The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order setting aside the appointments by the WB School Selection Commission to over 24,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in government schools.
There are 5 main categories of stakeholders which the Court identified : (1) West Bengal Government; (2) WBSSC; (3)Original Petitioners – who were not selected (representing classes 9-10, 11-12, groups C and D); (4) persons whose appointments are cancelled by the High Court ; (5) Central Bureau of Investigation. The jobs had come under the scanner due to the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for a few teaching and non-teaching staff who were appointed by the SSC argued that the impugned order of the High Court did not take into account the forensic evaluation of the 3 hard disks containing OMR sheets data which were given to CFSL, Kolkata.
Previously, the CBI informed the bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud that the images of the OMR were handed over by DATA Scantech Solutions to NYSA Communications Private Limited in digital form leaving the original hard copies of the OMR sheets in the office of the SSC. According to the CBI report, the SSC handed over the answer keys for all subjects to NYSA Communications Private Limited for evaluating the OMR responses. CBI seized the server database of the SSC during the course of the investigation.
Subsequently, in September 2022, 3 hard disks were recovered from the former NYSA employee Pankaj Bansal containing data of the scanned OMR sheets. A certificate was also taken by Bansal in terms of S. 65B of Evidence Act.
The CBI in its report to the Court disclosed that mismatches of results were found when the Commission’s server was tallied with the server from Bansal. Notably, the Apex Court had earlier remanded the matter to the High Court Division Bench to decide on all the issues of maintainability and validity of the appointments.
During the proceedings before the High Court, the testing of the 3 hard disks recovered from Bansal was first sent to CFSL, Hyