments to
any post under the control of a statutory authority is bound to
be in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
There is no ground to challenge the report of the CBI which
had exposed the nature and variety of the manipulations and
which ultimately snowballed and took the shape of a public
scam relating to appointments of school teachers and non-
teaching staff. He has relied upon 1994 Volume 4 Supreme
Court Cases 164 (H. R. Adyanthaya and Others vs.
Sandoz (India) Limited and Others) and 2023 Volume 9
Supreme Court Cases 749 (Dulu Deka vs. State of Assam
and Others) in support of his contentions. According to him,
the appointments have been vitiated also due to infractions of
the declared reservation policy.
19. Referring to 2013 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 1
(State of Gujarat and Another vs. Justice R.A. Mehta and
Others) Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, corruption is a
cancer to the democratic governance. According to him, Court 92
has the duty to reveal the truth to ensure justice. For
revelation of truth, the Court may not always be shackled with
the procedural niceties. He has relied upon 2012 Volume 5
Supreme Court Cases 370 (Maria Margarida Sequeira
Fernandes and Other vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira) in this
regard.
20. Mr. Bhattacharya has pointed out that SSC filed an
application to protect illegal appointments by creating
supernumerary post. He has pointed out that, due to the
opposition of the writ petitioners, such application was not
allowed to be withdrawn. He has also pointed out that, on
appeal from the order refusing to grant permission to
withdraw such application, the Division Bench was pleased to
decline the permission for withdrawal of such application
made by SSC by the order dated November 24, 2022. A special
leave petition had been preferred in which an order dated
November 25, 2022 was passed which did not grant
permission to withdraw the application. Therefore, according
to him, SSC had admitted illegal appointments.
21. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the Court has no option
but to set aside the entire selection process. In support of 93
such contention, he has relied upon 2021 Volume 16
Supreme Court Cases 217 (State of Tamil Nadu and
Another vs. A. Kalaimani and Others). Alternatively, he has
submitted that the Court will be pleased to direct preparation
of the merit list on the basis of the performance of the
candidates reflected in the scanned OMR and direct issuance
of appointment letters in terms of the new merit ranking after
setting aside all appointments made by the tainted process till
date.
Contentions of writ petitioners complaining of rank jump
22. Mr Ashish Kumar Chowdhury, learned advocate
appearing for another set of writ petitioners has submitted
that, he was representing writ petitioners who had suffered
rank jumping. He has contended that, there were several
irregularities in the selection process. Moreover, there has
been wrong assessment of answers. Writ petitioners have
raised disputes in the counselling process as also the vacancy
said to be declared. He has contended that, he was
representing writ petitioners who have raised such issues.
23. On the rank jumping issue, Mr. Chowdhury has
contended that, SSC adopted 2 types of irregularities with the 94
intention to give appointments to the lower ranked and less
meritorious candidates. According to him, firstly, lower rank
order candidates got the appointment since SSC did not
prepare the panel in terms of Rule 12 (7) of the recruitment
Rules on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidate by
adding the marks obtained in the written test and marks of
academics and professional qualification and marks of the
personality test. SSC had followed Rule 12 (6) on the basis of
marks obtained by the candidates in the written test and
marks obtained in academics and professional qualification by
excluding the marks of the personality test as a result of
which the candidate who obtained higher marks before
personality test got the appointment and the candidate who
got high marks in total of the personality test was deprived of
the appointment. Secondly, SSC did not follow Rule 12 (9) of
the Recruitment Rules and had given recommendation to the
lower ranked candidates without considering the seniority of
age according to date of birth, if more than one candidate
obtained the same aggregate marks in total.
24. Mr. Chowdhury has contended that, in similar
circumstances the High Court had from time to time passed
orders that higher ranked candidates in terms of Rule 12 (7) 95
were legally entitled to get appointments. Subsequently SSC
had admitted their mistakes and gave appointments to the
candidates those who were deprived. He has relied upon
orders passed in WPA 1310 of 2019 and WPA 5406 of 2022 in
this regard.
25. Referring to the affidavit of SSC that, out of 183
candidates in rank jump issue, 122 candidates were removed
by SSC, Mr Chowdhury has submitted that, the fact is that
122 candidates recommended did not join the post and as
such removal of such a candidate by the SSC is gross
suppression of fact.
26. Mr Chowdhury has contended that, SSC acted in
violation of Rule 12 (7) of the recruitment Rules. The method
of categorisation as has been spoken about by SSC does not
find place or support by any Rules. Such a method permits a
lower meritorious candidate to obtain appointment over a
better candidate. Such a course of action should not be
countenanced.
27. Mr. Chowdhury has contended that, the entire
selection process conducted by SSC by not publishing the
interview list, merit list and panel separately in terms of Rule
2 (e), (f) and (g) of the recruitment Rules in each and every 96
stage of the selection process violated the Rules. Moreover,
SSC did not declare the cut off marks subject-wise and
category -wise before the personality test in terms of Rule 12
(6). SSC had prepared the panel without considering the total
marks obtained by the candidates by following Rule 12 (7) and
as a result, lower meritorious candidates got appointment and
higher meritorious candidates were deprived. Appointment
had been given without taking into consideration the marks of
the personality test by following Rule 12 (6) and the seniority
according to age by following Rule 12 (9) of the recruitment
Rules at the time of preparation of the panel. SSC did not
publish the final answers key as a result of which the
candidates were unable to ascertain the marks granted for the
right answers. Before counselling the entire vacant post of the
schools was not declared and as a result the higher rank and
higher meritorious candidates had been deprived from getting
opportunity to choose their schools nearest to their residence.
SSC had failed to declare vacancy as per the ratio of 1:1.4.
28. Mr. Chowdhury has referred to the order dated July
12, 2018 passed in AST No. 49 of 2018. He has pointed out
that list of successful candidates was published on August 20,
2018 without the details of the candidates and without 97
breakup of the marks obtained by the candidates. He has
contended that, the panel published in terms of the order
dated May 12, 2022 passed in WPA 19580 of 2021 was
without complying with the provisions of Rule 12 (7) and Rule
12 (9) of the recruitment Rules 2016. In support of his
contentions, Mr. Chowdhury has relied upon 2011 Volume
12 Supreme Court Cases 85 (Bedanga Talukdar vs.
Saifudaullah Khan and Others), 2008 Volume 3 Supreme
Court Cases 512 (K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Another), 2001 Volume 10 Supreme Court
Cases 51 (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And
Another vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Another) and
2013 SCC OnLine Cal 5639 (Alo Basak vs. The State of
West Bengal & Ors.), and 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1408
(Amitava Sengupta vs. Malati Saha).
Contentions of CBI
29. Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, learned Deputy Solicitor General
appearing for CBI has referred to the final report of the CBI
dated February 5, 2024 as also to the report dated January
16, 2024. He has submitted that, CBI concluded the
investigations and submitted chargesheet against the accused 98
persons before the Jurisdictional Court. He has contended
that, there was widespread manipulation in the selection
process.
Contentions of SSC
30. Dr. Sutanu Patra appearing for the School Service
Commission has referred to the four affidavits filed pursuant
to the order of this Court. He has drawn the attention of the
Court to the steps and measures that SSC took subsequent to
the discovery of the illegalities in the selection process. He has
contended that, SSC took such steps on the basis of the data
supplied by CBI. He has pointed out that, SSC had no
material to disbelieve the data supplied by CBI. Moreover, SSC
had acted pursuant to the orders of the Court.
31. Dr. Patra, on the aspect of categorisation, has referred
to the various provisions of the Rules and contended that, the
list was prepared and published in the web site on the
understanding of the categorization process as prescribed by
the Rules. He has contended that, such categorisation was
uniformly applied for all the candidates. He has pointed out
that, pursuant to orders passed by the Court subsequently,
the process for categorisation was altered. However, prior to 99
such orders being passed by the Court, as there was no
judicial pronouncement, SSC had categorised the various
candidates in accordance with what SSC understood of the
provisions of categorisation as laid down in the rules.
32. Dr. Patra has drawn the attention of the Court to the
fact that 7 phases of counselling were held within the validity
period of the panel. The 8th phase of counselling had been
held after the expiry of the panel.
33. In response to the queries of the Court, Dr. Patra has
submitted that, should the Court direct evaluation of the OMR
sheets afresh, then, SSC would be in a position to do so.
However, the same would require considerable amount of
time. In response to another query of the Court, he and the
Chairman of SSC, who was directed to be present in Court,
stated that, SSC did not have any knowledge of the
appointment of M/s. Data Scantech Solutions by M/s. M/s
NYSA. SSC does not have any records with regard to the
appointment of M/s. Data Scantech Solutions.
34. Dr. Patra has referred to the quantum of declared
vacancy and the recommendations made. He has also pointed
out that, certain recommendations were made after the expiry 100
of the panel and that, appointments were given to candidates
who were not even in the panel.
Contentions of Selected Candidates of Group-D
35. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay learned Senior Advocate
appearing for some candidates who had secured appointments
in Group D has referred to a list of dates. From such list of
dates, he has pointed out that, Rules of 2009 which governs
such selection process, were notified on June 9, 2009. The
notification for the 3rd regional level selection test for
recruitment of non-teaching staff 2016 had been published on
August 9, 2016. Written examination in that regard had been
held on February 19, 2017. His clients had appeared for
verification of the documents and credentials and for
personality test on August 19, 2017. Final result had been
published on November 6, 2017. Panel of successful
candidates had been published on November 6, 2017. His
clients had been called for first phase of counselling in
February 2018. His clients had been recommended for
appointment on February 21, 2018 and May 11, 2018.
Appointment letters had been issued to his client on June 4,
2018. By an order dated March 28, 2019, learned single 101
Judge had directed SSC to opt out the district by counseling
in compliance of the requirement of Rules 14 (13) and 15 of
the 2009 Rules. He has pointed out that, the panel and
waitlist in relation to the 2016 recruitment for the post of
Group D staff had expired on May 4, 2019 which was notified
by SSC on September 2, 2019. SSC had published revised
panel in compliance with the order dated March 28, 2019 on
May 20, 2019. He has pointed out that on November 22,
2021, 4 unsuccessful candidates who were placed in the
waiting list had filed WPA 18585 of 2021 for setting aside of
the memo dated September 2, 2019 and appointment to the
post of Group D. By an order dated November 25, 2021, High
Court had directed stopping of the salary of the Group D
employees who were being investigated until further orders.
His clients were not being investigated into. He has pointed
out that there was another order dated February 19, 2022
passed by the High Court in WPA 12266 of 2021. He has also
pointed out that between the period April 2022 and August
2022 services of some of his clients were confirmed by the
Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
The learned single Judge had passed an order dated
September 20, 2022 in WPA 12266 of 2021 observing that 102
persons who were illegally appointed should resign failing
which strict orders would be passed. On November 22, 2022,
a list titled Final Panel under 3rd RLST 2016 had been
published by SSC containing the names, roll numbers, marks
and ranks of the successful participants according to the
respective districts. CBI had filed an affidavit on December 6,
2022 stating that OMRs were scanned by M/s NYSA. On
December 22, 2022, CBI had supplied a chart containing
names of 1,698 persons who according to CBI could have
been illegally appointed to the post of Group D. He has
submitted that out of 1,698 persons disclosed by CBI, 1,694
were given appointments. High Court had directed SSC to
upload the 1,694 names on the website with the intimation of
the pendency of the writ petition. By an order dated February
9, 2023 passed in WPA 18585 of 2021 the High Court had
directed SSC to take steps in respect of 2,819 candidates
whose OMR sheets were found by CBI in the M/s NYSA hard
disks and which according to CBI was manipulated. By an
order dated February 10, 2023, the learned single Judge had
directed SSC to cancel the recommendation of 1,911
candidates and directed such candidates to refund their
salary. The learned Single Judge had held that, such 103
candidates were not required to be heard since the publication
of OMR sheets demonstrated the manipulations and
discrepancies. The learned single Judge had also directed SSC
to declare 1,911 post as vacant and give recommendation to
the waitlisted candidates. By a letter dated February 10, 2023,
the Chairman of SSC had cancelled the recommendation
letters issued to 1,911 Group D candidates in connection with
the 3rd Regional Level Selection Test (NT) 2016 which
included his clients. West Bengal Board for Secondary
Education had also cancelled the appointment letters of his
clients on February 10, 2023. Notification for counselling for
recruitment to the post had been published on February 10,
2023. SSC had issued a tentative list of candidates in such
counselling on February 11, 2023. In appeals directed against
the orders dated February 9, 2023 and February 10, 2023, the
Division Bench had stayed the part of the order dated
February 10, 2023 directing refund of the salary and refused
to grant any other stay on February 16, 2023. On a Special
Leave Petition directed against the order dated February 16,
2023, the Supreme Court on May 1, 2023 had stayed the
orders of the High Court. By the order dated November 1,
2023, the Supreme Court had directed hearing of all writ 104
petitions and appeals by a Division Bench afresh with the
direction that all earlier findings on the issue should be
ignored. Division Bench constituted specially in terms of such
order had by an order dated December 6, 2023 allowed the
application of his clients for being added as party respondents
to the writ petition. SSC had filed its first report in the form of
an affidavit on December 12, 2023. SSC had filed its 2nd
report in the form of an affidavit of December 18, 2023. SSC
had filed its 3rd report in the form of an affidavit on December
20, 2023. SSC had filed its 4th report in the form of an
affidavit on January 5, 2024 wherein additional documents
were furnished. On January 9, 2024 CBI had filed a
comprehensive status report disclosing the names of persons
against whom they filed chargesheet after investigation into
the selection processes. His clients had filed an exception to
the comprehensive status report of the CBI as also to the
reports filed by the SSC. CBI had filed an affidavit on January
16, 2024 in compliance with the order dated January 15,
2024 disclosing the alleged certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1862 dated September 16, 2022. His
clients had filed an exception to the affidavit of the CBI dated
January 16, 2024 on January 18, 2024. He has pointed out 105
that, CBI filed an affidavit in compliance with the order dated
January 24, 2024 which stated that the job of scanning of
OMR was sub- delegated by M/s NYSA to M/s Data Scantech
Solutions.
36. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has submitted that, till the
date of the personality test, all the candidates including the
writ petitioners did not raise any objection with regard to the
selection process. Writ petitioners had participated in the
selection process with their eyes open. Even on November 6,
2017 when the result of the 3rd RLST was published, and the
respondents had become successful candidates, the writ
petitioners did not challenge such result. After 3 years of the
successful candidates having joined their respective posts was
WPA 18585 of 2021 filed. According to him, the writ petition
was hit by delay and laches and that, the learned single Judge
could not have entertained the writ petitions. None of the
present respondents had been made parties in such writ
petitions and therefore the point of maintainability on the
ground of delay could not be agitated at an earlier point of
time. He has contended that, in terms of the order dated
November 9, 2023, the Hon'ble Court may be placed to decide
the point of maintainability on the ground of delay and laches 106
and that, unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the
selection process after participating in the selection.
37. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has submitted that, the
writ petition did not contain any prayer for setting aside or
cancelling the entire selection process including the selection
of the successful candidates. According to him, since the writ
petitioners did not seek such relief setting aside the selection
process would be beyond the scope of the writ petition. He has
referred to the pleadings of the writ petition and contended
that, the pleadings in the writ petition are vague.
38. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has contended that, the
writ petitions should be considered in terms of the order dated
November 9, 2023 of the Supreme Court. He has pointed out
that, the High Court should examine the admissibility of the
OMR sheet images recovered by the CBI before placing full-
scale reliance on them and directing termination of services of
concerned candidates. The question of maintainability had
been kept open to the decided. Supreme Court had observed
that, the proceedings have strong attributes of a public
interest litigation. Direction for uploading the OMR sheet can
only be passed after deciding on the admissibility of the
recovered data in terms of the prevailing Rules of evidence. 107
39. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has submitted that, the
burden of proof is on the CBI to establish the genuineness of
the OMR on the basis of the established principles of law and
not on the basis of preponderance of probability. He has
referred to the report of the SSC filed by the affidavit affirmed
on December 18, 2023 in this regard. He has contended that,
SSC found mismatch only because the OMR sheets recovered
by CBI was directed to be looked into by the Court. He has
referred to the order dated June 24, 2022 passed by the
learned single Judge in WPA No. 8059 of 2022. He has
contended that, the marks stored in the server were uploaded
and thereafter merit list was published. He has pointed out
that, the position of all successful candidates in the merit lists
published in terms of the order dated June 24, 2022 was the
same as the merit list published in terms of the order of the
High Court on May 20, 2019 or November 6, 2017. He has
contended that, therefore there is no question of any
irregularity and/or illegality in preparing the merit list.
Moreover, none of the writ petitioners had ever questioned the
legality and/or validity of the merit lists.
40. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has contended that, his
client filed an exception to the report filed by SSC affirmed on 108
January 15, 2024. In such exception, his clients have
contended that, SSC proceeded on the basis of OMR sheets
supplied by CBI. He has contended that, the uploaded version
has lost its force in view of the subsequent order of the
Supreme Court dated November 9, 2023.
41. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has contended that, it will
be evident from the report of the CBI submitted on December
7, 2022 in WPA 13700 of 2021 that scanning of all original
OMR sheets was done at the office of SSC by M/s. NYSA. The
hard disks had been seized from an ex-employee. He has
pointed out that, from paragraph 4 of the affidavit affirmed by
CBI on February 5, 2024 that, M/s NYSA had appointed
another entity. He has contended that, the report of CBI was
misleading and that they were taking different stands.
42. Referring to the alleged certificate under Section 65B of
the Evidence Act, 1872 Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has
contended that, the same did not fulfil the requirements of
Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The person who has
given the certificate was not in charge of the operations in
respect of the recruitment examination conducted by SSC.
Such person had no lawful control over the computer in terms
of Section 65B (2) (a) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The alleged 109
hard disks seized cannot be said to be computer as
understood in Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act, 1872. He
has pointed out that, in absence of the definition of computer
in the Evidence Act itself, general meaning of computer has to
be taken. He has contended that, requirements as mentioned
in Section 65B (2) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 are
completely absent in the alleged certificate. The alleged
certificate had been issued from a completely different
company. The person did not hold any sensitive or key
position in M/s NYSA. He has referred to 2020 Volume 7
Supreme Court Cases 1 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others) in support of
his contentions. He has also pointed out that CBI filed a
chargesheet against Mr. Pankaj Bansal who had given the
alleged certificate and therefore, he cannot be relied upon.
43. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has referred to Section 45A
of the Evidence Act, 1872 and contended that, since the Court
is required to form an opinion in respect of the matter where
information was stored in a computer, the examiner of
electronic evidence as contemplated in Section 79A of the
Information Technology Act is a relevant fact. He has referred
to circulars issued in this regard.
110
44. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has contended that, Section
45B of the Evidence Act, 1872 puts safeguards for the
accused person in place in view of the fact that the electronic
device may be misused by an investigating agency. He has
contended that right to fair trial is a constitutional right
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, SSC
cannot cancel an appointed employee recommendation
without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected
person. The right of hearing of the affected person is inbuilt in
view of the fact that the principles of natural justice have not
been excluded under the recruitment Rules.
45. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has contended that SSC
has already destroyed the OMR after one year from the date of
publication of the panel.
46. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay has relied upon 2002
Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 113 (State of Punjab vs.
Raghbir Chand Sharma and Another), 2009 Volume 4
Supreme Court Cases 555 (Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs.
Aligarh Muslim University and Others), 1997 Volume 8
Supreme Court Cases 488 (Surinder Singh and Others vs.
State of Punjab and Another), 1996 Volume 2 Supreme
Court Cases 7 (State of Bihar and Others vs. Md. 111
Kalimuddin and Others, 2006 Volume 8 Supreme Court
Cases 686 (Union of India and Others vs. B. Valluvan and
Others) on the aspect of panel. On the aspect of delay, he has
relied upon 1975 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 285
(Aflatoon and Others vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and
Others), 2022 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 25 (Union of
India vs. N. Murugeshan and others) and 2014 Volume 4
Supreme Court Cases 108 (Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board and others). On the
contention that unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the
selection process and that a Court should not take a
microscopic view he has relied upon 2008 Volume 4
Supreme Court Cases 619 (Sadananda Halo and others
vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others), 2020 Volume 2
Supreme Court Cases 173 (Anupal Singh and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others), 1995 Volume 3
Supreme Court Cases 486 (Madan Lal and others vs.
State of J & K and others) and 2011 Volume 1 Supreme
Court Cases 150 (Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public
Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others). On the
aspect that the relief cannot be granted beyond the scope of
the writ petition, he has relied upon 2000 Volume 2 112
Supreme Court Cases 439 (Commissioner, Bangalore
Development Authority vs. S. Vasudeva and others) and
2012 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 297 (State of
Jharkhand and others vs. K.N. Farms and Industries
Private Limited). On the applicability of Section 65B of the
Evidence Act, 1872 he has relied upon 2020 Volume 7
Supreme Court Cases 1 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others). On the aspect
of Section 45A of the Evidence Act, 1872 he has relied upon
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 354 (Yogesh Arun Wakure vs.
State of Maharashtra and another). With regard to the
evidentiary value of a report of the CBI, he has relied upon
2007 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 110 (M.C. Mehta (Taj
Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India and others), 2022
Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases 200 (Rajesh Yadav and
another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) and 2009 Volume 5
Supreme Court Cases 528 (Syed Askari Hadi Ali
Augustine Imam and another vs. State (Delhi
Administration) and another). On the aspect that
chargesheet is not a public document, he has relied upon
2023 SCC OnLine SC 58 (Saurav Das vs. Union of India
and others). With regard to the civil consequences and 113
applicability of natural justice, he has relied upon 1978
Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 405 (Mohinder Singh Gill
and Another vs. The Chief Electioner Commissioner, New
Delhi and Others). He has contended that, post decision
hearing will not cure the lack of hearing on the breach of
principles of natural justice, and relied upon 1989 Volume 1
Supreme Court Cases 764 (H.L. Trehan and others vs.
Union of India and others) and 1987 Volume 4 Supreme
Court Cases 431 (K.I. Shephard and others vs. Union of
India and others) in this regard.
Contention of added Respondents
47. Mr Pratik Dhar learned senior advocate appearing for
some of the added respondents in WPA 13700 of 2021 and
representing the applicants in CAN 22 of 2023 filed therein,
has submitted that, point of maintainability remains open.
According to him, in addition to the issue of maintainability,
the order dated November 9, 2023 of the Supreme Court
requires the Division Bench to examine the admissibility of
the OMR sheet images. According to him, allegations of
manipulations have to be established by cogent evidence.
Supreme Court has directed the Court to ignore the findings 114
of the earlier Division Bench on Rule 17 and to decide such
matter afresh. Court may consider issuing directions to
upload the CBI recovered OMR sheet only after the
authenticity of the images have been established after
applying the prevailing Rules of evidence. CBI has also been
directed to submit its report.
48. Mr. Pratik Dhar has submitted that, the writ petition is
not maintainable on the ground of delay. He has referred to
the list of dates. He has contended that, the writ petition was
filed after a lapse of 4 years 10 months from the date of the
examination, 3 years 6 months from the publication of final
panel and at 1 year 8 months from the date of expiry thereof.
According to him, the writ petitioners having participated in
the selection process and being unsuccessful therein is not
entitled to maintain a writ petition particularly in view of the
delay. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2013
Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases 309 (Ramesh Chandra
Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others), 2022 Volume
1 Supreme Court Cases 294 (Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of
India and others), 2017 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases
478 (D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and Others) 115
and 2019 Volume 19 Supreme Court Cases 633 (Union of
India and Others vs. C. Girija and Others).
49. Mr Dhar has contended that, the writ petitions do not
contain any pleadings with regard to the alleged wrongdoings.
He has contended that the writ petitions do not contain any
prayer for setting aside the entire selection process.
Consequently, according to him, the writ petitioners are not
entitled to any relief. In support of such contentions, he has
relied upon 2003 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 40 (V. K.
Majotra and others vs. Union of India and others) and
2011 Volume 14 Supreme Court Cases 243 (State of
Jammu and Kashmir and others vs. Ajay Dogra).
50. On the interpretation of Rule 17, Mr Dhar has
contended that, power given therein is limited. According to
him, the moment appointment is made, such power gets
extinguished. Withdrawal of recommendation cannot be
equated with withdrawal of appointment. He has referred to
Rule 17 and contended that, power to withdraw
recommendation can at best be till the appointment.
Moreover, once a teacher is appointed, such teacher is
governed under separate Rules namely West Bengal Board of
Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct 116
and Discipline of Teacher and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules,
2018. Rule 17 cannot have overriding effect over the Rules of
2018. Moreover, Rule 17 does not have principles of natural
justice built into it and therefore, interpreting Rule 17 as a
power to terminate the appointment particularly when other
Rules exist for suspension, dismissal and conduct of a teacher
should not be done. According to him, SSC becomes functus
officio upon making the recommendation. In support of such
contentions, he has relied upon 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 708
(Rama Bandyopadhyay vs. State of West Bengal and
others), 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 1860 (Ayesha Khatun vs.
State of West Bengal and others), 2005 SCC OnLine All
1341 (Dr. Ravi Shankar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and
others) and 2011 SCC OnLine J & K 49 (Renu Bala vs.
State of J & K and others).
51. Mr Dhar has contended that, Rule 17 cannot be
invoked since, SSC is proceeding on the basis of error
whereas, CBI has alleged manipulation/corruption. According
to him, both cannot go together. On such issue, he has relied
upon 2011 Volume 10 Supreme Court Cases 420 (Cauvery
Coffee Traders, Mangalore vs. Hornor Resources
(International) Company Limited). On the issue of post 117
decisional hearing cannot cure the inherent defect of not
hearing an affected party on the principles of natural justice,
he has relied upon 1989 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases
764 (H.L. Trehan and others vs. Union of India and
others) and 1986 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 537
(Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K.
Ratna and others).
52. Mr Dhar has contended that, four conditions must be
satisfied for a certificate to be valid under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act. According to him such four conditions are that,
the person giving the certificate must have lawful control as
opposed to exclusive custody, the data must be regularly fed
and in ordinary course of activity. Moreover, it has to be
established that the computer was operating properly and
that, the information which was ultimately reproduced was
what was fed into the computer in ordinary course of activity.
He has contended that, the alleged certificate does not allude
to the person giving the certificate having lawful control or
having regularly fed the data in the ordinary course of activity
or the computer operating properly. Consequently, the so
called certificate should not be admitted into evidence. The
certificate must have such details and that such details 118
cannot be filled up by an affidavit of someone else. Moreover,
the alleged certificate was not given by an ex-employee of M/s
NYSA. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon
2014 Volume 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 (Anvar P.V. vs.
P.K. Basheer and others), 2020 Volume 7 Supreme Court
Cases 1 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal and others), 2023 Volume 3 Supreme Court
Cases 654 (Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and 2022 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 581
(Ravinder Singh alias Kaku vs. State of Punjab).
53. Mr. Dhar has contended that, scanned copy of OMR
sheets cannot be in .Dat format. According to him, some other
software had been used to put it into .Dat format. Therefore,
the data available in the hard disks is processed data and not
the scanned images of OMR sheets as initially claimed by CBI.
Moreover, matching of Hash value requires the same file
format. Consequently, the materials allegedly seized by CBI
should not be relied upon.
54. Mr. Mukul Lahiri learned senior advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No. 643 to 645 and applicants in CAN 8
of 2024 filed in WP No. 12270 of 2021 has contended that, his
clients come from poor and humble background. His clients 119
had participated in the selection process and fulfil the
prescribed requirements. His clients had never made any
misrepresentation. He has pointed out that, his client received
the appointment after following the due process. Board of
Secondary Education had published an order dated March 11,
2023 stating that appointment of 785 of Group C candidates
stood cancelled. Names of his clients had appeared in such
list. He has contended that, his clients were not parties to the
writ petition in which an order dated March 10, 2023 was
passed. He has pointed out the prayers made in the writ
petition and contended that, there was no prayer for setting
aside the selection process. His clients upon coming to know
of the orders dated December 21, 2022 and March 10, 2023
passed in the writ petition applied for being added as party
respondents to the writ petition.
55. Mr. Mukul Lahiri has contended that, the hard disks
and pen drives which CBI has seized cannot be admitted in
evidence. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon
2014 Volume 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 (Anvar P.V. vs.
P.K. Basheer and others) and 2020 Volume 7 Supreme
Court Cases 1 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal and others).
120
56. Referring to the reports of the CBI, Mr Mukul Lahiri
has contended that, the last affidavit dated February 5, 2020
of CBI is self-contradictory in nature and no reliance can be
placed on it. He has pointed out that, going by the affidavit of
CBI then, scanning job was made by another entity namely
M/s Data Scantech Solutions. Evaluation had been done by
M/s NYSA and that there is no allegation to the contrary.
57. Mr Lahiri has contended that, all original OMR sheets
have been destroyed by the SSC. Hence any basis for
evaluation of OMR sheets has been lost. What remains in the
records of SSC is the polluted and contaminated data supplied
from the hard disks by Mr. Pankaj Bansal. Therefore, it is not
possible for SSC to arrive at any definite conclusion regarding
the alleged manipulation of the evaluation of OMR sheets for
the examination results. Distinguishing A. Kalaimani and
others (supra) cited on behalf of the petitioners he has
contended that, in that case, the original records of selection
and answer sheets were available unlike the present case. He
has adopted the submissions of other learned advocates
appearing for other similarly placed parties. 121
Contention of Writ Petitioners in WPA 7370 of 2023
58. Mr Anindya Kumar Mitra learned senior advocate
appearing for the writ petitioners in WPA 7370 of 2023 has
submitted that, his clients sought a declaration that Rule 17
of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of
Appointment to the Post of Teachers for Class IX and X in
Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016 is ultra
vires. He has contended that the writ petitioners participated
in the selection process initiated by the notification dated
September 23, 2016. They have been duly appointed. They
had worked for about 3 years. Without giving opportunity of
hearing, suddenly by administrative order dated March 1,
2023 in respect of 618 teachers and March 3, 2023 in respect
of 157 teachers the recommendations issued to the petitioners
and similarly circumstanced persons were withdrawn. He has
contended that, Rule 17 of the Rules of 2016 is ultra vires and
arbitrary on the grounds that it violates the principles of
natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Such Rule does not contemplate granting opportunity of
hearing to the persons against whom SSC has contemplated
to cancel or withdraw the recommendation invoking Rule 17. 122
59. Mr Mitra has contended that, after the
recommendation has been issued under Rule 17 and acted
upon by giving appointment, the recommendation ceased to
exist as it merges with the appointment. SSC then becomes
functus officio and loses power to withdraw the
recommendation it had made. In support of such contentions,
he has relied upon 2010 (1) CLJ 518 (Mridula Ghosh and
another vs. State of West Bengal and others).
60. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, Mr
Mitra has contended that, if SSC decides to withdraw
recommendation at any stage after the appointment, such
action has to be made contemporaneously and within the
validity period of the panel so that the commission is in a
position to take steps to fill up such post from the waiting list
within the validity period of the panel and the waiting list. In
the facts of the present case, the panel and the waiting list
had expired one year after their publication, on August 28,
2018 and as such Rule 17 could not have been validly
invoked.
61. Mr Mitra has contended that, in accordance with Rule
16 (3) of the Rules of 2016, recommendations made by SSC
remains valid initially for 90 days and if extended till 60 days. 123
This validity period of the recommendation ends when the
appointment is made. Thus there cannot be any ad infinitum
extension of validity of the recommendations issued under
Rule 17 by which SSC retains the power to withdraw the
recommendation of the teacher till he retires from service.
Recommending body cannot have power of withdrawal after
the recommendation has merged into the appointment.
Contentions of Appellants in MAT 274 of 2023 and MAT 443 of 2023
62. Mr Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate has
also appeared on behalf of Group D appointees who had
preferred appeal being MAT No. 274 of 2023 and appointees of
Group C who had preferred appeal being MAT No. 443 of
2023. On behalf of such clients, he has contended that, in
respect of all the 4 categories, no dispute or complaint
regarding due publication of the final list stored in the server
of SSC has been raised in the writ petitions filed by the
unsuccessful candidates. Moreover, the successful candidates
have not been impleaded therein.
63. Mr Mitra has contended that, the order dated
November 9, 2023 of the Supreme Court does not permit all 124
matters that have been listed before the Division Bench to be
heard by the Division Bench. He has contended that, only
those matters which have been remitted by the order dated
November 9, 2023 can be heard by the present Division Bench
and that, this Division Bench has no jurisdiction to hear any
of the writ petitions moved by the clients of Mr Ashish
Chowdhury, advocate.
64. Mr Mitra has referred to the order dated November 9,
2023 passed by the Supreme Court and contended that, the
core issues involved are whether the OMR sheets received by
CBI from Mr Pankaj Bansal are admissible in evidence and
their authenticity has been established by applying the
prevailing rule of evidence or not. If the answer is in the
negative, then, can those OMR be uploaded in the server of
SSC to compare with the final list stored therein and can any
reliance be placed upon them to terminate service of any
employee. Moreover, whether, revocation of recommendations
under Rule 17 by SSC is valid or not is another core issue.
65. Referring to Section 65B of the Evidence Act he has
contended that, 2020 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 1,
(Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal and others) has laid down that there is difference 125
between admissibility and reliability of a document. He has
referred to various paragraphs of such decision. He has
contended that, the person who had issued the certificate was
not at all competent to issue the same since, another person
who supervising the process of scanning and evaluation for
M/s NYSA. Moreover, none of the 3 hard disks had been
produced in Court for admission as evidence. Inspection of
those hard disks have not been given in spite of the order of
the Court. Inspections of OMR sheets have not been given.
According to him there is no other cogent evidence to
contradict the final merit list available in the server of SSC.
66. On the aspect of withdrawal of recommendation, Mr
Mitra has contended that, grounds on which
recommendations could be withdrawn under Rule 17 are not
available in this case. Withdrawal order has referred to an
order of the Court which is not a ground mentioned in Rule
17. Rule 17 in any event applies to Assistant Teacher for class
IX and X and not for non-teaching staff where, the applicable
rule is Rule 18 of the Rules of 2009. According to him, the
withdrawal of recommendations was arbitrary. Rule 18 does
not confer any specific power on the regional commission to
do away with the name of any candidate from the panel. None 126
of the affected candidates had been heard prior to the
issuance of the order of withdrawal.
67. Mr Mitra has contended that, questions which did not
arise out of the pleadings of the parties or mentioned in the
impugned order of the single Judge were sought to be raised
at the hearing of the writ petitions. He has contended that,
Court has no jurisdiction to consider any question which is
not covered by the pleadings of the parties. He has contended
that, there was no admission on the part of SSC before the
learned single Judge and that, the so-called admission was
irrelevant. He has contended that there cannot be any
estoppel against statute and that, statutory bar under Section
65B of the Evidence Act cannot be overridden.
68. Mr Mitra has contended that so far as the 2nd
question which came up for consideration before the Court as
to defect in the selection process leading to the preparation of
the final list of candidates is concerned, no complaint
regarding this regard has been raised in the pleadings nor
argued before the learned single Judge. No demands of the
irregularity or invalidity in the matter of appointment of M/s
NYSA has been raised by CBI. Writ petitioners have not made
any grievance regarding the appointment of M/s NYSA, 127
scanning and evaluation of OMR sheets even after receipt of
CBI report. According to him, CBI upon investigation has
found nothing wrong with the selection process and uploading
of the evaluated marks of candidates prepared by M/s NYSA
into the office database namely server of the SSC which was
made public on February 5, 2024. Similar is the stand taken
by SSC in the affidavit dated February 10, 2023. Thus in
absence of any illegality regarding the selection process
culminating in preparation of the final list it was not open for
the learned single Judge to set aside the appointment of
1,911 members of Group D.
69. Mr Mitra has contended that the 3rd question raised in
the course of the hearing, that, the appointment of M/s NYSA
was bad as no public tender was issued, should not be
considered as, no such case was made out by the parties or by
CBI or the SSC. Court cannot consider any point not raised
on affidavits particularly in writ proceedings which are tried
on affidavits and in support of such contention, he is relied
upon AIR 1981 SC 588 (S.S. Sharma and others vs. Union
of India and others) and 2003 Volume 8 Supreme Court
Cases 40 (V.K. Majotra and others vs Union of India and
others). M/s NYSA is not a party to the proceedings and 128
cancellation of their appointment would be prejudicial to
them. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2022
Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 511 (Acqua Borewell Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Swayamprabha and others). He has contended
that, appointment by tender is not a must and that it is only
desirable that appointments are made by tender. Nobody has
argued that such appointment is void because of non-
issuance of tender. At the highest it can be said that such
appointment was irregular but cannot vitiate the selection
process.
70. Mr Mitra has contended that the scope of challenge to
a selection process is limited. Unsuccessful candidates after
participation cannot challenge the selection process and in
support of such contention, he has relied upon 1995 Volume
3 Supreme Court Cases 486 (Madan Lal and others vs.
State of J & K and others) and 2008 Volume 4 Supreme
Court Cases 619 (Sadananda Halo and others vs. Momtaz
Ali Sheikh and others). He has contended that, no allegation
regarding malpractice or corruption against SSC had been
made. No officer of SSC had been named as guilty of
malpractice or corruption in the pleadings. 129
71. Mr Mitra has contended that, principles of natural
justice stood violated by the order of the learned single Judge
which resulted in the termination of services of the successful
candidates. He has contended that, the successful candidates
were entitled to a hearing. In support of such contention, he
has relied upon 2008 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 619
(Sadananda Halo and others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and
others).
72. Mr Mitra has contended that, the order dated February
10, 2023 passed by the learned single Judge in WPA No.
18585 of 2021 and the order dated March 10, 2023 passed in
WPA No. 12270 of 2023 should be set aside. He has
contended that, concept of community guilt is not accepted in
India. Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order contrary to
the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
73. Mr Mitra has contended that, cancelation of the entire
selection will not ensure to the benefit of anybody. Court
cannot give any appointment to anybody since the waiting list
and the panel of all expired long back.
74. Mr Mitra has contended that, the report of the CBI
regarding OMR sheet is unreliable. According to him, CBI has
not explained why it has not gone to the office of M/s NYSA 130
and looked into the records maintained by M/s NYSA. What
had led CBI to approach an unknown employee of M/s NYSA
at Ghaziabad. It is not explained how the hard disks which
are properties of M/s NYSA could be at the residence of an ex-
employee. Mr Pankaj Bansal has not said and CBI has not
found out how any property of M/s NYSA could go out of the
office of M/s NYSA. Such deficiencies have made the
investigation report of CBI unreliable.
75. Referring to 2021 Volume 16 Supreme Court Cases
217 (State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. A. Kalaimani
and Others), Mr Mitra has contended that, such Judgement
has no application to the facts of the present case since, the
OMR sheets were available therein which is not the case here.
Contentions of Parties opposing the writ petitions
76. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra learned Senior Advocate
appearing for three candidates of Class IX and X comprised in
CAN 6 of 2024 filed in WPA 25380 of 2022 has in response to
a query of the Court, submitted that, his clients did not take
inspection of the documents. He has referred to the orders
dated April 12, 2023 and November 9, 2023 of the Supreme
Court. He has also referred to the report of the CBI dated
December 7, 2022, and the report of Justice Bag Committee 131
dated December 15, 2022. He has contended that, SSC is
unreliable. According to him SSC is a partner in the crime. In
this regard he has referred to the final report of the CBI dated
February 5, 2024.
77. Mr. Anindya Bose learned advocate appearing for
added respondent No. 151 and respondent Nos. 25 to 32 in
WPA 13700 of 2021 has contended that, his clients have
requisite qualification to receive the appointment. No hearing
had been given nor any reasons assigned as to why the
appointments had been terminated. It has been wrongfully
alleged as against his clients that; his clients received
appointment post the expiry of the panel.
78. Mr. Shankar Prasad Dalapati learned advocate
appearing for some of the candidates whose names feature in
the 952 candidates whose recommendations were withdrawn
by SSC pursuant to the orders of the Court, has submitted
that, his clients were not involved in any scam. His clients
have not been heard or given a chance of being heard before
their services were terminated. His clients have not been
investigated into by CBI nor have his clients being
interrogated. His clients has submitted full-fledged written
OMR sheets which did not contain any blank. His clients had 132
answered all 55 questions. He has contended that, since there
is an embargo to re-evaluate OMR sheets by SSC in terms of
the first proviso to Rule 12 (8) of the Rules of 2016, the Court
ought not to have considered the reports or submissions made
by SSC in respect of his clients getting low marks than they
have actually secured at the time of evaluation.
79. Mr. Dalapati has contended that, CBI failed to disclose
the errors committed by SSC. According to him, the errors
which CBI has hinted towards are illegality and corruption
and as such Rule 17 cannot be applied. He has questioned the
reliance on the OMR sheet images available in the hard disks
seized by CBI. He has contended that, the only option left to
the Court is to set aside the entire selection process and that
Court should direct compensation to be paid to innocent
candidates who are not involved in the corruption.
80. Mr Apalak Basu learned advocate appearing for the
added respondent No. 6, 7 and 8 in WPA 21665 of 2019 has
contended that, his clients secured the appointments fairly.
He has contended that, none of his clients jumped the rank as
alleged by the petitioners. He has compared the marks
obtained by the writ petitioners and his clients. He has
contended that SSC categorised the aspirants in accordance 133
with a declared policy. His client had secured better marks in
the academic and professional categories than the writ
petitioners and therefore, his clients were entitled to the
appointment in preference to the writ petitioners.
81. Mr Apalak Basu has relied upon 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 344 (Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs. State of
Jammu and Kashmir and others), 2020 Volume 18
Supreme Court Cases 673 (Vishal Ashok Thorat and
others vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and others), 2011
Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 455 (Sunil vs. State of
Maharashtra and others), 2006 Volume 6 Supreme Court
Cases 467 (Sanjay Kumar and others vs. Narinder Verma
and others), 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 3799 (The State of
West Bengal & others vs. Chandra Kanta Ganguli &
others) in support of his contentions.
82. Mr Anindya Lahiri learned advocate appearing for
added respondents in WPA 19278 of 2019, WPA 19273 of
2019, WPA 19749 of 2019, WPA 20776 of 2019 and WPA
20778 of 2019 has contended that, his clients received the
appointments in accordance with law. He has referred to Rule
12 (6) of the Rules of 2016 and contended that, the merit list
category -wise. He has referred to the various developments 134
subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. He has contended
that, the writ petitions are infructuous in view of the fact that
the panel prepared by SSC expired. He has referred to the
prayers made in the writ petition. He has contended that
unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the appointments
that too after a delay of so many years. He has relied upon
2006 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 467 (Sanjay Kumar
and others vs. Narinder Verma and others) in support of
his contention.
83. Mr Anindya Lahiri learned advocate has also appeared
for the appellants in MAT 85 of 2023. He has contended that,
the 2016 Rules are not applicable as SSC became functus
officio after the recommendation culminated into
appointments. Rule 17 of the SSC Rules cannot be invoked as
the conditions of service became regulated by the Rules of
2018.
84. Mr Lahiri has contended that, the writ petitions cannot
be treated as a public interest litigation as no public interest
litigation is maintainable in respect of service matters. In
support of such contention, he has relied upon 2005 Volume
5 Supreme Court Cases 136 (Gurpal Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others).
135
85. Mr Lahiri has contended that, no negative marks was
awarded in the evaluation process. He has contended that,
since there was no negative marking there was no logic as to
why any candidate would submit blank OMR without
attempting the answers. The issue as to the appointment of
M/s NYSA and some delegation to M/s Data Scantech
Solutions cannot be raised in absence of pleadings and
without opportunity to the contesting parties to meet such
allegations. He has pointed out that, all candidates in respect
of whom, mismatch of numbers were found by CBI were not
favoured with appointments. Court has to presume the truth
about the server data or the break-up of marks. According to
him, re-evaluation is not possible as there is no basis for the
same. He has contended that, weeding out the illegalities is
possible. So far as inspection of OMR sheets are concerned, he
has contended that only one teacher took such inspection.
The other teachers who had taken inspection disputed the
authenticity, perversity and contents of such OMR sheets.
With regard to Section 65B of the Evidence Act, he has
reiterated the submissions advanced by other learned
advocates.
136
86. Mr Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, learned advocate
appearing for the added respondents in WPA 5406 of 2022
and applicants in CAN 27 of 2023 has contended that, his
clients are working as school teachers in their respective
schools being selected through a proper recruitment process.
He has contended that, services of his clients should not be
disturbed.
87. Mr Prasenjit Debnath, learned advocate appearing for
respondent No. 4 in WPA 18355 of 2019 has contended that,
his client received the appointment without the alleged rank
jumping. He has questioned the maintainability of the writ
petition. He has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Kalyan
Bandopadhyay learned senior advocate and Mr Pratik Dhar,
learned senior advocate.
88. Mr Milan Mukherjee, learned senior advocate
appearing for the writ petitioners in WPA 2967 of 2023 has
referred to the list of dates. He has submitted that, his client
filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the purported
OMR sheets published under the notice dated December 29,
2022 are not conclusive and are subject to proof following due
process of law. He has referred to the prayers made in the writ
petition.
137
89. Mr Mukherjee has contended that, till the date of the
personality test none of the unsuccessful candidates raised
any objection with regard to the selection process or as to any
alleged illegality while conducting the same. The unsuccessful
candidates had participated in the selection process with their
eyes open. Long after the joining of the successful candidates,
the writ petitions had been filed by some unsuccessful
candidates. He has contended that, such writ petitions filed by
unsuccessful candidates were hit by delay and laches. He has
reiterated the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for
the successful candidates with regard to delay, laches, lack of
pleadings and prayers as also admissibility of the OMR sheets.
90. Mr Mukherjee has contended that, the so-called
certificate cannot be treated as a certificate under Section 65B
of the Evidence Act on the ground that the key person who
was looking after the works of M/s NYSA for scanning of the
OMR sheets evaluation did not issue the certificate. The
person who had issued the certificate did not have lawful
control over the computer at all, in terms of provisions of
Section 65B (2) (a) of the Evidence Act. The hard disks cannot
be said to be a computer as referred to in Section 65B (2) of
the Evidence Act. In absence of definition of computer, in the 138 Evidence Act, general meaning of computer has to be applied.
He has contended that requirements of Section 65B (2) and
Section 65B (4) are completely absent in the certificate. The
certificate was issued by a different company. The certificate
was contrary to the law laid down in 2020 Volume 7
Supreme Court Cases 1 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others). CBI has failed
to obtain a valid certificate. He has reiterated the contentions
of Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay with regard to Section 45A of the
Evidence Act and Section 79A of the Information Technology
Act.
91. Mr Mukherjee has contended that, the writ petitions of
the unsuccessful candidates are not maintainable. In this
regard he has reiterated the contentions of other learned
advocates appearing for the successful candidates. He has
contended that, burden of proof cannot be shifted upon the
in-service candidates.
92. Mr Pramit Ray learned senior advocate appearing for
the applicants of CAN 7 of 2014 in WPA No. 18585 of 2021
has contended that, the writ petitions are not maintainable.
He has referred to a list of dates on the question of delay. He
has contended that, lack of explanation of the SSC regarding 139
adherence to the Rules cannot take away the employment of
his clients in absence of pleadings and proof that any
particular candidate misrepresented any facts relating to his
or her candidature.
93. Mr Ray has contended that, Regional Commission after
recommendation cannot cancel the panel nor can it withdraw
the recommendation. He has contended that, the so-called
withdrawal of recommendation that too after the expiry of the
validity of the panel is not legal.
94. Mr Ray has contended that, records seized by CBI from
the residence of Mr. Pankaj Bansal cannot be admitted as
evidence. The records stored in the server of SSC should not
also be admitted as evidence. In any event, in absence of any
pleading or proof that any individual candidate had
misrepresented any fact relating to the selection, services of
such candidate cannot be terminated. Moreover, his clients
had worked for a considerable period of time.
95. Mr Ray has contended that, the so-called certificate is
dated September 16, 2022 and that the same was disclosed
for the first time by an affidavit of CBI affirmed on January
16, 2024. The late disclosure has clearly indicated that the
document was manufactured. CBI could not produce the 140
records in respect of at least 3 writ petitioners. Therefore, the
information collected by CBI is not genuine. He has pointed
out that, there are 2 OMR answer sheets produced by CBI in
respect of at least one writ petitioner namely Mampi Banerjee.
He has highlighted the fact that his clients were denied the
right of hearing prior to their services being terminated. He
has contended that, SSC has acted in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
96. On the aspect of the options available to the Court in
these proceedings, Mr Ray has contended that, there can be
other alternatives than, dismissing all the writ petitions or
cancelling all the appointments or going in for fresh evaluation
through the agency of SSC. He has contended that, conduct of
SSC does not inspire confidence and therefore the evaluation
through SSC will be a travesty of justice. Moreover, since the
original materials have been destroyed prior to institution of
the proceedings, authenticity of the thing that stood in the
server of SSC or the data recovered by CBI is questionable.
97. Mr Jaydip Kar learned senior advocate appearing for
the appellants in MAT 557 of 2023 arising out of WPA 5953 of
2023 has contended that his clients, numbering 33 assistant
teachers for class IX and X were not parties to the writ 141
petition. He has referred to the sequence of events leading to
the order dated November 9, 2023. He has contended that,
evidence produced by CBI on OMR sheets are not admissible
in evidence. The purported certificate issued under Section
65B of the Evidence Act is not in compliance of Section 65B.
He has contended that certification and contents are not in
compliance with Section 65B and in support of such
contentions, he has relied upon 2020 Volume 7 Supreme
Court Cases 1 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal and others), 2021 Volume 12
Supreme Court Cases 289 (Smriti Madan Kansagra vs.
Perry Kansagra) and 2022 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases
581 (Ravinder Singh alias Kaku vs. State of Punjab).
98. Mr Kar has contended that, SSC in their affidavit did
not admit the genuineness or authenticity of the OMR sheets,
in their affidavit. SSC had taken steps pursuant to orders of
Court. He has contended that, in order to construe a
statement made by a party as an enforceable admission, the
admission should be unequivocal. Such admission has to be
taken as a whole, the admission must not be conditional and
that there can be no admission contrary to the statutory 142
provisions. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon
1877 ILR 2 Cal 23 (The Queen vs. Bholanath Sen).
99. Mr Kar has referred to Section 58 of the Evidence Act
and contended that, facts need not be proved does not apply
in the case of secondary electronic evidence. Section 3 of the
Evidence Act has excluded electronic evidence. Section 65B of
the Evidence Act is the only mandatory provision by which
secondary electronic evidence can be brought on record and
proved.
100. Mr Kar has contended that, nullifying the entire
recruitment process will be against public interest as students
in schools will suffer because of such mass scale termination
of service of teachers. He has contended that, irregularity does
not vitiate the recruitment process because the same was not
an illegality. The portion of the candidates who have been
selected on their own merits cannot be made victim of
mistakes/irregularities on the part of SSC if at all there were
any irregularities or mistakes. In any event, State government
has stepped in and suggested amelioration by creating
supernumerary post to the candidates who have suffered in
the selection process by these alleged mistakes/irregularities.
Cabinet has approved creation of supernumerary post. 143
101. Mr Anirban Sen, learned advocate appearing for
respondent Nos. 691 and 692 in WPA 5406 of 2022 and
applicants in CAN 29 of 2024 has submitted that, Section 65B
was inserted into the Evidence Act in 2000 when digital
devices did not make its foray into the Indian legal system. He
has pointed out that Section 65B finds its place under
Chapter V pertaining to proof of documentary evidence and
after the Sections of primary evidence, secondary evidence
and when secondary evidence may be given. He has contended
that Section 65B is a mechanism introduced to authenticate
emails, website, etc in a Courtroom which was at that time
without substantial computerisation. According to him, the
rationale behind Section 65B is to have a human being who
takes responsibility for mainly printing an existing electronic
record. Such person certifies and stands by such record
vouching for the authenticity and correctness of the
transformation from the digital record to a physical document.
In support of such contentions, he has relied upon 2020
Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others).
102. Mr Sen has contended that, Section 65B (2) of the
Evidence Act list out various conjunctive conditions to be met 144
which are also mandatory. He has contended that, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, such mandatory
provisions have not been met.
103. Mr Sen has contended that, the chain of custody of the
digital evidence is necessary to establish that the digital
evidence being supplied/used was really from the same source
to be believed, and not a substituted/false source. He has
pointed out that the order dated November 9, 2023 of the
Supreme Court requires this Court to decide on both the issue
of admissibility as also authenticity of the OMR data.
According to him, whereas the point of admissibility requires a
Section 65B certificate the requirement of authenticity
demands hash value/MD5 fingerprint of the created electronic
record to be matched with the last electronic record in the
entire chain on data transfers. He has contended that, neither
of the conditions stand satisfied.
104. Mr Dilip Kumar Maiti learned advocate appearing for
respondent Nos. 363 to 408 and 803 in WPA 18585 of 2021
has adopted the submissions of the learned advocates
opposing Mr Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya.
105. Mr Biswaroop Bhattacharya learned advocate
appearing for 76 added respondents in WPA 5406 of 2022 has 145
contended that, his clients were given appointments to the
post of assistant teachers in classes XI and XII. He has
pointed out that the writ petitioner in WPA 5406 of 2022 is an
unsuccessful candidate who was placed in the waiting list
panel of the selection process. Such waiting list panel had
expired on May 4, 2019. He has reiterated the contentions
with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. He has also
reiterated the contentions with regard to Evidence Act as also
Information Technology Act advanced on behalf of similarly
circumstanced persons. He has relied upon AIR 1964 SC
1006 (State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Bhailal
Bhai and others), 2008 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases
479 (Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs. Mehbub Alam
Laskar), and 2008 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 788
(Atma Linga Reddy and others vs. Union of India and
others) in support of his contentions.
106. Mr Pushpal Chakraborty learned advocate appearing
for the petitioners in WPA 4556 of 2023 has submitted that
the writ petitioners filed the petition praying for consideration
to initiate new/fresh process for filling up the present and
anticipated vacancies by adopting the established procedures. 146
He has contended that, a wait list cannot be a perennial
source for recruitment.
107. Mr Sakti Pada Jana learned advocate appearing for the
added respondent and applicant in CAN 1 of 2022 and CAN
18 of 2023 filed in WPA 13700 of 2021 has submitted that, his
clients did not jump the rank as wrongfully alleged. He has
contended that, due to the wrongful action of the SSC in
recommending 8 candidates and OMR sheets being allegedly
manipulated, his clients cannot be deprived of the
appointment.
108. Mr Shuvro Prokash Lahiri learned advocate appearing
for the added respondents and applicants in CAN 23 of 2023
filed in WPA 13700 of 2021, CAN 23 of 2023, CAN 24 of 2023
and CAN 25 of 2023 filed in WPA 5406 of 2022 has contended
that his clients secured the appointments on merit and upon
performing competitively. No adverse evidence either digital or
physical has been recovered as against his clients. His clients
became aware of the writ petitions subsequent to the notice
issued pursuant to the order dated December 6, 2023. He has
contended that, the selection process may not be cancelled in
its entirety but an effort should be made to segregate the fair
recruitees from the tainted candidates. 147
109. Mr Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya learned senior
advocate appearing for the added respondent Nos. 25 to 32 in
WPA 13700 of 2021 has submitted that, the application for
addition of party filed by his clients was disposed of by an
order dated December 20, 2023 and that his clients were
added as party respondents in the writ petition. His clients
have filed an affidavit in the writ petition.
110. Mr Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya has contended that,
his clients possess the requisite qualification and are within
prescribed age limit to receive the appointments. His clients
had appeared in the written test and personality test. Names
of his clients had appeared in the waiting list in connection
with the selection process. Thereafter, SSC had issued
recommendation letters and the board had issued
appointment letters in favour of his clients in the month of
March 2020. His clients have joined the respective post and
that the service of his clients was approved by the competent
authority.
111. Mr Bhattacharya has contended that, SSC had
published a list of 183 persons claiming that they were
wrongly recommended where names of his clients appear. He
has contended that, no hearing was given to his clients nor 148
any reason assigned regarding the alleged wrong
recommendation. He has pointed out that, the panel expired
on December 18, 2019 and the writ petition was filed on
August 26, 2021. He has also pointed out that, state
government issued an order on May 19, 2022 for filling up of
supernumerary posts of Assistant Teachers. He has also
pointed out that, one person was provided appointment
pursuant to the direction of the Court dated April 18, 2022
passed in WPA 6942 of 2022. He has also pointed out that
102 candidates were dealt with on January 6, 2023 pursuant
to an order dated December 14, 2022 passed in WPA 13700 of
2021, WP No. 17273 of 2021 and WPA 13701 of 2021. He has
contended that, such conduct goes to show that the panel was
made to operate in 2023 after expiry of the panel on December
19, 2019.
112. Mr Bhattacharya has also appeared for the applicants
in CAN 31 of 2024 filed in WPA 13700 of 2021. He has pointed
out that the applicants were waitlisted candidates based on
their merit. Letters of recommendation had been issued on
August 3, 2020, letter of appointment had been issued in the
month of February 2021 and that, the applicants are
presently rendering their services as Assistant Teachers 149
without any blemish. He has contended that during the 8th
phase of counselling the applicants were informed by way of
SMS sent to the respective mobile phone numbers as mode of
communication for the purpose of participating in the
counselling process. He has contended that the applicants
were part of a valid recruitment process is conducted by the
SSC and responded to the call of authority. His clients had no
control over the process at all. He has contended that, the
applicants were part of the wait list and not the panel and
therefore the allegation that the panel expired will have no
bearing so far as the applicants were concerned.
113. Mr Lakshmi Kumar Gupta learned senior advocate
appearing on behalf of the applicants in CAN 21 of 2023 and
CAN 22 of 2023 filed in WPA 5406 of 2022 has contended
that, there was substantial procedural compliance of the 2016
recruitment rules for the recruitment of assistant teachers for
classes XI and XII. He has in this regard referred to the
relevant rules. He has pointed out that, the writ petition was
filed 3 to 4 years after the recruitment process was concluded.
He has contended that, marks obtained by individual
candidates are not required to be published as per Rule 12.
There was no judicial interpretation of this Rule and in 150
particular Rule 12 (6) at the relevant point of time. In absence
thereof, he has contended that, an administrative
interpretation could be the only basis for the executing
authority to adopt or follow. In support of such contention, he
has relied upon 1992 (Supp 1) Supreme Court Cases 584.
114. Mr Lakshmi Kumar Gupta has contended that,
evaluation of OMR sheets is always outsourced by all
examining bodies. He has contended that outsourcing in the
present context must not be through open disclosure and
secrecy is necessary to be maintained to protect the sanctity
of the system and to prevent outside influence. Moreover,
engagement of M/s. NYSA has not been questioned by the
petitioners and hence such aspect need not be gone into by
the Court.
115. Mr Lakshmi Kumar Gupta has contended that the so-
called admission by SSC about the correctness of the data
comprised in the hard disk recovered from the ex-employee of
M/s. NYSA was of no consequence. The so-called admission
was not unequivocal. In support of such contention, he has
relied upon 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 148 (Western Coalfields
Ltd vs. Swati Industries), 2006 SCC OnLine Del 490, 2007
SCC OnLine Del 1213 and 2011 Volume 15 Supreme 151
Court Cases 273 (Himani Alloys Limited vs. Tata Steel
Limited).
116. Mr Lakshmi Kumar Gupta has questioned the
maintainability of the writ petition. He has contended that no
writ petition can be filed after the expiry of the panel. In
support of such contention, he has relied upon 2002 Volume
9 Supreme Court Cases 650 (M.P. Electricity Board
through the Chief Engineer, M.P. EB and another vs.
Virendra Kumar Sharma). He has contended that the panel
remains valid only till the time fixed by the Rule or on
completion of appointments, whichever is earlier. He has
referred to 1996 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 309 (State
of U.P. and others vs. Harash Chandra and others) in this
regard. Moreover, the panel is not the reservoir for filling up
vacancies anytime and in this regard, he has relied upon
2010 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 777 (State of Orissa
and another vs. Rajkishore Nanda and others). He has
contended that, the point of maintainability of the writ petition
is to be considered from the point of view of laches or
unexplained delay. In this regard, he has referred to 2014
Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 108 (Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and 152
others vs. T.T. Murali Babu). The contention that documents
are required to be preserved for 20 years under the Right to
Information Act is erroneous and in support of such
contention, he has relied upon 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 63 (N.
Amirthaguru vs. Syndicate Bank). He has contended that,
the issue raised in the writ petitions may evoke public interest
only after authenticity of the data recovered was established
by applying the rules of evidence.
117. Mr Lakshmi Kumar Gupta has contended that, no case
for cancellation of the entire selection process was made out.
Entire recruitment need not be interfered with and only
wrongful and illegal appointments after the expiry of the panel
needs to be set aside since the grains can be separated from
the chaff. In this regard he has relied upon 2006 Volume 11
Supreme Court Cases 356 (Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and
others vs. State of Punjab and others) and 2003 Volume 7
Supreme Court Cases 285 (Union of India and others vs.
Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and another).
Issues
118. The prevenient adumbrated rival contentions have
delineated the following issues for consideration: - 153
i. does this Division Bench have jurisdiction to
hear all the writ petitions and appeals listed
before it?
ii. are the writ petitions maintainable at the behest
of unsuccessful candidates who has filed the writ
petitions subsequent to the expiry of the validity
period of the panel?
iii. can appointments be made subsequent to the
expiry of the validity period of the panel?
iv. is the certificate dated September 19, 2022 valid
and admissible in evidence?
v. should the OMR sheets available in the seized
hard disks be uploaded in the server of SSC to
compare with the final list stored therein?
vi. should any reliance be placed upon the data
stored in the seized hard disks to terminate the
services of any employee?
vii. can the recommendations be withdrawn by SSC
without hearing the appointee?
viii. whether revocation of recommendations under
rule 17 by SSC is valid or not?
154 ix. to what relief or reliefs are the parties to the
appeals and writ petitions entitled to?
Jurisdiction
119. Normally a writ petition filed before the Calcutta High
Court is heard by a single Judge. Here we have heard a
number of writ petitions as well as appeals as a Division
Bench pursuant to an order dated November 9, 2023 passed
by the Supreme Court and an order of assignment of the Chief
Justice dated November 16, 2023.
120. The order dated November 9, 2023 of the Supreme
Court had been passed in a set of proceedings arising out of
the controversy in the selections/appointment of different
categories of employees in state funded schools. It would be
apposite to refer to paragraph 1 of such order which is as
follows: -
"1. The present set of proceedings arises out of controversy in selection/appointment of three categories of employees in different State funded schools in the State of West Bengal. These are (i) non-teaching staffs belonging to Groups 'C' and 'D', (ii) Assistant Teachers and Teachers of classes 9 and 10 and (iii) Assistant Teachers of classes 11 and 12. Recommendations were made by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission ("the Commission") in the years 2017-2018 for appointment to these posts. The recruitmen process for these posts was initiated in the year 2016. Several 155
unsuccessful/wait-listed candidates who had participated in the said recruitment process had approached the High Court at Calcutta questioning sanctity of the selection process for these posts. These writ petitions were instituted in the years 2021-22 and the unsuccessful candidates questioned the recruitments on the ground of several irregularities."
121. The direction of the Supreme Court in the order dated
November 9, 2023 with regard to hearing of the writ petitions
and the appeals by a Division Bench is contained in
paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 thereof which are as follows: -
"8. In our opinion, piece-meal proceedings are not warranted in relation to the disputes of this dimension and termination of service of candidates at the interim stage before final disposal of the writ petitions also ought to have been avoided having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in these proceedings. It was necessary for the High Court to examine admissibility of the OMR sheet images recovered by the CBI before placing full scale reliance on them in directing termination of services of the concerned employees. We are not suggesting that in cases of gross irregularities detected in appointment of certain individuals, termination at the interim stage is altogether impermissible. If some grave error in the appointment process can be demonstrated before the Court at the interim stage, services of such illegally appointed persons can be terminated at the interlocutory stage only. But in the present set of proceedings, at this stage the unsuccessful candidates have not been able to make out such outstanding case at the interim stage. Investigation by the CBI is yet to be completed. The argument of corrupting the original OMR sheets is yet to be supported by cogent evidence. In none of the orders 156
impugned before us, these is no clear cut finding that there was distortion in OMR sheet evaluation.
9. The question of exercise of power under the aforesaid Rules
also arise out of discovery of electronically stored OMR sheets.
Serious allegations have been made of manipulation of records in exchange of money, but these allegations would have to be established through evidence. It is also our opinion, considering
the importance of the points of law involved in these cases, the
number of persons who are likely to be affected by the outcome of these proceedings and also having regard to the fact that majority of the writ petitions giving rise to these proceedings have strong attributes of Public Interest Litigations (PIL), this Court would consider it preferable to have these proceedings heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.
11. We, accordingly, request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta to constitute a Division Bench and all the writ petitions and appeals from which this set of proceedings arise be assigned to the Bench to be constituted in the light of this order for early adjudication. So far as 19 petitions/appeals pending before us are concerned, we dispose of the same with an observation that in the cases where termination orders or withdrawal of recommendations have been directed involving the appointees described in the first paragraph of this order, such terminations or withdrawal orders shall not be given effect to until the Division Bench of the High Court to be constituted in pursuance of this order adjudicates the matters on merit The direction of the
Single Judge to upload the CBI recovered OMR sheets shall stand invalidated, and the Division Bench may consider issuing a similar order only after the authenticity of these images are established before it by applying the prevailing 157
Rules of evidence. We have consciously avoided in this order giving any finding on merits of the individual cases, lest such observation or findings influence the Bench to be constituted for hearing the subject-controversy."
122. Subsequent to the order dated November 9, 2023, the
Chief Justice had by an order of assignment dated November
16, 2023 assigned the matters to this Division Bench which is
as follows:-
"Before the Hon'ble Division Bench Presided over by Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak.
The other matters which are said to be arising out of the same recruitment be mentioned before the Hon'ble Division Bench."
123. In our understanding of the order dated November 9,
2023 and the order of assignment of the Chief Justice, we
have been vested with the jurisdiction to decide proceedings
arising out of the controversy in selection/appointment of
non-teaching staff belonging to Group C and D as well as
teaching staff being Assistant Teachers and Teachers of
classes X and X as also classes XI and XII, in different State
funded schools in the State of West Bengal for the recruitment
process initiated in the year 2016.
124. In our understanding all writ petitions relating to the
recruitment process initiated in the year 2016 have not been
directed to be heard by the Division Bench but only those writ 158
petitions relating to the categories as noted above, in respect
of the 2016 recruitment process and instituted in 2021/2022
and the appeals arising out of the orders passed in such writ
petitions. We have understood paragraph 1 of the order dated
November 9, 2023 to prescribe the categories of matters as
also the time limit of filing of the writ petitions required, to be
decided by the Division Bench. We have understood the order
of assignment dated November 16, 2023 of the Chief Justice
in such context.
125. Consequently, we have jurisdiction to hear and dispose
of appeals arising out of the orders passed in the four
categories of matters in writ petitions filed in 2021/2022.
126. Contours of our jurisdiction to decide the writ petitions
and the appeals emanating out of orders passed in such writ
petitions having been adverted to, we shall now proceed to
decide such matters which fall within such parameters.
127. In view of the discussions above the first issue is
answered accordingly.
Maintainability
128. Having understood the parameters of the matters
which we have to decide the issue of maintainability of the 159
writ petitions needs to be answered. Persons opposing the writ
petitions have questioned their maintainability.
129. The order dated November 9, 2023 of the Supreme
Court has enjoined upon us the obligation to decide on the
maintainability of the writ petitions.
130. Maintainability of the writ petitions have been
questioned on the grounds of delay, laches and writ petitions
being at the behest of unsuccessful candidates who had
participated in the selection process and failed. Various
authorities have been cited at the bar on such an issue which
we shall consider presently.
Cited Authorities on Maintainability
131. Aflatoon and others (supra) has considered the issue
of delay and laches in filing of a writ petition in the context of
Land Acquisition proceedings. In the facts of that case, there
had been a delay of the 11 years. In the facts of that case, the
Supreme Court had found the writ petitioners to be fence
sitters allowing third-party rights to intervene and therefore
not entitled to reliefs.
132. In Madan Lal and others (supra) locus standi to
challenge a selection process on the ground of unfairness of 160
the interview process and defect in constitution of Selection
Committee by unsuccessful candidates who had taken a
chance to get themselves selected at the interview was found
lacking.
133. In Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra), the Supreme
Court has held that, once a candidate appeared in the
interview knowing the selection criteria, without any protest at
any stage, cannot turn around to contend that the procedure
adopted for selection was wrong and without jurisdiction. Similar view had been expressed in Anil Joshi and others
(supra), D. Sarojkumari (supra), Anupal Singh and others
(supra), and Mohd Mustafa (supra).
134. In Md. Kalimuddin and others (supra) the Supreme
Court has held that, of where under the statutory rule, the
period of the life of the select list had already expired, High
Court acted without jurisdiction in directing extension of the
validity period of such select list.
135. In Harish Chandra and others (supra) Supreme
Court has held that, no mandamus can be issued either to
refrain from enforcing the law or to act contrary to the law.
136. Surinder Singh and others (supra) has explained the
scope and extent of a waiting list in the selection process. It 161
has held that, waiting list cannot be used as an open source
of recruitment for filling up the vacancies not advertised. It
has also held that, the candidates in the waiting list have no
vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that
when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does
not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative.
The candidates included in the waiting list cannot claim
appointment on the ground that the vacancies were not
worked out properly.
137. Raghbir Chand Sharma and another (supra) has
held that with the appointment of the first candidate for the
only post in respect of which the select panel was prepared,
the panel ceased to exist and had outlived its utility and no
one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should
have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising
on account of the subsequent resignation of the person
appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising
subsequently.
138. Virendra Kumar Sharma (supra) has held that,
denial of appointment to a candidate in the panel after expiry
of the panel on the basis that, all vacancies were not filled up,
did not call for interference by the High Court. 162
139. Sanjay Kumar and others (supra) has held that,
where the writ petition challenging the selection process did
not challenge the rules relating to the selection process, and
arguments to such effect was not made in writ petition, such
contentions cannot be raised on appeal.
140. B. Valluvan and others (supra) has held that, period
of operation of the panel can be extended by the State and not
by Court. A Selection Committee while preparing the panel is
not concerned with the future vacancies.
141. Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) has held
that, only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the
employee, the termination of probation is justified. However,
when the foundation for such an order is not an
unsatisfactory performance of the part of the employee but
overt act amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing
to the employee concerned is imperative.
142. Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) in the facts of that case
has held that, once the first candidate in the select list was
appointed and subsequently his appointment was cancelled,
the other person in the panel cannot claim appointment since
there was only one post which stood filled up the appointment
of the 4 selected candidates.
163
143. In Rajkishore Nanda and others (supra), Supreme
Court has held that, select list cannot be treated as a
perpetual reservoir for purpose of appointments. If the
selection process was over whereby select list had expired and
appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the
Court subsequently on the basis of the expired select list.
144. In T. T. Murali Babu (supra) the Supreme Court has
held that four years delay in filing writ petition challenging the
dismissal order was fatal. It has observed that, delay comes in
way of equity and although delay and laches may not be fatal
in all circumstances, inordinate delay brings in hazard and
cause injury to the lis. In given circumstances, delay may
affect others' rights and may unnecessarily drag others into
litigation which in acceptable realm of possibility may have
attained finality.
145. N. Murugesan and others (supra) has considered the
issue of delay, laches and acquiescence in the context of a writ
petition and whether, delay/laches/limitation affects the
discretionary nature of relief that may be granted under
Article 226 of the Constitution. It has considered a number of
authorities on the subject including T. T. Murali Babu
(supra) and held as follows: -
164
"Delay, laches and acquiescence
20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non- consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the Court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the Court.
Laches
21. The word "laches" is derived from the French language meaning "remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the Court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors 165
when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the Court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.
23. A defence of laches can only be allowed when there is no statutory bar. The question as to whether there exists a clear case of laches on the part of a person seeking a remedy is one of fact and so also that of prejudice. The said principle may not have any application when the existence of fraud is pleaded and proved by the other side. To determine the difference between the concept of laches and acquiescence is that, in a case involving mere laches, the principle of estoppel would apply to all the defences that are available to a party. Therefore, a defendant can succeed on the various grounds raised by the plaintiff, while an issue concerned alone would be amenable to acquiescence.
Acquiescence
24. We have already discussed the relationship between acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other.
25. Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties.
166 Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-case basis."
Analysis of the Cited Authorities on Maintainability
146. The authorities cited at the bar have underscored the
underlying principle governing delay, laches and acquiescence
to defeat a writ petition to be estoppel and prejudice. In the
facts and circumstances of a given case, if the writ petitioner
is found to be guilty of such delay and laches so as to have
allowed third party rights to intervene and attain finality then
such writ petition is not to be entertained. Similarly, when a
writ petitioner is found to have acquiesced in a particular
course of action, he is held to be estopped from questioning
the same. However, these defences of delay, laches and
acquiescence would not have application when the existence
of fraud is established.
147. No appointment can be made after expiry of the panel
as the panel is not a perennial reservoir for appointments.
Panel is valid for the declared vacancy and for the specified
period. Appointments towards future vacancies cannot be 167
made from the panel. Appointments made in violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are a nullity.
Courts have no jurisdiction to direct appointment to be made
beyond the validity period of the panel.
Nature of the writ petitions
148. We have to appreciate the timeline of the cause of
action leading to the filing of the writ petitions as also the
events subsequent thereto in order to pronounce whether the
defence of delay, laches and acquiescence setup by the private
respondents to the writ petition, merits acceptance or not.
149. A number of writ petitions relating to the four
categories of the 2016 recruitment process had been filed
during the period 2021 and 2022. The learned single Judge
had considered a member of them and passed orders from
time to time therein. We shall advert to some of the orders
passed after outlying briefly the cause of action, averments
and prayers in some of the writ petitions.
150. A candidate who had participated in the recruitment
notification for third Regional Level Selection Test 2016 for the
post of clerk (Group-C) has filed WPA 14612 of 2021. He had
averred in his writ petition that, the Board had issued a 168
provisional appointment letter in his favour for such post on
March 20, 2020. He has stated that, such letter was issued
three days before the commencement of the Covid pandemic.
He had gone to the school at which, he was given the
appointment, but was not allowed to join. He had prayed for a
writ to allow him to join the post of clerk in the school on the
basis of the appointment letter dated March 20, 2020.
151. Writ petitioners in WPA 12266 of 2021 have alleged
that, they participated in the selection process for Group-D.
They have claimed that, the authorities had acted de hors the
2009 Rules by not publishing the fourth phase counselling list
and not calling the petitioners thereto. They have claimed that
the authorities did not prepare and publish the panel in
accordance with 2009 Rules and that, the entire panel was
full of discrepancies. They have alleged that the entire
selection process lacked transparency. They have claimed
that, several candidates holding rank below them had been
given appointment. They have given details of some of the
persons who were ranked below them but given appointments.
They have sought appointment to the Group-D post and
cancellation of the notification declaring the panel to be
expired.
169
152. Another candidate who had participated in the
selection process for the post of Group-D has filed WPA 27106
of 2022. He has prayed for consideration of his representation
dated October 22, 2022.
153. Writ petitioners in WPA 12270 of 2021 have alleged
that, the writ petitioners therein were in the waiting list in
respect of the Group-D post. Writ petitioners have stated that,
panel was published on June 20, 2019 and that, thereafter on
June 14, 2021, the authorities had issued a notification for
initiating further process of recruitment. The writ petitioners
have prayed for a direction upon the authorities to call the
petitioners for counselling and appoint them in the post of
Group-D in terms of the notifications dated August 8, 2016
and to fill up remaining 44 vacancies by appointing the writ
petitioners therein. The writ petitioners have also sought
cancellation of the memo dated September 2, 2019. Writ
petitioners have also sought a direction upon the authorities
to publish the merit list/panels of candidates already
appointed in the post of Group-D disclosing full details
including marks obtained by them and the marks obtained by
the writ petitioners. In such writ petition, the writ petitioners
have alleged that, several of candidates had been 170
recommended for appointment to the post of Group-D
although they did not feature in the merit list. Moreover,
candidates securing marks below them had been given
appointment.
154. Candidates who had participated in selection process
for the post of assistant teachers in Classes IX and X in the
subject History has filed WPA 13700 of 2021. They have
alleged that; the authorities did not act in accordance with
recruitment rules. The authorities had adopted a pick and
choose formula in selecting candidates for appointment, as a
result of which less meritorious favourite candidate got
preference over more meritorious candidates. The writ
petitioners have been denied their legitimate right to get an
appointment. The respondent authorities did not call the
petitioners for counselling whimsically and arbitrary. The
respondent authorities had given appointment to the below
rank holder and the writ petitioners had given some instance
with regard thereto. They had prayed for appointment to
themselves and a direction upon the authorities to publish a
de novo panel and waiting list in accordance with the actual
merits and in terms of the Rules prescribed. 171
155. Another unsuccessful candidate for the post of
assistant Teachers for Classes IX and X has filed WPA 17273
of 2021. The writ petitioner has given one instance of a
candidate not listed either in the merit list or in the waiting
list, given an appointment and such candidate joining the
school. Writ petitioner has prayed for grant of appointment to
himself and preparation and the publication of de novo panel
and waiting list in accordance with merits and in terms of
Rules.
156. Candidates who had participated in the selection
process for the Group-D posts has filed WPA 18585 of 2021.
They have alleged, there were various illegalities in the merit
list. They have also alleged that below rank holders in their
category and persons who were not even listed in the merit list
had been given appointment. They have sought a direction for
giving appointment to them and for publication of the merit
list.
157. WPA 5406 of 2022 had been filed by a writ petitioner
claiming a direction upon the respondent to issue
appointment to such writ petitioner as Assistant Teacher for
the subject of Political Science (PG) in connection with the first 172
State Level Selection Test 2016, recruitment of Assistant
Teachers for classes XI and XII.
158. There are other writ petitions, falling under our
determination/jurisdiction, which we have heard. We are not
detailing each one of them for the sake of brevity and as the
writ petitions depicted above largely represents a cross section
of the other petitions.
159. Writ petitioners had approached Court essentially for
redressal of their private grievances emanating out of their
participation of a public selection process. Have the
subsequent events transformed these writ petitions to public
interest litigation needs to be decided.
Delay on part of Writ Petitioners and Maintainability
160. At the time when, the writ petitioners had approached
the Court, they were interested in securing employment for
themselves rather than having the entire selection process
nullified. Moreover, most of the writ petitioners had been
unsuccessful in the selection process. We say most since the
writ petitioner in WPA 14612 of 2021 claimed to be
successful, given an appointment letter and not allowed to
join. He cannot be held guilty of delay as his appointment 173
letter is dated March 20, 2020. Covid intervened thereafter
and he has filed the writ petition in 2021 when remnants of
Covid was still continuing.
161. Delay on the part of the writ petitioners as also they
being unsuccessful candidates would ordinarily have visited
the writ petitioners with a devastatingly negative result on the
writ petition filed by them. The negative result would however
have been after a final hearing in the writ petition. None of the
writ petitions could have been dismissed on the ground that
they did not disclose a cause of action or was barred by law.
162. It has been contended on behalf of the private
respondents opposing the writ petitions that, since on the date
of the filing of the writ petition, the same was not
maintainable, no order should have been passed excepting
one of dismissal of the writ petition.
163. On a purposive reading of the writ petitions, one
cannot arrive at an explicit finding that, any of the writ
petitions or the prayers made therein are barred by law or do
not disclose a cause of action. The writ petitioners are entitled
to approach the writ Court with the prayers made on the basis
of the pleadings as existing in the writ petitions. At the bare
minimum the writ petitioners allege misadventure by the 174
authorities in the selection process. The writ petitioners are
participants of the selection process, albeit unsuccessfully by
most, in respect of which they allege misadventure. They are
entitled to a fair consideration in the selection process, a
fundamental right under Article 14, denial of which they allege
in the writ petitions.
164. In respect of all categories of the 2016 selection
process the common allegations are that, merit list
contemplated under the Rules of the selection process
governing the category was never published, persons not
featuring either in the merit list or the waiting list were given
appointment, below ranked candidates were favoured with
appointments, and appointments given after expiry of the
panel. None of these allegations can be construed to be
unmeritorious of consideration of a writ Court even if made at
the behest of an unsuccessful candidate. Such allegations if
proved would mean that selection process had violated the
fundamental right of the unsuccessful candidate to be treated
fairly in the selection process. That would have made the writ
petition at the behest of unsuccessful candidate not only
maintainable but entitled the writ petitioner appropriate
reliefs.
175
165. Delay aspect needs consideration from the Covid
perspective also. Entire country went into lockdown for a
considerable period in 2020 -2021. The selection process had
culminated just prior to the onset of the Covid lockdown.
Therefore, to hold the time period lost due to the Covid
lockdown as against the writ petitioners as they had been
unsuccessful would be a travesty of justice.
166. The nature of misadventure alleged is such that, such
allegation cannot be dismissed at the threshold as not
disclosing a cause of action to approach a writ Court or such
allegation being barred by law must not be enquired into by a
writ Court. Quite to the contrary, if the statements made in
the writ petitions are taken as true and correct then they
make out a case of transgression of fundamental right to be
treated fairly in a selection process undertaken by a State
authority. Whether the writ petitioners would ultimately
receive any relief on the basis of the pleadings of the parties
completed after affording the parties opportunity of filing
affidavits, and the prayers made in such writ petitions, would
be a different issue.
167. On the face of the pleadings contained in the writ
petitions and taking such pleadings to be true and correct, on 176
the principles akin to considerations of an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it
cannot be said that, any of the writ petitions are barred by law
or does not disclose a cause of action, and that any of them
must be dismissed as not maintainable at the threshold.
168. Having returned the finding that, none of the writ
petitions could not have been dismissed as the threshold on
the ground that it was barred by law or did not disclose any
cause of action, in our view, the issue of maintainability
should not be decided on the limited prism of the pleadings
available in the writ petitions to the exclusion of all other
materials, but a decision on such an issue should also
encompass the sequel of events happening subsequent to the
filing of the writ petitions, affidavits and reports filed therein
and the orders passed from time to time.
169. Group-D selection process is governed by the West
Bengal Selection Service Commission (Selection of persons for
appointment to the post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009
which had been notified on July 09, 2016. Subsequent
thereto, recruitment notification for vacancy had been
published for the post of Group-D staff on August 08, 2016.
Written test in respect of such selection process had been held 177
on February 19, 2017. Panel for both eligible candidates as
well as wait-listed candidates had been prepared and
published on November 06, 2017. Personality test and
counseling had been held in 2018. SSC had commenced
issuance of recommendation letters from February, 2018 and
in turn West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had issued
appointment letters. Candidates had commenced joining their
respective posts since April 2018. Appointment and service of
such candidates had been approved by the District Inspector
of Schools, from the respective date of joining, commencing
from the period June, 2018. The panel including the wait-
listed candidate panel had expired on May 04, 2019.
170. Two writ petitions being WPA 12266 and 12270 of
2021 had been filed before the High Court alleging that,
appointment letters in respect of Group-D staff were issued
even after expiry of the term of panel. These writ petitions had
been filed in August, 2021. Wait-listed candidates had filed
writ petition relating to appointment to the post of Assistant
Teachers for Classes IX and X being WPA 13700 of 2021
alleging that they had priority in the waiting list as they were
placed higher than some who were given the appointment.
This writ petition had been filed in September, 2021. 178
Court's Orders on the Writ Petitions
171. By an order dated November 09, 2021 passed in WPA
12270 of 2021 (writ petition relating to Group-D), the High
Court has directed the Commission to file an affidavit
explaining the situation.
172. On November 22, 2021, wait-listed candidates for
Group-D have filed a writ petition being WPA 18585 of 2021
alleging that they had priority in the waiting list and that
persons who were placed lower than them in the waiting list
had been given appointment. On the same day, an order was
passed in WPA 12266 of 2021 (Group D writ petition) directing
investigation by the CBI after noting the submissions made on
behalf of the Board claiming that they had received
recommendations in the proper manner. Court had also
directed 542 persons to be added as parties to such writ
petition. Appeal had been preferred against the order dated
November 21, 2021. Order directing investigation by CBI has
not been interfered with upto Supreme Court. CBI had
conducted the investigation pursuant to orders of the Court.
CBI has filed charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court.
173. On November 30, 2021, the Court had noted that, SSC
in its affidavit denied issuing recommendation letters annexed 179
to the writ petition. The Court had also allowed 350 other
persons to be added as party respondents in such writ
petition.
174. On December 02, 2021, the Court in WPA 12270 of
2021 and WPA 14612 of 2021 had called upon the
Commission to explain by way of an affidavit how the
recommendation letters and the subsequent appointment
letters had been issued. The Court had passed another order
on December 14, 2021 in the both the above noted writ
petitions calling for certain particulars from the SSC with
regard to the vacancies and the persons recommended for
appointment in Group-C.
175. In WPA 12266 of 2021 (writ petition relating to Group-
D), Court by an order dated February 09, 2022, had directed
publication of information relating to 573 candidates, on its
official website, whose appointments were held to be invalid
since the recommendations were issued after the expiry of the
panel. SSC had complied with such directions and uploaded
the particulars of such candidates in its website. In the same
writ petition, another order dated February 15, 2022 had been
passed directing stopping the salary of 350 persons and 180
requiring those 350 persons to refund their salary as they had
received appointment subsequent to the expiry of the panel.
176. By an order dated February 22, 2022, passed in WPA
13700 of 2021 (Writ petition relating to Assistant Teachers for
Classes IX and X), the Court after considering the reports of
SSC, had found the respondent no.6 therein not to be entitled
for appointment as the writ petitioner was found not to be
within the zone of consideration by SSC. Respondent No.6
was directed to refund the salary that had been received with
liberty to sue the government.
177. The learned single Judge has by an order dated March
3, 2022 passed in WPA 13700 2021 noted that, in paragraph 5
of the affidavit of SSC affirmed on March 3, 2022, it has been
stated that, generally recommendation letters are issued in
favour of the empanelled wait listed candidates on the date of
counselling after opting the school by the respective
candidates, but in respect of respondent No. 6, he was not
called for counselling and in spite of that recommendation
letter was issued in favour of respondent No. 6.
178. Learned single Judge had held by an order on March
3, 2022 passed in WPA 13700 of 2021 that, there was no delay
in filing of the writ petition since, the writ petitioner could not 181
know about such misconduct in the selection process at the
time of filing of the writ petition.
179. By an order dated March 08, 2022, passed in WPA
18585 of 2021, the Court had directed SSC to submit a report
about the status of certain persons. In such writ petition, the
Court had directed adding 98 persons as respondents upon
the request of the writ petitioners by an order dated March 17,
2022. Noting that a large number of writ petitions alleging
illegal appointment had been filed, by an order dated March
31, 2022 passed in WPA 18585 of 2021, the Court directed
the CBI to question a member of SSC in order to bust the
racket of giving illegal appointments.
180. On April 01, 2022, the Court had passed an order in
WPA 18585 of 2021 effectively terminating the appointments
of 90 persons and directing the CBI to register a case and
commence investigations including interrogations.
181. Applications for stay were filed in WPA 18585 of 2021
which were disallowed by an order dated April 04, 2022 by the
Court. On April 05, 2022, the Court had directed the CBI to
commence interrogation of a member of the Board of SSC and
if thought fit by CBI, commence custodial interrogation of
such member. Another order was passed on April 06, 2022 in 182
such writ petition directing two other persons to proceed to
the office of the CBI for further interrogation.
182. On April 07, 2022, an order was passed in WPA 5538
of 2022 where the Court had observed that deliberate false
statements had been made by a member of the five-member
committee. The Court had directed investigations to be
conducted by CBI and a new case be registered in relation to
appointments of Assistant Teachers for Classes IX and X. CBI
had submitted a report in WPA 5538 of 2022 on April 08,
2022 when the Court had given further directions.
183. The Court had adjourned WPA 18585 of 2021 till May
17, 2022 in view of the pending appeals. On May 18, 2022,
the Court had passed an order in WPA 18585 of 2021
directing four persons named in such order and the then
Education Minister to report before CBI and to be interrogated
by CBI. If necessary, CBI had been permitted to take custody
of such persons for interrogation.
184. Three orders had been passed by the learned single
Judge on May 18, 2022. In WPA 18585 of 2021, the learned
single Judge had directed the officer on special duty, Minister
in charge, Parliamentary affairs, Senior Law Officer in the
Department of Education, Deputy Director, School Education 183
and Joint Secretary cum- Private Secretary of the Minister in
Charge to attend the office of the CBI for interrogation. The
learned single Judge had also directed the then Education
Minister to attend the office of the CBI for interrogation.
185. The learned single Judge had passed an order on May
18, 2022 in WPA 5538 of 2022 where the learned Judge had
expressed his expectations that the Minister should step
down. Another order was passed in WPA 12270 on the same
date taking note of the contention of the writ petitioners that
some persons had entered the office of the SSC and were
interfering with the records including computer records. The
Court had directed the Secretary of SSC to produce the CCTV
footage and directed CRPF to deploy to protect the office of
SSC.
186. On May 20, 2022 the learned Single Judge had passed
2 orders, one in WPA 18585 of 2021 where the learned single
Judge directed the Minister to be added as a party respondent
in such writ petition. The learned single Judge had also
directed affidavit of assets of various respondents to be kept
on record. The learned single Judge had passed another order
in WPA 12270 of 2021 where CRPF were directed to allow
employees of SSC into the building without impediment as 184
CBI had already sealed and taken possession of the assets
and the records in the data room.
187. On June 17, 2022, the learned single Judge had kept a
report of CBI filed in WPA 18585 of 2021 and WPA 12266 of
2021 in the records of WPA 12266 of 2021. The learned single
Judge had allowed SSC access to the data room, on its prayer,
after recording that CBI had already obtained the necessary
information, material and records for its investigation, by an
order passed in WPA 12270 of 2021.
188. By an order dated June 23, 2022 passed in WPA
12270 of 2021 the learned single Judge had allowed certain
papers to be handed over to CBI by opening the office of the
erstwhile Justice Bag Committee.
189. The learned single Judge had dealt with the singular
case of a daughter of a minister who was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in the concerned selection process and
termed the service of such daughter as stealing the service of
another. The learned single Judge had directed the monies
received by her to be refunded.
190. By an order dated September 9, 2022, the learned
single Judge had directed the handing over of the data room
to SSC.
185
191. By an order dated September 21, 2022 passed in WPA
18585 of 2021, the learned single Judge had observed that,
since appointments given to 573 candidates were declared as
invalid, SSC should take immediate action to fill up such
vacancies. In WPA 5538 of 2022, the learned single Judge had
directed SSC to hold meeting with the learned advocate for the
petitioner and of the Board and file a report, regarding how
many illegal appointments have been detected. CBI had also
been directed to file a report. The learned single Judge had
directed that the process of giving appointments to the
genuine candidates should start immediately. In WPA 12270
of 2021 the learned single such had found that 350 persons
had been appointed after expiry of the panel and directed SSC
to give recommendation to 350 persons from the wait list and
to hold counselling for such vacancies.
192. On September 28, 2022, the learned single Judge had
passed an order in WPA 12266 of 2021, WPA 12270 of 2021,
WPA 13700 2021, WPA 13701 of 2021, WPA 17273 of 2021,
WPA 18585 of 2021 and WPA 5528 of 2022 where the learned
single Judge had noted that CBI filed four status reports. The
learned single Judge had observed that a large number of
blank OMR sheets were found by CBI. Learned single Judge 186
had directed CBI to give the names and roll numbers of the
persons who submitted such type of OMR sheet for the
selection process to be checked by SSC whether such persons
received recommendations and appointments or not. The
learned single Judge had extended a request to the persons
receiving such illegal appointments to resign by November 19,
2022 assuring such persons of protection. The learned single
Judge had also directed uploading of the order in the website
of SSC and a short advertisement to be published in a
prominent place in newspapers stating that an order in
respect of illegal appointments have been passed by the Court
which is available in the website of SSC.
193. The learned single Judge had considered CAN 2 of
2022 filed in WPA 5538 of 2022 on November 16, 2022. By
CAN 2 of 2022, SSC wanted permission for creation of
supernumerary post. The learned single Judge had recorded
that such application proposed creation of supernumerary
post to accommodate those appointees whose appointments
may subsequently be found to be invalid. The learned single
Judge had directed the Secretary of the SCC to come with the
file under which instructions were issued for drafting and
filing such application.
187
194. On the same day, the learned single Judge had issued
directions to the CBI with regard to investigation and
reconstituted the Special Investigating Team. Learned single
Judge had also issued directions with regard to CAN/2/2022.
195. On November 23, 2022, the Chairman of SSC
appeared before the High Court and sought to take
responsibility for filing CAN 2 of 2022 in WPA 5538 of 2022
and CAN 6 of 2022 in WPA 12266 of 2021. The learned single
Judge had disbelieved the Chairman, SSC with regard to him
taking the responsibility. The learned single Judge had
directed the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal
to appear personally on the next date for answering the
questions pertaining to the matter. The learned single Judge
had directed the CBI to investigate the matter and also
directed SSC to start the counseling process and publish the
details of the panel.
196. By an order dated November 25, 2022, passed in WPA
5538 of 2022, the learned single Judge had taken on record a
cabinet note and cabinet memorandum produced before it in a
sealed cover. The learned single Judge had dispensed with the
personal appearance of the Principal Secretary, Department of 188
Education owing to the stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
197. By an order dated December 6, 2022 passed in WPA
18585 of 2021, the learned single Judge had noted the
submission of CBI that manipulations were found in the data
of 2823 candidates and directed the petitioners to attend the
meeting with CBI and SSC in respect of comparative study of
100 OMR sheets.
198. Justice Bag Committee had submitted a report
detailing some of the illegalities committed in the selection
process. Such report had been taken into consideration by the
coordinate Division Bench then seisen of the appeals.
199. By an order dated December 15, 2022, the learned
single Judge upon being appraised that Mr. Subiresh
Bhattacharayya had been arrested sought a report from the
District and Session Judge, 24 Parganas South, Alipur.
200. By an order dated December 21, 2022 passed in WPA
18585 of 2021, the learned single Judge had noted the report
of CBI filed in the form of an affidavit in WPA 13700 of 2021 to
the effect that, there were huge numbers of
manipulations/mismatch in the evaluated marks of OMR
sheets pertaining to the selection tests to Group C, D as well 189
as Assistant Teachers of classes IX, X, XI and XII. The learned
single Judge had directed the Enforcement Directorate to be
made as a party respondent in the writ petition. The learned
single Judge had directed CBI to continue with the
investigation and that such investigation would be monitored
by the High Court.
201. By an order dated January 13, 2023 passed in WPA
18585 of 2021, the learned single Judge had directed SSC to
file a report in form of an affidavit about the figures pertaining
to the 2016 recruitment process for Group D post. The
learned single Judge had directed SSC to upload all OMR
sheets received from the CBI and the list of 4,487 candidates.
202. By an order dated February 2, 2023 passed in WPA
25380 of 2022, another learned single Judge had noticed
manipulation of marks in the OMR sheet of the candidates
named under paragraph 9 and 10 of the writ petition. Such
writ petition had been filed in relation to appointments
granted to Assistant Teachers in classes IX and X. Such order
had also noted the submission made on behalf of SSC that
recommendations of appointment in respect of candidates
named in paragraph 9 and 10 of the writ petition was
erroneous.
190
203. The same learned single Judge who had passed the
order dated February 2, 2023 in WPA 25380 of 2022 had
passed an order dated February 8, 2023 in the same writ
petition. The learned judge had noted an affidavit filed on
behalf of SSC in such writ petition. In fact, the learned single
Judge had set out the relevant paragraphs of such writ
petition. In such affidavit, SSC had stated that 937 persons
had been identified against whom Rule 17, that is, revoking
the recommendation should be made. The order has recorded
the undertaking of SSC to initiate the process in cancelling
the recommendations in 7 days' time.
204. By an order dated February 9, 2023 passed in WPA
18585 of 2021, the learned single Judge had directed SSC to
file an affidavit and directed SSC and the Board to take steps
against 2,819 candidates out of which 1,698 were appointed.
205. By an order dated February 10, 2023, the learned
single Judge had cancelled the recommendation of SSC and
appointment letter issued by the Board and directed
candidates to refund the salaries received and not to sit in any
examination. SSC and Board had cancelled the
recommendation letters as well as the appointment letters on
February 10, 2023 itself. SSC had published a notification for 191
counseling for the post thereby falling vacant, on February 10,
2023.
206. Appeal directed against invocation of Rule 17 as had
been directed by the order dated February 10, 2023 passed in
WPA 25380 of 2022 was upheld by the Division Bench on
March 1, 2023 in MAT 245 of 2023.
207. SSC had published a list of wait listed candidates for
counseling of Group D post on February 11, 2023.
208. Several appeals had been preferred against the order
dated February 10, 2023 of the learned single Judge being
MAT/250/2023, MAT/274/2023, MAT/259/2023,
MAT/284/2023 and MAT/276/2023. The Division Bench had
stayed a part of paragraph 19 of the order dated February 10,
2023 of the learned single Judge but refused to stay any other
portion of such impugned order.
209. Several Special Leave Petitions had been filed before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed against the order of the
Division Bench dated February 16, 2023 when the Hon'ble
Supreme Court stayed the counselling for wait listed
candidates that were scheduled to fill up the vacancies
created after the termination of the employment. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had passed an order on May 1, 2023 staying 192
the impugned order of the Division Bench till the next hearing.
Ultimately, such Special Leave Petition had been disposed of
by the order dated November 9, 2023.
210. In the interregnum, another learned Single Judge had
passed an order dated December 22, 2022 in WPA 27106 of
2022 directing service of such writ petition on the Group D
employees. On January 24, 2023, some employees of Group D
had appeared before the other learned single Judge and had
prayed for being added as parties to such writ petition.
Another order by the other learned Single Judge had been
passed in February 8, 2023 in such writ petition.
211. This timeline of events occurring during the selection
process up to the orders passed in the writ petitions largely
permeates to the other three categories of employment
involved in the batch of writ petitions under consideration by
us. The orders passed in the writ petitions have resonance
across all the categories.
212. The writ petitions have SSC, Board, CBI, ED and State
Government as parties. We should take into consideration the
stand taken and role that had been played by these Article 12
authorities during the proceedings. 193
Affidavits and Reports of SSC
213. SSC had filed several affidavits and reports in the
proceedings some of which are noted thereafter.
214. SSC by an affidavit affirmed on March 3, 2021 in WPA
13700 of 2021 where SSC has admitted that the private
respondent in such writ petition was "inadvertently and by
mistake recommended by S and after such detection and the
Commission has taken a decision for taking appropriate steps
for correction of such mistake regarding recommendation of
the respondent No. 6 in terms of Rule 17".
215. It has affirmed an affidavit on March 11, 2022 in WPA
No. 18590 of 2021 where SSC referred to its earlier affidavit
affirmed on November 9, 2021 in WPA 12270 2021 and stated
that, no recommendation had been made either by the Central
Commission or any of the Regional Commissions, in the post
of Group C staff after expiry of the panel on May 18, 2019 and
that the recommendations made after May 18, 2019 were not
issued from any of the offices of the Commission. It has
admitted that a recommendation letter came to be issued in
favour of one of the candidates in such writ petition on
December 20, 2019 and that has not been issued by SSC. 194
216. It has also affirmed an affidavit on the same date in
WPA No. 21268 of 2021 where SSC admitted that, "upon
perusal of the office record it appears that the private
respondent No. 7 namely Siddik Gazi was recommended by the
Commission without following the extant rules and procedures
and that the said recommendation was a faulty
recommendation". It has stated that, SSC decided to cancel
such erroneous recommendation of the private respondent.
217. Similarly, by an affidavit of the same date in WPA No.
21258 of 2021 SSC has admitted that the private respondent
No. 7 in such writ petition was "recommended by the
Commission without moving the relevant provisions of rule
and that the said recommendations were faulty and not
tenable".
218. It has affirmed two affidavits in March 2022 one in
WPA 18802 of 2021 and the other in WPA 18381 of 2021. In
WPA 18802 of 2021 SSC admitted that, the respondent Nos. 6
and 7 in such writ petition were "neither included in the merit
list nor in the waiting list and their recommendation letters
were issued without following the procedure and hence were
faulty recommendations".
195
219. It has in WPA 18381 of 2021 stated that, the private
respondent's therein "were recommended by the Commission
without following the relevant rules and procedures and fit to
be dealt with in terms of Rule 17".
220. In WPA 18387 of 2021 SSC has stated that, the private
respondents therein were recommended by the Commission
without opening the provisions of the relevant rules and that
such recommendations were faulty and not tenable.
221. It has affirmed an affidavit on March 9, 2022 in WPA
18379 of 2021 where it has stated that, the respondent No. 6
and 7 in such writ petition had been recommended without
following the extant rules and procedures. SSC has taken
steps for cancellation or withdrawal of such recommendation.
222. It has submitted a report in the form of affidavit
affirmed on February 14, 2022 in WPA 17273 of 2091
pursuant to an order dated January 4, 2022 admitting that
the private respondents therein were recommended without
they not being in either the merit list or in the waiting list. Writ
petitioner had taken an exception to the report. SSC has filed
another report in the form of an affidavit were, it stated that,
SSC on verification of the records available in the office of the
Commission, it "has managed to detect 183 number of 196
candidates who were wrongly recommended for appointment
by the Commission, 20 of whom have already had their
recommendations cancelled. The 183 number of candidates
includes the 16 persons referred to in paragraph 15 of the said
application. It is to mention that in the list as in paragraph 15,
the details of first person were not specified and could not be
identified". It has gone on to say that, "there may be more
candidates who were only recommended for appointment by
the Commission, for which I most humbly pray for some time
to further verify the records". Referring to the investigations by
CBI, the report has stated that, "the Chairman and the
Secretary of the Commission have had several meetings with
the officials of the CBI including the Head of Branch ACB were
from it appeared that in the course of their
investigation/interrogation they have also come across a
considerable number of illegal appointments".
223. SSC in a report in the form of an affidavit filed in WPA
13701 of 2021 has admitted that, private respondents in such
writ petition were "inadvertently and by mistake recommended
by the Commission and after such detection the Commission
has taken a decision for taking appropriate steps for correction
of such mistake". Writ petitioner therein had taken an 197
exception to such report. SSC has filed a report in the form of
an affidavit therein were, it contended that, the alleged
irregularities in recommendations pointed out in the exception
to the report was without any basis.
224. The added respondent No. 7 in WPA 13700 of 2021
has filed an affidavit in compliance with the order dated
February 28, 2022 passed by the learned single Judge. There,
he has stated that, he was appointed as the Chairman of SSC
by an order dated January 9, 2019. He had taken charge in
the late evening of January 9, 2019 and that for all practical
purposes he was functioning as the Chairman on and from
January 10, 2019 morning. He had been released from the
post of Chairman SSC by the added respondent No. 8 on
January 15, 2020 pursuant to an order dated January 13,
2020. He has stated that, while in the office of Chairman, SSC,
his mother expired on December 4, 2019 and he went to his
native place for performing the last rites. In view of his
absence, the then Secretary of the Commission had been
appointed as the Chairman of SSC by an order dated
December 4, 2019. He had resumed his duties as the
Chairman of SSC on December 19, 2019 in the forenoon.
According to him, he had discharged duties of the Chairman, 198
SSC on and from January 10, 2019 till January 15, 2020
excluding the period December 4, 2019 till December 18,
2019. According to him, the first recommendation letter in the
name of respondent No. 6 that had been issued on December
18, 2019 when he was not the Chairman of SSC and that the
signature appearing in such recommendation letter was not
his signature. The 2nd recommendation letter in the name of
the respondent No. 6 had been issued on February 25, 2020
when he was no longer in the office of the Chairman, SSC and
that the signature appearing in such recommendation letter
was not his signature. He has stated that, he had no
knowledge as to the issuance of such recommendation letter.
He has averred that, on the dates when the 7th phase of
counselling of wait listed candidates was notified and
postponed and rescheduled, he was not the Chairman of SSC.
None of those notifications had been issued under his seal and
signature. He did not have any intimation, idea or knowledge
of the issuance of any such notification. He also did not have
any idea or knowledge of issuance of any recommendation
letter/letters issued in favour of any candidate after the expiry
of the validity period of the concerned panels and waiting lists.
The same were not issued, if any, at all, with prior 199
consultation with him or after obtaining prior permission or
consent from him. He has stated that, if any letter is found to
be issued under his signature, the same was not issued
without his permission or consent and that he did not have
any idea or knowledge of the same and that he was no way
responsible for the same.
225. The Assistant Secretary of SSC has filed an affidavit
pursuant to the order dated February 28, 2022 in WPA 13700
2021 stating that, he had acted as the Chairman in charge of
SSC for the period from December 4, 2019 till December 18,
2019 and subsequently from January 15, 2020 till December
16, 2020. He has stated that, the recommendation letters
dated December 18, 2019 and February 25, 2020 issued in
favour of the respondent No. 6 were under the scanned
signature of the Chairman, SSC and that, the recommendation
letters had been issued in favour of respondent No. 6 without
calling him for counselling. He has stated that, for the purpose
of issuance of recommendation letters to the candidates only
the Programme Officer can generate recommendation letter
without utilising the scanned signature of the Chairman. He
has stated that, the then Advisor, SSC had looked after the
work of issuing recommendation letters. 200
226. The Secretary of SCC has filed a report in the form of
an affidavit in WPA 18585 of 2021. He has stated that,
recommendation letters were issued after the expiry of the
panel and that the facts are similar to the facts of WPA 12266
of 2021. In such affidavit it was stated that, the southern
region did not issue the recommendation letters in favour of
two persons, western region stated that they did not issue
recommendation letters in respect of 96 persons. Another
report in the form of an affidavit had been affirmed on behalf of
SSC in WPA 18585 of 2021 where, it was denied that any
recommendation was made by SSC in respect of pages 72, 73,
85 and 86 of writ petition.
227. SSC has filed an affidavit in compliance with the order
dated November 18, 2021 passed in WPA 12266 of 2021 where
it has stated that, none of the regional SSC had issued the
recommendation letters alleged by the writ petitioner.
228. The Secretary of SSC has affirmed an affidavit in WPA
12270 of 2021 where it was stated that, no recommendation
had been made either by the Central Commission or by any
Regional Commission in the post of Group-C staff after expiry
of the panel on May 18, 2019 and that the recommendations 201
made after May 18, 2019 were not issued from any offices of
the Commission.
229. The Assistant Secretary of SSC has submitted a report
in the form of an affidavit in WPA 18585 of 2021 in response to
order dated January 13, 2023 where, the number of vacancies
declared in Group-D posts were tabulated. Number of
candidates recommended was stated, the number of the
candidates empaneled and the number of wait listed
candidates were also stated. Significantly, it has stated that,
manipulated OMR sheet supplied to SSC by CBI were 2,819.
230. Another affidavit of SSC in WPA 18585 of 2021, SSC
has stated that M/s Nysa was an agency appointed by SSC for
the purpose of assessing/scanning of the OMR sheet with
regard to the Third Regional Level Selection Test 2016, for
appointment of Group-D staff. After receiving the OMR sheet,
and in compliance with the orders of the Court, SSC had
checked the OMR sheet and others data supplied by CBI in the
form of hard disks whereupon, it appeared that the marks of
2,819 OMR sheet were lesser then the marks of the candidates
as were kept in the server of SSC. Out of 2823 candidates in
which, marks had been manipulated/enhanced, 1,911
candidates had been wrongly recommended. 202
231. SSC has submitted a report in the form of an affidavit
in WPA 25380 of 2022 stating that in respect of 937
candidates the mark difference varies from 1 to 53. It has
submitted a chart with regard to the wrong recommendations.
It has found discrepancy in 805 cases.
232. At the hearing of the writ petitions, SSC had disclosed
relevant documents relating to the recruitment process. Such
documents had been disclosed by a compilation. Pages 89 to
96 have the photocopies of the tender document and work
orders issued to M/s NYSA by SSC.
233. By a writing dated July 12, 2016, SSC had called upon
7 addresses of such letter including M/s. NYSA to quote rates
for 3 types of works enumerated in such letter. The next
document disclosed by SSC has suggested that, M/s. NYSA
was selected as it was the lowest bidder. No document has
been disclosed by SSC as to whether, SSC evaluated the expert
eyes of any of the 7 addresses of the letter dated July 12, 2016
with regard to the nature of job required of them to be
performed. Technical qualifications have not been spelt out.
234. By letter dated December 1, 2016, SSC had referred to
a work order dated October 24, 2016 and called upon M/s. 2
start scanning of OMR sheet of both Secondary and Higher 203
Secondary examinations immediately and process result of the
same in due course. The work order dated October 2016 has
not been disclosed.
235. By letter dated March 29, 2017, SSC had called upon
M/s NYSA 2 start scanning of OMR sheets of Group C
examination immediately along with other activities as
enumerated therein. The other activities that had been
enumerated in such letter are scanning and processes of
results, return of OMR sheet after completion of the process to
SSC and handing over scanned images of OMR is and records
of result and other information in soft copy mode with
clarifications. This letter dated March 29, 2017 has referred to
a work order dated January 17, 2017 of SSC which has not
been brought on record.
236. By letter dated March 29, 2017, SSC, referring to a
work order dated January 17, 2017 had called upon M/s.
NYSA to start scanning of OMR sheet for the post of Group D
examinations. Same other activities as the earlier letter had
been specified. Again, the work order spoken of has not been
disclosed.
237. By a letter dated September 7, 2017, SSC had
informed M/s. NYSA that, offer of M/s. NYSA had been 204
accepted and that such entity was requested to take up Type
Test of Group C selection process.
238. In respect of the entrustment of the work for Group C
and D examinations to M/s. NYSA, even the semblance of a
selection from amongst other bidders was not undertaken by
SSC.
239. In the factual matrix of the present case, we are unable
to accept a contention that, appointment of M/s NYSA in such
a process has been an irregularity, and not an illegality.
Appointment of such an entity in such a manner had been
unashamedly orchestrated in order to facilitate, implement
and perpetuate the eventual fraud which was subsequently
discovered.
240. SSC had submitted a statistical report in respect of the
4 selection processes which is as follows: -
Alleged Sl. Post Class Total OMR Rank Alleged Irregularity No. Name Level Recommendation Issue Jumping Irregularity in percentage Assistant IX-X 1 11610 808 185 993 8.50% Teacher Level XI-
Assistant 2 XII 5596 771 39 810 14.47% Teacher Level Group C 3 2037 783 783 38.43% (Clerk)
4 Group D 3880 1741 44.87% 205
241. These illegalities admiited by SSC cannot be said to be
within tolerable errors of a selection process of a large
magnititude. Despite the recalcitrant attitude of SSC, it had to
admit these illegalities.
242. In course of hearing SSC did not discount the fact that
possibilities of further illegatities exists. One would have
appreciated an Article 12 authority when show illegalities to
own up the mistakes, identify them, identify the lacunae in the
system causing the illegalities and corrected course so as
extend ameoliration to the affected persons to the extent
possible. We however witnessed an SSC persistently treating
the writ petitioners as adversaries, despite a number of them
bringing forth credible informations regarding the illegalities,
which ultimately SSC had also acknowledged as correct.
243. Although litigations in India are adversarial in nature,
Article 12 authority is endowed with the obligation to uphold
the rule of law. It must side with rule of law and in so doing, in
the facts and circumstances of the present matters, the writ
petitoners could not be treated by SSC as adverseries.
Objective of SSC should have found common platform of
fighting corruption with the candidates affected by it. Bonafide
candidates who had participated in the selection process 206
deserved a lot better and far more humane treatment than
they received from SSC. It is debateable as to whether the
present stance of SSC as has been exhibited in Court would
assist in repairing the damage to the creditiblity of SSC to
conduct a free, fair and transparent selection process.
Affidavits and Reports of Board
244. The then president of the Adhoc Committee of the
Board has affirmed an affidavit in WPA 12266 of 2021 claiming
that board received all the recommendations from different
regional offices of the Commission mostly by hand and some
through postal department. He has claimed that the Board is
in possession of original recommendation issued by the
regional SSC with DI Memo mentioned upon each
recommendation. He has claimed that the Board had issued
approximately 25,000 appointments of teachers and non-
teaching staffs since 2018 and that for all such appointment
same methods were followed.
245. The then President of Adhoc Committee of the Board
has affirmed an affidavit in WPA 12270 of 2021 claiming that
the Board received all the recommendations from the different
regional offices of SSC. Board had given 357 appointments on 207
the basis of the recommendations between the time period
December 2019 to February 2020.
246. The Secretary of the Board has submitted a report in
the form of an affidavit in WPA 18585 of 2021 stating that the
Board received 4,550 numbers of recommendations for Group-
D post from Regional Commission and issued equal number of
appointment letters for the candidates for the post of the
Group-D in different schools. He has tabulated the joining
status of the candidates given such appointments.
Reports of CBI
247. From time to time as called upon, CBI has filed several
reports as to the progress and result of the investigations. CBI
has submitted a report in the form of an affidavit in terms of
the order dated December 6, 2022 in WPA 13700 of 2021. In
such report, it has stated that, during investigation, it revealed
that, SSC awarded a contract to M/s. NYSA Communications
Private Limited for scanning and evaluation of OMR answer
sheets of the written answer sheets pertaining to the selection
test of Group D, Group C, Assistant Teachers for classes IX-X,
and XI-XII. Scanning of all original OMR sheets had been done
at the office of SSC by M/s. NYSA, scanned OMR sheets were 208
used by M/s. NYSA for evaluation of such OMR sheets by way
of comparing those with the corresponding answer key of the
booklet which the candidate was provided with. Thereafter,
M/s. NYSA made a final tabulation of result of OMR evaluation
and shared this evaluation of marks with the SSC. Once SSC
had received the evaluated marks of the candidates from M/s.
NYSA they uploaded the same to their office database. During
investigation, the office database of SSC had been seized by
CBI containing all the data pertaining to the selection test for
all the 4 categories. The 3 hard disks had been seized during
investigation by way of search of the premises of one ex-
employee Mr Pankaj Bansal at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Those hard disks had scanned images and the evaluated
marks of the OMR sheets. On comparison of the data seized
from SSC during investigation and the data contained in the 3
hard disks seized during the investigation from the premises of
Mr Pankaj Bansal it was found that there had been huge
number of manipulation/mismatches in the evaluated marks
of OMR sheets pertaining to the all 4 categories of the selection
process. The entire data which was seized during the
investigation from the premises of Mr Pankaj Bansal had been
provided to SSC for appropriate action at their end. 209
248. CBI has filed a comprehensive status report dated
January 19, 2024 in relation to the present proceedings. In
such status report, it has stated that in WPA 18585 of 2021, it
registered CBI case dated April 5, 2022 in compliance with the
order dated April 4, 2022 passed in such writ petition inter
alia under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 in connection with the irregularities in the recruitment of
Group D post in various sponsored and aided schools under
the SSC. It has also stated that, a chargesheet No. 31/2022
dated December 13, 2022 had been filed against 15 persons
under Section 120B read with Sections 201, 420, 467, 468,
471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 and 7A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At that filed a
supplementary chargesheet, and 2nd supplementary
chargesheet involving other accused.
249. The status report dated January 19, 2024 of CBI has
stated that it registered a case on April 7, 2022 under Section
120 B/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in compliance with the
order dated April 7, 2022 passed by the High Court in WPA
5538 of 2022. Such a FIR had been registered against the then 210
convener of 5 members committee as well as advisor to SSC
and unknown other public servants of SSC and other related
departments of the Government of West Bengal for the
irregularities in the process of appointment of candidates in
the post of Assistant Teachers for class IX-X first SLST 2016 of
SSC. It has filed a chargesheet on October 21, 2022 under
Section 120B read with 109, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 7A, 8 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has filed a
supplementary chargesheet, 2nd supplementary chargesheet
and 3rd supplementary chargesheet therein.
250. Such status report of CBI has stated that, it registered
another case on May 18, 2022 on the basis of the order dated
May 18, 2022 passed in WPA 5406 of 2022 which was
registered under Section 120B, 420, 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 against several persons for manipulations in the merit
list for appointment of Teachers for classes XI-XII in schools
under SSC. It has filed chargesheet No. 32/2022 dated
December 13, 2022 against several persons under Section
120B read with 109, 201, 420, 477A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption 211
Act, 1988. It has filed for supplementary chargesheet and 2nd
supplementary chargesheet therein.
251. Again, such status report of CBI has disclosed that,
CBI registered a FIR dated May 20, 2022 in compliance with
order dated May 18, 2022 passed in connection with WPA
12270 of 2021. There, CBI had registered the FIR in
connection with the irregularities in the recruitment of Group
C (Clerks) in various sponsored and aided schools under SSC
stop it has submitted chargesheet on September 13, 2022
against 5 FIRs named accused including the then Minister and
10 other persons under Sections 120B, 201, 420, 467, 468,
471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for supplementary
chargesheet and final chargesheet therein.
252. In such status report, CBI has stated that, by the
order dated November 9, 2023, Supreme Court has directed
completion of the investigation within the period of 2 months.
Accordingly, investigation has been completed in the SSC
cases and final chargesheet has been submitted before the
Trial Court.
253. CBI has submitted a report dated January 16, 2024 in
compliance with the order dated January 15, 2024 passed by 212
the Division Bench. It has stated in such compliance report as
follows: -
"3. That during investigation, it was revealed that the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') has awarded a work order to M/s. Nysa Communication Private Limited (hereinafter be referred to as 'M/s. NYSA') for scanning and evaluation of OMR answer sheets pertaining to the selection tests of Group D, Group C, Assistant Teachers for classes IX-X and XI-XII.
4. That, scanning of all original OMR sheets was done at the office of Commission by M/s. NYSA. The process adopted by M/s. NYSA was when the OMR is scanned, that generates two outputs, first is the scan image of the OMR and the other is the answer string, which is a language coded inputs of the responses filled up by the candidate in the respective OMR sheet.
5. That scanned OMR sheets were used by M/s. NYSA for evaluation of such OMR sheets by way of comparing those with the corresponding answer key. Thereafter, M/s. NYSA made a final tabulation of result of OMRs evaluation and shared this evaluation of marks with the Commission.
6. That once the Commission received the evaluated marks of candidates from M/s. NYSA, they uploaded the same in their office database.
7. That during investigation the office database of the Commission was seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation containing all the data pertaining to selection tests of Group D, Group C, Assistant Teachers for classes IX-X and XI-XII.
8. That, during investigation of the case, three hard disks were recovered on 15.09.2022 and 16.09.2022 from the residence of Pankaj Bansal, ex-employee to M/s. NYSA, at Ghaziabad. The 213
certificates dated 16.09.2022 u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from Shri. Pankaj Bansal were also obtained, in triplicate, with regard to genuineness of the data contained in these three hard-disks so recovered.
9. These three hard-disks contained scanned images and the evaluated marks of above such OMR sheets.
10. That, in compliance to the solemn order dated 15.01.2024 of this Hon'ble Court, a certificate dated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, obtained from Pankaj Bansal is being submitted before this Hon'ble Court. Photocopy of such certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 obtained from Shri Pankaj Bansal dated 16.09.2022 is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure-A" to this affidavit.
11. That, the 2nd Supplementary Chargesheet filed before the Learned Trial Court on 08.01.2024 along with the list of witnesses, list of documents and list of material objects in which three hard disks seized from Pankaj Bansal's residence are made the part of it."
254. Reports in the form of affidavit of SSC, Board and CBI
have established that, there had been serious
illegalities/manipulations in the selection process in respect of
all the 4 categories of post involved. Orders of the learned
single judge directing investigations by CBI in respect of all the
4 categories, have not been interfered with by the Supreme
Court. Rather, by the order dated November 9, 2023, Supreme
Court has directed CBI to conclude the investigations and 214
submit its report before the jurisdictional Court. CBI has done
so.
255. The writ petitions have prompted investigations to be
undertaken in respect of illegalities and manipulations in the
selection process. CBI has found serious illegalities and
manipulations involving a swathe of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to
cheating and corruption. CBI has filed chargesheet in the 4
several FIRs registered by pursuant to orders of Court, passed
in 4 different writ petitions.
256. Events that have occurred subsequent to the filing of
the petition are perturbing and replete with profound
ramifications, transcending the perimeter of the parties to the
proceedings and impacting the society at large. They have
therefore, transmuted the issue of maintainability into one of
entertainability and rather to the nature of reliefs that the
parties are entitled to.
Role of State Government
257. The role of the State Government in the writ petitions
and the appeals that have been heard by us has to be taken
into consideration. As has been noted before, SSC filed CAN 6 215
of 2022 in WPA 5406 of 2022 and an application being CAN 2
of 2022 in WPA 5538 of 2022. SSC had prayed for creation of
supernumerary post in respect of appointments given illegally.
State Government has not opposed such a prayer. In fact,
documents placed on record suggest that the State
Government, at the level of the Cabinet had approved creation
of the supernumerary posts to accommodate the persons who
had received employment illegally in the selection process. The
Principal Secretary had appeared before the learned single
Judge and produced a Cabinet note and Cabinet memo with
regard to creation of the supernumerary post which such
documents were taken on record by an order dated November
25, 2022.
258. CBI had conducted investigation pursuant to orders of
Court. CBI had filed charge sheets and supplementary charge
sheets in the four cases that it registered. CBI had filed charge
sheet against State Government officials. In course of hearing,
the Court had been informed that, SIT had applied for
sanction to prosecute the State Government officials in
September, 2023 and that, a member of SIT had met relevant
officials trying to persuade expeditious disposal of the
application for sanction to prosecute, since then. 216
259. Since the SIT had been constituted in these
proceeding, and the proceedings are yet to be disposed of
finally, we had called upon the learned Government Pleader to
apprise the Court as to the time required for disposal of the
application for prosecution.
260. We had been informed by the learned Government
Pleader on March 5, 2024 that in view of the ensuing elections,
Chief Secretary who is the authority to decide on the
application for grant of sanction to prosecute the State
Government officials, would not be in position to dispose of the
same before the conclusion of the election and would require
further time thereafter. We had requested the learned
Government Pleader to inform us the time frame required by
the Chief Secretary to dispose of such application so that
appropriate order may be passed in that regard. We had
requested the learned Government Pleader to inform us on the
next date, as the hearing of the matters were being continued
on a day-to-day basis.
261. On March 6, 2024, learned Government Pleader had
submitted that one more day's accommodation may be grant
to him to apprise the Court of the time required. Considering 217
such prayer, we had accommodated the learned Government
Pleader as prayed for.
262. On March 7, 2024, the learned Government Pleader
had informed the Court that, he will apprise the Court with
regard to the time frame on March 13, 202 as the criminal
case was fixed before the jurisdictional Court on March 12,
2024. We have acceded to such a prayer also.
263. Thereafter, the matters had been heard on several days
subsequent to March 13, 2024. Neither the learned
Government Pleader had appeared nor any advocate for the
State thought it prudent to apprise the Court as to the time
frame required by the Chief Secretary to dispose the
application for sanction to prosecute.
264. The obdufurate attitude of the Chief Secretary has to
yield to his obligation to uphold the rule of law. Since a
coordinate Bench has issued directions for the expeditious
disposal of the application for sanction, we refrain from issuing
any directions to the Chief Secretary in this regard. We
however deem it appropriate to grant leave to SIT to seek
appropriate directions from Court so that the investigations
and the trials come to their logical conclusions. 218
Inferences from the role of Article 12 authorities
265. State Government therefore has accepted that, there
were widespread illegalities in the selection process and that,
the numbers of persons who received appointments illegally
could not be determined with exactitude. They had resolved to
create supernumerary posts to accommodate the illegal
appointees. In other words, State has resolved to expend
taxpayers' money to accord sanction to an employment
secured dishonestly. Such course of action of the State violates
Articles 14 and 16 which enjoins upon the State the obligation
to grant appointments in conformity with such provisions and
never otherwise.
266. Learned single Judge had directed investigation by
CBI. Learned single Judge had constituted a Special
Investigating Team (SIT) to conduct such investigation. CBI
has filed charge sheets and supplementary charge sheets in
the FIR registered pursuant to the order of the Court. SIT had
applied to the competent authority to accord sanction for
prosecution as against the State Government employees
against whom the charge sheets and supplementary charge
sheets had been filed in the FIR.
219
267. State Government has appeared sporadically during
the course of hearing of the writ petitions and the appeals and
that to only after learned Advocate for the State was requested
to address the Court on the issues in the matters including the
issues of consideration of the grant of sanction to prosecute
the government officials against whom CBI had filed
chargesheet making them as accused. Learned Government
Pleader has represented the State Government. Learned
Government Pleader, with deepest of respect, has been
assiduously evasive, obviously due to the quality of the
instructions, with regard to the time required for the purpose
of disposing of the application for grant of sanction to
prosecute.
268. This course of action has been adopted by the State
Government in order to prevent discovery of further
manipulations/illegalities in the selection process, if possible.
269. SSC, Board and State Government have consistently
stonewalled any queries with regard to the selection process
and have not come clean with regard to the
manipulations/illegalities involved. Conduct of the 3
authorities, during the course of hearing can be classified as
anything other than being cooperative. 220
270. The Secretary, SSC has submitted a statistical report
with regard to the illegalities in the appointment in the respect
of the four categories, by a signed report dated March 6, 2024
to which we have allude to herein.
271. In course of hearing, SSC, in response to queries of the
Court, has submitted details of the recommendations made by
SSC in respect of the 4 categories and number of appointment
letters issued by the Board in respect of the 4 categories.
Significantly, SSC had recommended 11,425 candidates for
appointments post of Assistant Teachers for classes IX and X
whereas, Board succeeded in generating 12,946 appointment
letters thereby issuing 1,539 excess appointment letters than
Board was entitled to similarly, in respect of Assistant
Teachers for classes XI and XII the Board had 5, 756
appointment letters as against a recommendation of 5,557
candidates by SSC thereby issuing 199 excess appointment
letters than entitled to. In respect of Group D Board has
issued 4,550 appointment letters against a recommendation of
3,881 by SSC thereby generating 669 excess appointment
letters. In respect of Group C, Board has generated 2,483
appointment letters as against recommendation of 2,067 by
SSC thereby generating 416 excess appointment letters. 221
Justification that has been sought proffered by Board is that,
all appointment letters were on the basis of the
recommendations of SSC. SSC has contradicted such
justification of Board by claiming that no such
recommendation letters were issued.
272. Board has no authority to issue appointment letters
unless such candidate is recommended by SSC. In the 4
categories involved, there have been appointments far in
excess of the recommendations. There have been
manipulations/illegalities in the recommendations also.
273. SSC had at no stages of hearing, claimed that it was
able to check all the records and be definite as to the number
of illegalities in recommendations made but had limited itself
to those figure as stated in the paragraphs above. In fact,
reports in the form of affidavit filed by the SSC from time to
time had always stated that, they discovered the illegalities as
were brought to their notice by the litigants or on order of
Court.
274. SSC had proceeded to withdraw/cancel the
recommendations issued in favour of candidates participating
in the 4 categories on the basis that there were manipulations
in obtaining the recommendations. SSC had accepted the data 222
found in the hard disks seized from ex-employee of M/s NYSA
namely, Pankaj Bansal by CBI and acted upon it. SSC has
filed two applications as noted above for creation of
supernumerary post.
Findings on Maintainability
275. Supreme Court in its order dated November 9, 2023
has observed that, the writ petitions have strong attributes of
Public Interest Litigation. If one understands a public interest
litigation to be a litigation which strives to secure public
interest and ensure that the activities of the administration in
violation the Constitutional provisions are attended to by the
judiciary, then these batch of litigations qualify the definition.
The sheer number of candidates involved in the subject
selection process and the quantum of illegalities discovered
renders the litigations involved as public interest litigations. In
view of the magnitude of the illegalities discovered so far with
further discoveries yet to be made, we are of the view that, the
writ petitions have metamorphized themselves into Public
Interest Litigations.
276. It is trite law that, the Court in furtherance of public
interest may deem it necessary to enquire into the subject 223
matter of the litigation in the interest of justice. Court can
consider a writ petition filed with a private grievance and treat
it as a public interest litigation, if the fact situation so
warrants.
277. In view of the events happening subsequent to the
filing of writ petitions and in the view of the writ petitions
transforming themselves into Public Interest Litigations, and
more so in view of the CBI filing charge sheets and
supplementary charge sheets in respect of 4 FIRs alleging
widespread manipulations in the selection process, the second
issue is answered in favour of the writ petitioners and as
against the persons opposing the writ petitions. All writ
petitions falling with the jurisdiction of this Division Bench to
be heard in terms of the order dated November 9, 2023 of the
Supreme Court, and the orders of assignment are held to be
maintainable.
278. Respective stand of SSC, CBI, ED, State and Board as
noted above has established, there were widespread
manipulations in the selection process involved. Fraud had
been established. At the very least, persons who were not even
in the panel were found to have been blessed with
appointments. OMR sheets of the candidates have been found 224
to be manipulated across all four categories. Exact numbers of
candidates given appointments, whose OMR sheet have been
manipulated in all the four categories are yet to be finally
decided.
279. In view of such widespread fraud in a selection
process, and such fraud having been discovered subsequent to
filing of the writ petition, it cannot be held that any of the writ
petitions are not maintainable. The fraud discovered
subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions have answered the
second issue in favour of the writ petitioners.
280. None of the writ petitioners can be said to have
knowledge of the fraud involved which such fraud was
discovered subsequently. Therefore, the question of the writ
petitioners participating in the selection process with their
eyes open and having been unsuccessful therein, not being
entitled to file the writ petition challenging the selection
process does not arise.
281. In view of the ratio laid down in Mohd. Kalimuddin
and others (supra), Surinder Singh and others (supra),
Raghbir Chand Sharma and another (supra), Virendra
Kumar Sharma (supra) B. Valluvan and others (supra). Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) and Rajkishore Nanda and 225
others (supra), appointments cannot be made subsequent to
expiry of the validity period of panel.
282. In the facts of the present case, SSC has placed on
record several persons who had been granted appointments
subsequent to the expiry of the validity period of panel. Such
appointments therefore have to be cancelled and are hereby
directed to be so.
283. In view of discussions above, the third issue with
regard to the appointment made subsequent to the expiry of
the validity period of the panel is answered by holding that,
appointments made subsequent to the expiry of the validity
period of the panel are null and void.
Certificate Issued under Section 65B of the Evidence Act
284. CBI has filed an affidavit on January 16, 2024
disclosing a certificate dated September 19, 2022 issued under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 by Mr. Pankaj Bansal
with regard to the genuineness of the data contained in the 3
hard disks recovered. Such report has stated that, CBI seized
the hard disks containing all the data pertaining to the
selection test of all the 4 categories. CBI has produced the
three hard disks in Court.
226
285. Such certificate dated September 19, 2022 is as
follows:-
"CERTIFICATE U/S 65B OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872"
It is certified that the information, enclosed herewith in the form of data stored. in:
(i) One WD 2 TB External Hard Disk bearing Serial No. WX71AC82C54A (Copy of which was voluntarily provided to CBI by the undersigned)
(ii) One Seagate Back up plus portable Drive, capacity 1 TB, bearing Serial No.:NA7ZW704 having hash value .SHA1:
28E5D8FBA6A251F41E0BD2CA5A9E1A8A83243944 & MD5 - 304FDD1C49D7D52AC50437F6DB571641 (copy of which was provided to CBI using Tableau TX1 for the purpose of investigation)
(iii) One Seagate BUP Slim RD SCSI Disc device, capacity 1 TB bearing Serial No. NA7XR3VB having hash value SHA1 :-
A8387158B2C36759ACB2188FCC9D4B7E905A54D6 & MD5 - 7BE5529279BEFFID74074E5BE98AC3AC (copy of which was provided to CBI using Tableau TX1 for the purpose of investigation) containing relevant data of WBCSSC pertaining to 1st SLST (AT), 2016 for Class XI-XII, IX-X, Group-C and Group-D; is the original scanned images of OMRs and corresponding data regarding the same for the aforesaid examination.
It is further certified that to the best of my knowledge:
All data including the scanned images of OMRs for the aforesaid examinations were under my exclusive custody throughout and there has been no tampering or manipulation in any of them at any point of time. Said data is the same which was extracted during the scanning process of OMRs of respective examinations at the office of WBCSSC, Acharya 227
Sadan, Salt Lake Kolkata by M/s Nysa Communications Private Limited.
Authorized signatory:
Sh. Pankaj Bansal Data Analyst, M/s ND Info Systems Pvt. Ltd."
286. Order of remand dated November 9, 2023 passed by
the Supreme Court, in relation to the present matters, has
required us to pronounce on the admissibility of the data
contained in the three hard disks on the basis of rules of
evidence.
287. Issues of admissibility on the data contained in the
three hard disks have been raised by the beneficiary of the
fraud.
288. None of the Article 12 authorities had ever disputed
the genuineness, veracity, authenticity and legality of the data
contained in the 3 hard disks seized by the CBI from Mr.
Pankaj Bansal at any material point of time. SSC had accepted
such data, acted upon it, found manipulations/illegalities in
the OMR sheets, proceeded on basis of such findings and
withdrew/cancelled recommendations of various candidates. It
had utilized such data to arrive at a finding that, OMR sheets
had been manipulated and that, marks obtained by candidates 228
stored in its server were considerably higher than the marks
which such candidate could have received on a thorough and
proper evaluation of the OMR sheets of such individual
candidates found in the hard disks seized by the CBI.
289. The 3 hard disks seized by CBI, had been produced in
Court. CBI had granted inspection of documents downloaded
from such hard disks, to persons seeking such inspection,
pursuant to orders of this Bench. None of the persons taking
inspections have contended that, the OMR sheets are not
theirs. The OMR sheets bear unique bar code and have several
features which distinguish one OMR sheets from the other
such as the signature of the candidates as also the invigilator
and other aspects.
290. Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has included
electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court as
documentary evidence. It has also laid down that a fact is said
to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the
Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so
probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances
of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it
exists.
229
291. Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has laid down
that, facts admitted need not be proved. Section 58 is as
follows-
"58. Facts admitted need not be proved. - No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions."
292. Subsequent to the seizure of the 3 hard disks and
subsequent to the certificate dated September 16, 2022, two
applications being CAN 2 of 2022 in WPA 5538 of 2022 and
CAN 6 of 2022 in WPA 12266 of 2022 had been filed ostensibly
by SSC seeking permission to create supernumerary post for
the illegal appointees. In those two applications, orders dated
November 16, 2022, November 23, 2022 and November 25,
2022 had been passed. In those two applications, Cabinet note
of approval to grant supernumerary post had been produced in
Court.
293. After the seizure of the 3 hard disks by CBI, the data
contained therein had been shared by CBI with SSC. SSC had
accepted such data as true and correct. SSC had acted 230
thereon and proceeded to identify manipulations/illegalities in
the recommendations as also appointments. SSC had
proceeded to withdraw/cancel the recommendations acting on
the basis of the data contained in 3 hard disks seized by CBI.
We shall also examine whether the certificate dated September
19, 2022 is in conformity with Section 65B of the Evidence
Act, 1872 or not.
294. In our view, the fact that the 3 hard disks contained
data relating to the 4 categories of the selection process
conducted by SSC had stood proved by SSC and State making
admissions with regard thereto in the applications filed in the
writ petition and by their conduct.
295. Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 occurs in
Chapter-IV while Section 58 occurs in Chapter-III thereof.
Chapter-IV of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals with oral evidence.
296. In Anvar P.V. (supra) Supreme Court has considered
provisions of Sections 62, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act,
1872. It has held that, admissibility of secondary evidence of
electronic record depends upon the satisfaction of the
conditions as prescribed under Section 64B thereof. It has
enumerated the conditions under Section 65B which are
required to be satisfied. It has observed that, on the other 231
hand, if the primary evidence of the electronic record is
adduced, that is, the original electronic record itself is
produced in Court under Section 62, then the same is
admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions
in Section 65B.
297. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra), Supreme Court
has held that, production of the certificate under Section
65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory but only in case
of secondary evidence i.e. where the primary evidence is not
led and original is not produced. It has distinguished primary
and secondary evidence with regard to electronic records
/documents.
298. In Ravinder Singh alias Kaku (supra), Supreme
Court has addressed the issue with regard to admissibility of
the electronic records. It has held that, noncompliance with
requirement of certification of electronic evidence is not
permissible. It has observed that, Section 65B(4) is a
mandatory requirement of law.
299. In Mohd. Arif (supra), Supreme Court has
summarized the manner in which the electronic evidence can
be introduced under Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 232
1872. It has taken note of the principles laid down in Anvar
P.V. (supra) as clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra).
300. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is as follows: -
"65-B Admissibility of electronic records. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this Section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-Section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: -
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or 233
was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-
Section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether -
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this Section as constituting a single computer; and references in this Section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, - 234
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-Section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-Section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this Section, -
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
235
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment."
301. Section 65B contains a deeming fiction allowing
electronic data stored in the electronic devices to be admitted
as evidence of, the contents of the original, subject to the
cumulative satisfaction of the following conditions: -
(i) computer output was produced by the computer
in regular use carried out by a person in lawful
custody over the computer.
(ii) information contained was regularly fed into the
computer in the ordinary course.
(iii) computer was working properly.
(iv) certificate is signed by a person enjoying a
responsible official position.
302. Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not
prescribe any format of a certificate that has to be issued
thereunder. What it prescribes is that, a certificate must
conform with the essential requirements of such section. In
light of such discussions, we have to consider whether the
certificate dated September 16, 2022 is in accordance with
Section 65B or not.
236
303. The certificate dated September 19, 2022 issued by
Mr. Pankaj Bansal has stated that he was having exclusive
custody of the 3 hard disks. He has also stated that, the data
fed therein and the production thereof was what was fed into
the hard disk in ordinary course of activity. He has stated that,
the 3 hard disks contained relevant data of the selection
process pertaining to all the 4 categories and had the original
scanned images of OMRs and corresponding data regarding
the same in respect of such selection process. He has stated
that, such data including the scanned images of the OMR for
the selection process had been under his exclusive custody
throughout and there has been no tampering, manipulation of
any of them at any point of time. He has also stated that such
data is the same which was extracted during the scanning
process of OMRs of the respective examination at the office of
SSC by M/s NYSA.
304. Certificate dated September 16, 2022 had been issued
by Mr. Pankaj Bansal as a Data Analyst of ND Info Systems
Pvt. Ltd. When he had issued that certificate, he was working
in the post and at the organization at that material point of
time. His working at such post in the new organization does
not militate against the requirements of Section 65B of the 237 Evidence Act, 1872. In the body of the certificate, he has
stated that the three electronic devices contained the
necessary data in the electronic format relating to the selection
process concerned.
305. CBI has filed several reports in these proceedings. In
its report dated February 5, 2024 filed in compliance with the
order dated January 24, 2024 passed by us, it has stated as
follows: -
"3. That during investigation, it was revealed that the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'commission' had awarded a work order to M/s Nysa Communication Private Limited ('hereinafter referred to as M/s. NYSA') for scanning and evaluation of OMR answer sheets pertaining to the selection tests of Group - D, Group - C, Assistant Teachers for classes IX - X and XI - XII.
4. Investigation has established that Sh. Puneet Kumar was the then Director and Sh. Niladri Das was the then Vice President of the said M.s Nysa Communications Pvt. Ltd. during relevant period. It has been established during investigation that Sh. Niladri Das was in charge of operations in respect of recruitment examinations conducted by WBCSSC and frequently visited the officer of WBCSSC to attend to the actual operational part and did the requisite liaison on behalf of the agency for necessary compliance of the instructions given by WBCSSC. Sh Puneet Kumar, being the Director, mainly looked after the financial affairs of the agency and represented it on records.
5. Investigation has established that the scanning of OMR sheets was undertaken by the said M/s Nysa Communication Pvt Ltd at WBCSSC office at Acharya Sadan under direct supervision of Sh 238
Niladri Das and in p[resence of WBCSSC officials. It has been further established that M/s NYSA communication Pvt. Ltd. had further given work order w.r.t. scanning the original OMR to M/s Data Scantech Solutions, Noida who remained present on the premises of WBCSSC for the scanning work. After completion of scanning, the precessed data in the form of scanned images of OMRs, scan data etc. were handed over by M/s Data Scantech Solutions to M/s Nysa Communication Pvt Ltd. who took the same to their officer located at Noida in digital form (Hard Disks) leaving the original hard copies of OMR sheets in the office of the WBCSSC, WBCSSC handed over their answer keys in respect of all subjects to M/s Nysa Communications Pvt Ltd for evaluation of OMR responses.
6. That, while scanning the original OMR sheets by M/s Data Scantech Solutions on behalf of M/s Nysa, two ".DAT" files were generated containing SCAN NO., Bar Code, ROLL NO., VENUE CODE, BOOKLET SERIAL NUMBER, SUBJECT CODE, CATEGORY, GENDER, MEDIUM and RESPONSE CODE. In the process of scanning, the image copies of the original OMR sheets were also captured.
7. That, a sample of the ".DAT" file generated during sscaning of one OMR sheet is cited as an example below: -
Bar Code / Roll Number S Venue Booklet Ca G M Scan No u Code te e e Serial bj go n d Number ec ry d i t Co e u C de r m od e 10000892221167500012 921010000697 5 0 2 F 1 DDA A E A C A A A BBA A A DA DDDA CDDCBCDB A A D BBBAACD CACBACBCB#
Responses of candidates in the OMR is appearing as Response Code in alphabets, while "#" indicates end of one OMR sheet.
239 8. That, two such ".DAT" files are generated since scanning is done twice to avoid any technical error. Thereafter, a final ".DAT"
file is prepared which is called a clean data file. After receiving the answer keys from Commission, the same is compared with this final ".DAT" file and a "DBF" File is generated having the score of the candidates.
9. That during investigation the server database of the Commission was seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation containing all the data pertaining to selection tests of Group - D, Group - C, Assistant Teachers for classes IX - X and XI - XII.
10. That, during investigation of the case, three hard disks were recovered on 15/16.09.2022 from the residence of Pankaj Bansal, ex-employee of M/s. NYSA, located at Ghaziabad. The certificates dated 16.09.2022 u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from Shri. Pankaj Bansal were also obtained, in triplicate, with regard to genuineness of the date contained in these three hard-disks so recovered.
11. That, During investigation, data files containing scanned OMRs, ".DAT" files etc. pertaining to the aforesaid WBCSSC recruitment matters were also seized from M/s Data Scantech Solutions. During investigation of RC-03(A)/2022-Kol, the hash values of these Data files of Scantech Solutions were matched with the hash value of the corresponding files recovered from the hard discs seized from Pankaj Bansal and was found to be matching, which establishes that the data contained in the three hard disks recovered from Pankaj Bansal's possession were not contaminated.
12. That, a similar exercise of matching the data available on the hard disks of Pankaj Bansal with the data seized from the Commission was done during the course of investigation and it was found that there were mismatch between the two, in as much as, the written marks awarded to candidates as available on the server of the commission had been increased to qualify 240
undeserving candidates. This mismatch establishes that manipulation in marks of written examination in the case of many candidates was resorted to and such candidates were identified. The comparison of these actual/genuine OMR marks with the OMR marks available in WBCSSC Server shows that there is manipulation in 952 nos. of candidates of IX-X, 907 nos. of candidates of XI-XII, 3481 nos. of Gr. C candidates and 2823 nos. of Gr. D candidates.
13. That, during the course of investigation, several emails were found to have been exchanged between the accused officials of the Commission, certain private persons and officials of NYSA. These emails contained lists of candidates, whose OMR marks were found to be increased in the server of the Commission. Besides this, emails have been exchanged between the staff of NYSA themselves containing manipulated data of candidates. This shows the complicity of officials of M/s NYSA in this conspiracy.
14. That, during investigation, it emerged that in the year 2019, Shri Niladri Das of M/s NYSA Communications Pvt Ltd left NYSA and started his own business in name & style of M/s ND Info Systems Pvt Ltd., Noida, and was engaged in the business of Data processing in line of M/s NYSA. The said Niladri Das poached Pankaj Bansal, Kuldeep Singh, Anoy Saha, Muzammil Hossain and others support staff from NYSA.
15. That, it has emerged from the investigation that before leaving NYSA, Niladri Das and his staffs retained all the data pertaining to recruitment examinations of WBCSSC including the data of Group C,D, Assistant Teacher (IX-X, XI - XII) with them. Even after leaving NYSA, Niladri Das, Pankaj Bansal and Muzammil Hossain kept providing assistance to WBCSSC in the matters of RTI on the basis of the data of NYSA which was manipulated and also hosted on the WBCSSC server. This also establishes that Niladri Das, Pankaj Bansal and Muzammil Hossain who were involved in the entire scam and it was in their knowledge that 241
data has been manipulated and therefore they continued to extend this assistance solely to avoid detection.
16. That, if there would have been no manipulations then the scanned images of OMRs available with WBCSSC were sufficient to respond to RTI queries. Investigation revealed that WBCSSC had destroyed the original OMR sheets and the scanned images of original OMR sheets in the year 2019, which again leads to an inference that the same were destroyed to keep the entire scan under wraps.
17. That, investigation establishes that as a reward for doing aforesaid manipulation in the OMR score, M/s NDISPL of Niladri das was provided work of recruitment of Teachers in Upper Primary conducted by WBCSSC. Apart from this, many other recruitment works were also assigned to Niladri Das by the Government of West Bengal. Various list of candidates related to Upper Primary were communicated to Niladri Das from S P Sinha, Sharmila Mitra, etc. Were found in the email of Niladri Das (niladri@ndispl.com) which shows his criminal conduct.
18. Result of comparison of these electronic records collected from M/s Data Scantech Solutions with that of the hard disks seized from Pankaj Bansal -
(a) As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the hard disk recovered from Pankaj Bansal contained the marks of written examination, typing test, etc. This marks when compared with marks available in WBCSSC server resulted in the identification of candidates whose marks of written examination, typing test were manipulated.
(b) M/s Data Scantech Solutions made the initial scanned images of OMR's. These scanned images were given to M/s NYSA. Pankaj Bansal retained a copy of these scanned images.
(c) That in connection with candidates of Class IX - X, XI - XII, the scanned image of OMR sheets as collected from M/s Data Scantech Solutions pertaining to the alleged candidates 242
whose OMR marks were found manipulated were matched with the scanned image of OMR sheets as available in the hard disk of Pankaj Bansal and the same are found identical.
(d) The Response string of candidates pertaining to IX- X and XI- XII as recovered from M/s Data Scantech Solutions matches with the Response String available in the hard disk seized from Pankaj Bansal. On the basis of these response strings the actual/ genuine OMR marks of IX-X and XI-XII candidates were determined. The comparison of these actual/ genuine OMR marks with the OMR marks available in WBCSSC Server shows that there is manipulation in 952 nos. Of candidates of IX-X and 907 nos. of candidates of XI-XII.
(e) The Response string of candidates pertaining to Gr. C & Gr. D as recovered from M/s Data Scantech Solutions matches with the Response String available in the hard disk seized from Pankaj Bansal. On the basis of these response strings the actual/ genuine OMR marks of Gr. C & Gr. D candidates were determined. The comparison of these actual/ genuine OMR marks with the OMR marks available in WBCSSC Server shows that there is manipulation in 3481 nos. of Gr. C candidates and 2823 nos. of Gr. D candidates.
(f) That, the investigation has established the genuineness of the data of hard disks seized from Pankaj Bansal.
19. THAT, in compliance to the solemn order dated 24.01.2024 of this Hon'ble Court, three hard-disks, in original, seized from the residence of Pankaj Bansal along with original certificate dated 16.09.2022 u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, obtained from Pankaj Bansal are being submitted before this Hon'ble Court. The three hard-disks are in sealed condition. The certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in original, obtained from Shri. Pankaj Bansal dated 16.09.2022 is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure - A".
20. That, Hon'ble Division Bench at High Court at Calcutta in WPA 2613 of 2018 (Basanta Das Vs The State of West Bengal & 243
Ors) directed CBI on 24.01.2024 for production of the above mentioned three original hard disks seized from Pankaj Bansal and in compliance to such direction all the said three hard disks were returned back by CFSL, Hyderabad in sealed condition and are now being produced with this report.
21. That, the present status of all the above mentioned four recruitment cases of CBI is "disposed -off from investigation", where multiple charge sheets in each such cases have been filed by CBI before the Learned Trial Court, Alipore. The alleged offences of the First Information Reports and the subsequent irregularities found during the course of investigation have been substantiated in all such cases of CBI and all the charge sheets contain the detailed investigation carried out by CBI in such cases."
306. CBI in its reports have detailed how Mr. Pankaj Bansal
along with persons in the control and management of M/s
NYSA kept the mirror images of the OMR sheets and were
providing data as called for from time to time by SSC. SSC, in
fact had responded to Right to Information Act applications
providing OMR sheets to individual RTI applicants, claiming
that such data was in its database. Affidavits filed by writ
petitioners have borne out such facts. SSC had provided
Anindita Bera, writ petitioner in WPA 5538 of 2022, a copy of
OMR sheet in January 18, 2024 from the data stored in SSC
data base. Nasrin Khatun who is the writ petitioner in WPA
17273 of 2021 had been supplied OMR sheet on October 12,
2023 by SSC from its database. Setab Uddin, writ petitioner in 244
WPA 13700 of 2021 had been provided OMR Sheet by SSC on
October 18, 2018. All OMR sheets provided are scanned
copies. CBI has stated that, when it took possession of the
server of SSC, in it did not find any OMR sheets in the
database. Obviously, the then persons in control of SSC had
utilized the same data as are available in the 3 hard disks from
Mr. Pankaj Bansal to provide such information to the RTI
applicant.
307. The certificate dated September 16, 2022 issued by
Mr. Pankaj Bansal, relates to the data contained in the 3 hard
disks. Adherence to the requirement of the Section 65B, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, has to be
adjudged on the conduct of the parties to the proceedings. All
the relevant parties have admitted the contents of the 3 hard
disks and acted on it without any demur. SSC has
acknowledged manipulations/illegalities in the
recommendations and withdrew/cancelled the same. State has
decided at the Cabinet level to grant and create
supernumerary posts to accommodate the illegal
appointments. Factum, validity, legality, sufficiency,
authenticity of the data stored in the seized hard disks has
been proved by the conduct and actions of the relevant Article 245
12 authorities subsequent to the seizure of the 3 hard disks
and after CBI had shared such data with the relevant
authorities. CBI has given inspection to such of the parties to
the proceedings who wanted inspection of the data stored
therein, relevant to the party. Claim of custody of the three
hard disks from the time to seizure thereof by CBI till
inspections given or the data stored therein has not been
broken. Insisting on further proof of such data stored in the 3
hard disks seized, for admissible of the same, would be an idle
formality. Therefore, it would be improper and a travesty of
justice to allow the beneficiaries of the fraud to question the
contents of the 3 hard disks. They have questioned the data
contained in the 3 hard disks in desperation so that the fraud
committed by them remains under wraps.
308. Neither Sections 3 and 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872 on
one part and Section 65B thereof on the other, mutually
excludes each other. Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872
cannot be read to mean that Section 3 or Section 58 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 stands excluded. A fact sought to be
proved under Section 65B to said to be proved when the Court
believes it to exist or considers its existence probable, in lines 246
of Section 3. A fact which otherwise would attract Section 65B
need no further proof if Section 58 conditions are satisfied.
309. In view of the discussions above, the certificate dated
September 19, 2022 is held to be in conformity with Section
65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 also and the contents of the
three hard disks to which it relates are admissible in evidence.
The issue with regard thereto is answered in favour of the writ
petitioners and as against the persons opposing the writ
petitioners.
Uploading of OMR sheets
310. The order of remand dated September 9, 2023 has
permitted uploading of OMR sheets available in the seized
hard disks upon a finding being returned with regard to the
admissibility of the data contained in such hard disks. Having
answered the issue with regard to the admissibility of such
data, in favour of the writ petitioners seeking uploading of
such OMR sheets in the server of SSC, the fifth issue tabulated
in paragraph No. 119 herein, is answered by holding that the
OMR sheets available in the seized hard disks be uploaded in
the server of SSC in order to compare the same with the final
list available in website of SSC. This direction of uploading is 247
passed so that the transparency of the selection process, or
the lack of it, is available in public domain.
Remaining Issues
311. For the sake of convenience, the last four issues are
taken up for consideration together. Writ petitions and the
orders passed therein from time to time have uncovered a
scam in relation to the 2016 selection process in respect of all
the 4 categories. CBI has been appointed to investigate with a
SIT being constituted by the Court. CBI has registered four
cases and filed charge sheets and supplementary charge
sheets in all the four cases. SSC has admitted
manipulations/illegalities in issuance of recommendations.
Appointments have been given by the Board far in access of
the recommendations issued in respect of all the 4 categories.
The Board could not have issued the appointment letters
without the recommendations.
Options available
312. In the factual context of the present proceedings, we
have three options to explore, namely: - 248
i) Dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of
maintainability; or
ii) Explore the possibility of segregating the valid
appointments from the illegal ones; or
iii) Set aside the selection made in the selection
process in its entirety.
First Option
313. First option noted above is no longer available to us in
view of the decision rendered by us on the issue of
maintainability of the writ petitions by us.
Second Option
314. So far as the second option is concerned few
authorities have been cited at the bar on such subject.
315. In A. Kalaimani and others (supra), the selecting
authority had cancelled the entire selection process. Which
was challenged. Supreme Court has noted the previous
authorities on the subject which were of the view that there is
a vast difference in the cancellation of examination prior to the
selection and the termination of services of appointed persons.
In facts of that case, the selecting authority had initially
conducted an inquiry on its own regarding the allegations 249
pertaining to manipulation of the OMR sheets. Selecting
Authority had found that a few people benefited due to the
tampering of the OMR sheets. On a deeper scrutiny sufficient
material had been found against 196 persons who were
beneficiaries of the fraud in the alteration of marks. The
Selecting Authority had been convinced that there were
chances of more people being involved in the manipulation of
marks for which reason a decision to cancel the entire
examination. Such decision of the selecting authority had been
upheld.
316. A. Kalaimani and others (supra) has observed that,
a bonafide decision taken by the Selecting Authority to instill
confidence regarding the integrity of the selection process
could not have been interfered with by the High Court. More
so, sufficiency of the material on the basis of which a decision
had been taken by an authority is not within the purview of
the High Court in exercising its power of judicial review.
317. Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) has held that, only
in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable
to separate tainted cases from the non-tainted ones, could en
masse orders of termination be issued. It has reviewed various
authorities on the subject at that point of time. It has noticed 250
that, cases where the selection process was perceived to be
tainted may be categorised into 4 classes. First being where
the event has been investigated. Second being where CBI
enquiry had taken place and completed or a preliminary
investigation was concluded. Third where the selection had
been made but appointment not made and fourth where the
candidates were also ineligible and the appointments were
found to be contrary to law or rules.
318. Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) has observed that,
if after appointment, the services are required to be
terminated then, 3 principles must be satisfied. Firstly, it has
to be established satisfactorily that there are sufficient
materials to arrive at the finding that the selection process
was tainted. Secondly, sufficient materials have been gathered
by a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent matter
determining the question of the illegalities committed going to
the root of the matter. Thirdly, sufficient materials exist to
arrive at a finding that the appointees had been found to be
part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was
corrupt. It is also observed that an appointment made in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
would be void. It would be a nullity.
251
319. In Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and another
(supra), the authorities had cancelled the entire selection
process. Supreme Court in the facts of the that case has found
that, there is no justification to cancel the entire selection
when the impact of irregularities into the evaluation on merits
could be identified specifically and was found. In the facts of
that case, on a reconsideration of the entire records, it was
found that the selection process had resulted in 31 specific
numbers of candidates being selected undeservedly. In such
circumstances, Supreme Court has observed that, in absence
of any specific and categorical finding supported by any
concrete and relevant materials that widespread infirmity of all
pervasive nature existed which could be said to undermine the
very process itself in its entirety or as whole and it was
impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or other
irregularities or illegalities, there was hardly any justification
in law to deny appointment to other selected candidates whose
selections were not vitiated.
320. The authorities noted above have observed that
cancellation of a selection process without appointment being
given therein stands on a different footing than a selection
process where appointments had been granted. In the second 252
category Courts must shift the grains from the chaff, if
possible. In the event it is impossible or highly improbable to
shift the grain from the chaff then the Court may venture to
cancel the entire selection process. Prior to embarking upon
such an exercise, it must be satisfied that, the selection
process was tainted on the basis of cogent materials. There
must be sufficient materials gathered through a thorough
investigation that there had been illegalities in the selection
process. The appointees had benefited out of the illegalities
and were a part of it and that the appointments made were
contrary to law.
321. In respect of the 4 categories of the selection process
involved, written examination has been held. Written
examination was in the form of OMR sheets. Original OMR
sheets have been destroyed by SSC. Mirror image of the
destroyed OMR sheets was required to have been preserved by
SSC. CBI had seized the server of SSC and did not find mirror
image of such OMR sheets in the server of SSC.
322. SSC is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution and have been enjoined with the task of
undertaking the selection process. Last report of CBI has
stated that, SSC appointed M/s NYSA for the purpose of 253
scanning and evaluation the OMR sheets. M/s NYSA had
engaged another organization namely, Data Scantech to do so.
It is unclear as to whether, the new agency had merely
scanned the OMR sheets or was instrumental in evaluating the
same also or not. Chairman of SSC, in response to a query of
the Court, has stated that, he was not aware of the
engagement of Data Scantech in the selection process and
that, in fact, he became aware of such name only from the
Court, for the first time. No material has been disclosed as to
who authorized M/s. NYSA to engage Data Scantech or that
such instrumentality was lawfully engaged by SSC.
323. Significantly, it is the claim of SSC that scanning of
the OMR sheets had taken place at its office. If that be so,
then, SSC had knowingly allowed another organisation to scan
the OMR sheets, namely, Data Scantech who was not
authorised at all. These raises serious questions as to the
integrity, sanctity and validity of the entire selection process
and giving to the root of the selection process. The evaluator of
the selection process had been selected through a process
which, at best, shrouded in mystery if not downright illegal.
Then the conduct of such evaluator is such that it affects the
validity of the process of evaluation itself. 254
324. Significantly, M/s NYSA had been appointed without
an open tender. SSC had selected M/s. NYSA ostensibly on the
ground of it being the lowest tenderer from amongst a chosen
few who were asked to participate. The
parameters/qualification required to participate remains
undisclosed despite request being made in Court to SSC. No
explanation has been provided by SSC in course of the hearing
as to how and why such a course of action had been
undertaken in identifying the instrumentality who was to scan
and evaluate the OMR sheets. Documents that had been made
available on record does not suggest that, competency,
efficiency and whether M/s NYSA has the requisite expertise to
undertake such exercise was not considered by SSC at all.
Letter of appointment of M/s NYSA contains only two lines
which requires M/s NYSA to scan and evaluate the OMR
sheets. No other terms and conditions of the appointment have
been specified. The appointment letter has been received by
one employee of M/s NYSA from the office of SSC.
325. SSC had destroyed the original OMR sheets ostensibly
by keeping mirror image thereof in its server. CBI did not find
those mirror images in the server of SSC. These facts have
effectively ruled out an exercise of shifting the grains from the 255
chaff. The non-cooperative stand of SSC, State and Board had
added to the burden.
326. The entire selection process is shrouded in such
mystery and in such layers that it is difficult to fathom the
quantum of illegalities performed. That illegalities had vitiated
the selection process of M/s. NYSA stands established. We
have discussed the illegalities, so far discovered, vitiating the
selection process in course of our discussions herein and will
tabulate the same hereafter.
327. The plausible inference from the materials made
available on record and the conduct of the relevant parties is
that, the entire machinery was devised for the purpose of
effectuating a scam which will be hard to discover and even if
discovered difficult to prove. Appointment of M/s. NYSA,
destruction of original OMR and non-availability of mirror
images of OMR are some of the crucial points in the fraud that
came to be perpetuated in the selection process. As noted
above, in course of hearing all these matters, SSC, State and
Board have perseveringly non-cooperated so that even the
possibility of trying to separate the grains from the chaff could
be rendered nugatory.
256
328. What has been produced by the selection process is
not a cereal comprising of grains and chaff capable of
segregation but a product unfit for human consumption.
Fraud perpetrated and perpetuated is deep and pervasive. Any
attempt to shift the proverbial grain from the chaff would be
an unprofitable exercise, prolonging the agony and would put
premium on dishonesty.
329. In the facts of the present case, blank OMR sheets
have been submitted and such candidates have been shown to
have scored sufficiently higher number so as to be
recommended for appointment and ultimately given an
appointment. The exact nature of candidates fraudulently
given the appointments cannot be identified, more so, in view
of the attitude of noncooperation exhibited by SSC. There are
other manipulations/illegalities in the selection process which
have come to light. Again, exact number of persons who have
benefited out of such manipulations and illegalities in the
selection process cannot be identified in its entirety. Some
have been identified. Identification of some is such that in
respect of Group-D appointments, 48 % has been found to be
obtained by manipulations/illegalities. The percentages of
manipulated/illegally appointed persons across the other three 257
categories are on a reducing scale compared to Group-D but
none the less sufficiently significant to question the validity of
the entire selection process.
Third Option
330. In such circumstances, with the possibility of the
second option of attempting to shift the grain from the chaff
becoming inconsequential, we are left with the only option of
cancelling all appointments in the four categories of the
selection process involved.
331. We have given anxious consideration to the passionate
plea that persons who had obtained the appointments legally
would be prejudiced, if we cancel the entire selection process.
The other two options being ruled out for the reasons noted
above we have hardly been left with a choice. We would rather
have persons of integrity appointed as teachers through an
untainted selection process rather than expose students to
elements securing appointments through an unscrupulous
selection process. Retaining appointees selected through such
a dubious process would be contrary to public interest. By dint
of the tenure of service of such appointees, successive
generations of students would be exposed to these elements 258
which would be counterproductive to public and national
interest. Individual interest should yield to public interest.
332. Right to education has been recognized as part of
fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Right to education as a fundamental
right would entail a right to receive education from duly
qualified personnel. The selection process concerned does not
inspire any confidence to hold that, appointed persons had
been selected in a fair and transparent manner. The selection
process was so mired that it was incapable of throwing up, the
best in accordance with merit, from amongst the participants.
Persons submitting blank OMR sheets had secured
appointments, amongst other stark illegalities.
333. We are therefore constrained to hold that since the
entire selection process is vitiated, all appointments given
thereunder are required to be cancelled. All appointments
granted thereunder are declared null and void.
334. In view of our finding that, the entire selection process
stands vitiated and the appointments granted therein, has to
be cancelled, issue No. vi need not be answered. Similarly, we
need not detain ourselves, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, after having held that the entire selection 259
process stands vitiated and the appointments stands
terminated, to answer issue Nos. vii and viii of paragraph 119.
Suffice it to say that, appointments that have been granted in
violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are
nullity and void ab initio.
Illegalities in the selection process
335. The evidence placed before us have established the
following illegalities in the selection process: -
(i) SSC had appointed an agency namely M/s.
NYSA for the purpose of scanning and evaluating
the OMR sheets by a closed-door tender process
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India
(ii) such agency had engaged another agency
namely, Data Scantech to scan the OMR sheets
(iii) although scanning was done at the office
premises of SSC, it is claimed by SSC that, SSC
had never engaged Data Scantech to scan the
OMR sheets or authorised M/s. NYSA to engage
Data Scantech or any other agency 260
(iv) SSC had destroyed the original OMR sheet
ostensibly with scanned mirror image thereof
being preserved in its server
(v) CBI did not find any scanned mirror image of
OMR sheets in the server of SSC
(vi) OMR sheets had been destroyed without the
scanned mirror images being preserved in the
server of SSC
(vii) SSC had provided scanned OMR sheets to RTI
applicants in the year 2018 till 2023 claiming
that such OMR sheets were from its database
although, CBI did not find any OMR sheets in
the server of SSC
(viii) appointments higher than the declared
vacancies had been given in respect of all 4
categories
(ix) appointments had been given to persons who
were not even in the panel
(x) appointments had been given to persons who
submitted blank OMR sheets
(xi) appointments had been given persons after
expiry of the panel 261
(xii) persons placed lower in rank had been given
appointment in preference to persons placed
higher in rank in the merit list
(xiii) merit list containing the marks obtained by the
respective candidates had never been published
(xiv) counselling had been held subsequent to the
expiry of the panel
(xv) total beneficiaries of the illegalities are yet to be
identified and rendered improbable given the
stand of SSC, Board and State
(xvi) SSC had applied for permission to create
supernumerary posts to accommodate the illegal
appointees
(xvii) Recruitment Rules governing the four categories
had never been adhered to either in letter or
spirit
336. These illegalities have been established by Justice Bag
Committee Report, Reports and affidavits of SSC, Reports and
affidavits of CBI as well as conduct of State.
337. These established illegalities, singularly and
cumulatively have demarcated the contours for the Court to
nagivate with regard to the reliefs ordained. 262
Reliefs
338. Having decided on the issues raised, and the
illegalities committed in the selection process we have to now
consider the reliefs warranted in the factual matrix. In
considering the reliefs that may be granted, we have to take
into consideration the objections raised on behalf of the
persons opposing the writ petition that, reliefs beyond the
pleadings and the prayers of the writ petition should not be
granted. We have to bear in mind that the reliefs granted
should be of such nature so as act as a disincentive if not
deterrence for the sordid saga replaying itself in any manner or
form.
339. Although, the ordinary rule is that the rights of the
party stand crystallized on the date of institution of the
proceedings, yet the Court has powers to mold the reliefs
should the reliefs originally claimed by reason of subsequent
events becomes inappropriate or cannot be granted. Courts
can also mold the reliefs when, if a note is taken of the
subsequent events, the litigation between the parties would be
shortened. All that is required in such circumstances is that
the subsequent event is brought to the notice of the parties
and the Court so that the parties are not taken by surprise. 263
Courts have bounden duty not to ignore subsequent events
which have occurred during the pendency of lis, when such
subsequent events are brought to the notice of the Court by
the parties.
340. In the facts of the present case, the writ petitioners
had approached the writ Court primarily to secure
employment for themselves. Orders had been passed in the
writ petitions; an investigation had been carried out by CBI
which disclosed a scam of an epic proportions. Order of
investigation through CBI has not been interfered with by the
Supreme Court. CBI has registered four cases, filed charge
sheets and supplementary charge sheets therein. State has
taken into consideration the subsequent events and at the
level of the Cabinet decided to create supernumerary post for
persons who had been granted appointments illegally.
Therefore, we are obligated to take into consideration the
subsequent events, mold the reliefs that the parties are
entitled to. We have to provide substantial justice between the
parties, take cognizance of the subsequent events and grant
such relief as is just and proper.
341. S.S. Sharma and others (supra) has held that, Court
should ordinarily insist on the parties being confined to their 264
specific written pleadings and should not be permitted to
deviate from them by way of modification or supplementation
except through the well-known process of formally applying for
amendment.
342. S. Vasudeva and others (supra) has held that, the
High Court should not travel beyond the scope of the writ
petition. In the facts of that case, justification in the allotment
as done by the authorities was found by the Supreme Court.
343. In V.K. Majotra and others (supra), the Supreme
Court has held that, the High Court overstepped the
jurisdiction in issuing directions to non-parties and
considering questions which were not raised. The Court had
overstepped its jurisdiction in giving a direction beyond the
pleadings or the points raised by the parties during the course
of the arguments. It has also observed that, if additional points
are raised then the concerned parties likely to be affected
should be put on notice on such additional points to satisfy
the principle of natural justice.
344. In the facts of the case of the Ajay Dogra and others
(supra), the Supreme Court has held that, the High Court was
incorrect in issuing direction for relaxation of recruitment rule
going beyond the pleadings.
265
345. In a challenge thrown to a land acquisition proceeding,
Supreme Court in K.N. Farms and Industries Private
Limited (supra), has held that, multiple writ petitions and
particularly when the pleadings and reliefs claimed in the first
writ petition affects the subsequent ones more so when there
was delay and laches with the claim being hopelessly barred,
the writ petition should be held to be not maintainable.
346. Authorities cited at the bar with regard to grant of
reliefs beyond pleadings have not stated, that, there is
complete embargo on the Court taking note of the subsequent
events and moulding the reliefs so as to render complete
justice to the parties.
347. The events that had occurred subsequently are largely
results of investigations conducted by the CBI and ED which
has brought forth the scam. It would be putting premium on
dishonesty should the Court decide to ignore such subsequent
events on the plea that the same has not been raised by the
writ petitioners in the writ petitions at the time when they had
filed the writ petitions. It is not the case of opposing parties to
the writ petitions that, the writ petitioners had known about
the nature, extent and scope of the scam that had come to
light during the pendency of the writ petitions. None of the 266
parties to the proceedings has been taken by surprise with
regard to the materials that have been brought on the record
in the sense that, all the parties are aware of at least the stand
of the State, CBI and SSC with regard to selection process in
question. All candidates who had received appointments
through the selection process had been informed by the State
as to the pendency of the proceedings pursuant to our order.
348. While deciding on the reliefs that should be granted,
we have to take in consideration the fact that, the selection
processes were for teaching and non-teaching staff in respect
of State Funded Educational Institutions. A school is a place
where a ward is sent for holistic development. A school
imparts education that prepares a child for his/her onward
journey in life. It is imperative that the child is placed in
company of persons who are not tainted.
349. Since time immemorial, every civilization has placed
teachers at a pedestal of reverence. They are role models which
every student by reason of they being of impressionable age
have always tried to emulate. Law has recognized that teachers
step into the shoes of loco parentis of the ward once the ward
is placed in the educational institution. Teachers have the
onerous task of inculcating values in the students. They have 267
the task of creating and maintaining a pristine atmosphere
around a student so as to nurture the creativity of the student.
It would be naïve to except such qualities from persons
obtaining employment by dubious means.
350. Educational institutions have been admired, accorded
special place in the society and have been ring fenced against
the ills that may befall the society. Civilizations have made
such attempts so that, the future generation develops in an
environment conducive for attaining the dreams of an
individual student and caters to the holistic development of
the student. Educational Institutions are expected to produce
better and evolved citizens who would be a in position to
contribute to the society, nation and to mankind. Parents put
their wards into educational institutions with the expectation
that, such educational institution imparts a level of education
so as to assist the wards to develop into a better human being.
351. Human beings are in control of any educational
institution, as in other institutions. If the teacher and the non-
teaching staff of such educational institution, or even a portion
thereof, obtains appointments fraudulently, such teacher or
nonteaching staff immediately forfeits his integrity, honesty
and his ability to impart wholesome education to a child in 268
such an educational institution. An educational institution
must be protected against such elements attempting to
percolate, let alone permeate into it. It is therefore, imperative
and in the beneficial interest of the society that such elements
are removed from an educational institution.
352. SSC had filed CAN 2 of 2022 in WPA 5538 of 2022 and
CAN 6 of 2022 in WPA 5406 of 2022 seeking permission for
creation of supernumerary posts for the illegal appointees.
When objected to by the writ petitioner, SSC had sought to
withdraw such applications. Learned Single Judge had
declined the request for withdrawal by the order dated
November 24, 2022. A Special Leave Petition had been
preferred where; an order dated November 25, 2022 had been
passed.
353. In the two applications noted above, the learned Single
Judge had directed CBI to undertake investigations in respect
of the creation of supernumerary posts. Division Bench had
refused to stay such directions. Supreme Court had, by the
order dated November 25, 2022, stayed such direction.
354. Stay granted by the Supreme Court on November 25,
2022 was against the interim order passed in the pending writ
petitions. Lest it be contended that, we have not directed 269
measures to be taken in respect of the creation of the
supernumerary post, on final hearing of the writ petitions and
the appeals, we deem it appropriate to pass necessary
directions with regard thereto also.
355. Investigation by CBI, with regard to the creation of
supernumerary posts is imperative to bring to light, the nature
and extent of the scam and persons that are involved therein.
It is shocking that, at the level of the cabinet of the State
Government, decision is taken to protect employment obtained
fraudulently in a selection process conducted by SSC for State
Funded Schools, knowing fully well that, such appointments
were obtained beyond the panel and after expiry of the panel,
at the bare minimum.
356. The enormity of such wrong doing is accentuated by
the fact that the illegal appointments are sought to be
confirmed in educational institutions. Persons involved in such
decision-making process therefore have exposed children to
persons who obtained their employment through fraudulent
means.
357. Unless there is a deep and pervasive connection
between the persons perpetuating the fraud and the
beneficiaries thereof with persons involved in the decision- 270
making process such course of action in resolving to create
supernumerary posts to protect illegal appointments is
inconceivable. Moreover, each of the persons involved acted in
violation Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Whether such violations have resulted in criminal liability
should be investigated into.
358. Since at least a portion of the beneficiaries of the scam
that is to say that, some of the persons who were appointed
beyond the panel and after expiry of the panel and appointees
submitting blank OMR sheets, stands identified, it would be
appropriate to direct such persons to return the benefits and
usufructs they received through fraudulent means. These are
proceeds of crime. Therefore, we propose to issue directions for
return and recovery thereof.
359. Their role in the entire episode should also be
investigated into. Consequently, we propose to issue directions
with regard thereto also. It is imperative that their role is also
investigated into so as to identify, if possible, the manner in
which, the fraud came to be executed.
Exception
360. During the pendency of these proceedings, learned
single Judge had taken note of the plight of one candidate 271
namely, Ms. Soma Das and directed registration of a writ
petition being WPA 6836 of 2022 with regard thereto. Ms.
Soma Das had subsequently filed WPA 6942 of 2022 in which
an order dated April 18, 2022 was passed by the learned single
Judge. There, the learned single Judge had taken note of the
medical condition of Ms. Soma Das and requested the State
Government to consider providing her an employment purely
on humanitarian grounds.
361. In course of hearing of the matters, before us, it has
been submitted that, Court should make an exception so far
as Ms. Soma Das is concerned since, her appointment was
purely on humanitarian grounds.
362. We have considered the order dated April 18, 2022
passed in WPA 6942 of 2022 and find that, request for
consideration of appointment of Ms. Soma Das was made
purely on humanitarian grounds due to the medical conditions
of such person. Ms. Soma Das had been granted appointment
by the State Government purely on humanitarian grounds.
Consequently, we propose not to disturb her appointment as,
the State had granted her appointment on humanitarian
grounds. She will stand outside the directions issued
hereafter.
272
Directions
363. In view of the discussions above, we issue the following
directions: -
(i) Writ petitions appearing in the monthly list of March,
2024 of this Bench, which are not filed and
numbered in the years 2021 and 2022 are released
from the list due to lack of
jurisdiction/determination.
(ii) All appointments granted in the selection processes
involved being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, are declared null and void and
cancelled.
(iii) OMR sheets available in the three hard disks, if not
already done or such portion not done, must be
uploaded in the website of SSC forthwith and made
available to the public for viewing.
(iv) Persons who had been appointed outside the panel,
after expiry of the panel as also those who submitted
blank OMR sheets but obtained appointments, must
return all remunerations and benefits received by
them to the State exchequer along with interest 273
calculated at 12 percent per annum, from the date of
receipt thereof till deposit, within a period of four
weeks from date.
(v) In default, the District Magistrates under whose
jurisdictions, such candidates reside, will take
expeditious steps to realize such amount from such
persons, as arrears of land revenue and shall ensure
that recovery is made within a period of six weeks of
the date of initiation of proceeding for recovery.
(vi) Respective District Inspectors of School will report to
the respective District Magistrates as to whether
money directed to be paid by the persons concerned
have been paid to the State exchequer or not.
(vii) CBI will undertake further investigation in respect of
all the four cases. CBI will interrogate all persons
who had received appointments beyond the panel,
after expiry of the panel and after submitting blank
OMR sheets. If necessary, CBI shall undertake
custodial interrogation in respect of each of them.
(viii) CBI will undertake further investigations with regard
to the persons involved, in the State Government
approving creation of supernumerary post to 274
accommodate illegal appointments. If necessary, CBI
will undertake custodial interrogation of such person
involved.
(ix) CBI shall submit its reports with regard to further
investigations as directed herein, preferably within
three months from date, with the jurisdictional
Court.
(x) Leave granted to SIT to seek appropriate directions
so that the investigations and trials come to their
logical conclusions.
(xi) SSC shall undertake a fresh selection process in
respect the declared vacancies involved in these
selection processes prefereably within a fortnight
from the date of declaration of results of the ensuing
elections.
(xii) Appointments for preparation, evaluation and
scanning of OMR sheets shall be made by SSC by
open tender and after declaring the eligibility citeria
and other terms and conditions of the contract.
(xiii) SSC shall follow the Rules governing the selection
processes in letter and spirit.
275 (xiv) SSC shall make available all policy decisions with
regard to compliance of the Recruitment Rules
governing any of the categories of the selection
process in its website.
Conclusion
364. WPA 7592 of 2021, WPA 8003 of 2021, WPA 8264 of
2021, WPA 10938 of 2021, WPA 10947 of 2021, WPA 10949 of
2021, WPA 10960 of 2021, WPA 13700 of 2021, WPA 13701 of
2021, WPA 13721 of 2021, WPA 13727 of 2021, WPA 13863 of
2021, WPA 13885 of 2021, WPA 15137 of 2021, WPA 15154 of
2021, WPA 16443 of 2021, WPA 16444 of 2021, WPA 16448 of
2021, WPA 16450 of 2021, WPA 16476 of 2021, WPA 16481 of
2021, WPA 16484 of 2021, WPA 16487 of 2021, WPA 16489 of
2021, WPA 16505 of 2021, WPA 16519 of 2021, WPA 16858 of
2021, WPA 16859 of 2021, WPA 16860 of 2021, WPA 16879 of
2021, WPA 16880 of 2021, WPA 16889 of 2021, WPA 16896 of
2021, WPA 16902 of 2021, WPA 16930 of 2021, WPA 16948 of
2021, WPA 16960 of 2021, WPA 16968 of 2021, WPA 17273 of
2021, WPA 18379 of 2021, WPA 18381 of 2021, WPA 18383 of
2021, WPA 18385 of 2021, WPA 18387 of 2021, WPA 18388 of
2021, WPA 18460 of 2021, WPA 18470 of 2021, WPA 18487 of 276
2021, WPA 18491 of 2021, WPA 18496 of 2021, WPA 18499 of
2021, WPA 18801 of 2021, WPA 18994 of 2021, WPA 19475 of
2021, WPA 18995 of 2021, WPA 19477 of 2021, WPA 19478 of
2021, WPA 19580 of 2021, WPA 20906 of 2021, WPA 21258 of
2021, WPA 21261 of 2021, WPA 21263 of 2021, WPA 21266 of
2021, WPA 21267 of 2021, WPA 21268 of 2021, WPA 21317 of
2021, WPA 21430 of 2021, WPA 3665 of 2021, WPA 10772 of
2021, WPA 12266 of 2021, WPA 17068 of 2021, WPA 18585 of
2021, WPA 19977 of 2021, WPA 20070 of 2021, WPA 3654 of
2021, WPA 10764 of 2021, WPA 12270 of 2021, WPA 17048 of
2021, WPA 18589 of 2021, WPA 18590 of 2021, WPA 18593 of
2021, WPA 19975 of 2021, WPA 2898 of 2021, WPA 2903 of
2021, WPA 7982 of 2021, WPA 8266 of 2021, WPA 10316 of
2021, WPA 10929 of 2021, WPA 16936 of 2021, WPA 18475 of
2021, WPA 19000 of 2021, WPA 21312 of 2021, WPA 21386 of
2021 along with all other connected applications are disposed
of accordingly.
365. WPA 781 of 2022, WPA 1618 of 2022, WPA 5538 of
2022, WPA 5786 of 2022, WPA 5788 of 2022, WPA 6550 of
2022, WPA 7346 of 2022, WPA 7347 of 2022, WPA 8059 of
2022, WPA 16935 of 2022, WPA 20389 of 2022, WPA 21332 of
2022, WPA 21334 of 2022, WPA 21340 of 2022, WPA 21344 of 277
2022, WPA 21346 of 2022, WPA 21349 of 2022, WPA 21350 of
2022, WPA 25380 of 2022, WPA 26770 of 2022, WPA 27886 of
2022, WPA 28197 of 2022, WPA 6754 of 2022,WPA 8598 of
2022, WPA 10211 of 2022, WPA 14630 of 2022, WPA 14670 of
2022, WPA 15359 of 2022, WPA 19053 of 2022, WPA 19916 of
2022, WPA 20028 of 2022, WPA 27164 of 2022, WPA 27166 of
2022, WPA 27168 of 2022, WPA 8614 of 2022, WPA 10213 of
2022, WPA 14525 of 2022, WPA 14634 of 2022, WPA 15360 of
2022, WPA 17340 of 2022, WPA 19060 of 2022, WPA 20030 of
2022, WPA 27161 of 2022, WPA 1637 of 2022, WPA 5405 of
2022, WPA 5406 of 2022, WPA 13431 of 2022, WPA 22845 of
2022, WPA 25379 of 2022, WPA 26756 of 2022, WPA 27457 of
2022 along with all other connected applications are disposed
of accordingly.
366. WPA 30649 of 2016, WPA 30653 of 2016, WPA 30065
of 2017, WPA 2613 of 2018, WPA 22522 of 2018, WPA 22523
of 2018, WPA 22550 of 2018, WPA 22773 of 2018, WPA 22780
of 2018, WPA 22782 of 2018, WPA 22785 of 2018, WPA 22973
of 2018, WPA 13113 of 2018, WPA 18034 of 2018, WPA 12662
of 2018, WPA 13105 of 2018, WPA 22777 of 2018, WPA 22971
of 2018, WPA 16844 of 2019, WPA 18355 of 2019, WPA 19273
of 2019, WPA 19278 of 2019, WPA 19749 of 2019, WPA 20404 278
of 2019, WPA 20776 of 2019, WPA 20778 of 2019, WPA 21665
of 2019, WPA 18100 of 2019, WPA 18627 of 2019, WPA 20045
of 2019, WPA 21923 of 2019, WPA 22119 of 2019, WPA 23259
of 2019, WPA 23454 of 2019, WPA 23946 of 2019, WPA 20034
of 2019, WPA 20022 of 2019, WPA 20029 of 2019, WPA 20039
of 2019, WPA 18352 of 2019, WPA 21154 of 2019, WPA 22076
of 2019, WPA 23064 of 2019, WPA 23480 of 2019, WPA 23481
of 2019, WPA 4835 of 2020, WPA 8078 of 2020, WPA 8555 of
2020, WPA 11455 of 2020, WPA 3476 of 2020, WPA 6887 of
2020, WPA 7425 of 2020, WPA 7616 of 2020, WPA 7630 of
2020, WPA 8536 of 2020, WPA 362 of 2023, WPA 1062 of
2023, WPA 1066 of 2023, WPA 1070 of 2023, WPA 1072 of
2023, WPA 1075 of 2023, WPA 1369 of 2023, WPA 1466 of
2023, WPA 3771 of 2023, WPA 4206 of 2023, WPA 4841 of
2023, WPA 4989 of 2023, WPA 5087 of 2023, WPA 5379 of
2023, WPA 5604 of 2023, WPA 5609 of 2023, WPA 2081 of
2023, WPA 2149 of 2023, WPA 2151 of 2023, WPA 2154 of
2023, WPA 2172 of 2023, WPA 2175 of 2023, WPA 2179 of
2023, WPA 2182 of 2023, WPA 2215 of 2023, WPA 2496 of
2023, WPA 2760 of 2023, WPA 2967 of 2023, WPA 2984 of
2023, WPA 3126 of 2023, WPA 3399 of 2023, WPA 3652 of
2023, WPA 3658 of 2023, WPA 3661 of 2023, WPA 3664 of 279
2023, WPA 3666 of 2023, WPA 3846 of 2023, WPA 3859 of
2023, WPA 3926 of 2023, WPA 3931 of 2023, WPA 3935 of
2023, WPA 3990 of 2023, WPA 4117 of 2023, WPA 4213 of
2023, WPA 4313 of 2023, WPA 4522 of 2023, WPA 4556 of
2023, WPA 5134 of 2023, WPA 5464 of 2023, WPA 5526 of
2023, WPA 5531 of 2023, WPA 5797 of 2023, WPA 5799 of
2023, WPA 5953 of 2023, WPA 6164 of 2023, WPA 6210 of
2023, WPA 6213 of 2023, WPA 6282 of 2023, WPA 6577 of
2023, WPA 6854 of 2023, WPA 6859 of 2023, WPA 6915 of
2023, WPA 7370 of 2023, WPA 7528 of 2023, WPA 7831 of
2023, WPA 7952 of 2023, WPA 9105 of 2023, WPA 9327 of
2023, WPA 10387 of 2023, WPA 10614 of 2023, WPA 12557 of
2023, WPA 13588 of 2023, WPA 14824 of 2023, WPA 17679 of
2023, WPA 18401 of 2023, WPA 19126 of 2023, WPA 19604 of
2023, WPA 19605 of 2023, WPA 19869 of 2023, WPA 21000 of
2023, WPA 21211 of 2023, WPA 22796 of 2023, WPA 23761 of
2023, WPA 24247 of 2023, WPA 26848 of 2023, WPA 160 of
2023, WPA 1079 of 2023, WPA 1080 of 2023, WPA 1083 of
2023, WPA 1086 of 2023, WPA 2077 of 2023, WPA 2511 of
2023, WPA 2982 of 2023, WPA 3463 of 2023, WPA 4519 of
2023, WPA 4715 of 2023, WPA 7031 of 2023, WPA 9315 of
2023, WPA 10617 of 2023, WPA 10724 of 2023, WPA 14104 of 280
2023, WPA 18400 of 2023, WPA 21210 of 2023, WPA 21999 of
2023, WPA 22860 of 2023, WPA 23204 of 2023, WPA 23652 of
2023, WPA 24930 of 2023, WPA 25669 of 2023, WPA 366 of
2024 along with all connected applications are released from
the list.
367. So far as the appeals are concerned, all appeals
emanating out of orders passed by the learned Single Judge in
writ petitions filed in 2021 and 2022 are disposed of in terms
of the directions passed herein. Appeals arising out of orders
passed by the larned Single Judge in writ petitions other than
writ petitions filed in 2021 and 2022 are released from the list.
368. MAT 85 of 2023, MAT 124 of 2023, MAT 245 of 2023,
MAT 290 of 2023, MAT 304 of 2023, MAT 250 of 2023, MAT
259 of 2023, MAT 274 of 2023, MAT 275 of 2023, MAT 276 of
2023, MAT 284 of 2023, MAT 318 of 2023, MAT 336 of 2023,
MAT 334 of 2023, MAT 338 of 2023, MAT 342 of 2023, MAT
343 of 2023, MAT 344 of 2023, MAT 345 of 2023, MAT 346 of
2023, MAT 358 of 2023, MAT 359 of 2023, MAT 361 of 2023,
MAT 382 of 2023, MAT 443 of 2023, MAT 457 of 2023, MAT
458 of 2023, MAT 476 of 2023, MAT 502 of 2023, MAT 470 of
2023, MAT 480 of 2023, MAT 521 of 2023, MAT 199 of 2023,
MAT 950 of 2023, MAT 1302 of 2023, MAT 1304 of 2023 along 281
with all other connected applications are disposed of
accordingly.
369. MAT 244 of 2023 and MAT 557 of 2023 along with all
other connected applications are released from the list.
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]
370. I agree.
[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.] 282
Later :-
Learned advocates opposing the writ petitions as also
learned advocate appearing for SSC have prayed for stay of the
operation of the judgement and order.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners
and learned Additional Solicitor General for CBI have opposed
the prayer for stay.
We have considered the respective submissions.
We have passed our judgement and order where we have
found the appointments to be in violation of the constitutional
provisions.
In such circumstances, we are unable to accede to the
prayer for stay.
Department will take steps to have the judgement and order
bound in an appropriate form.
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]
I agree.
[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free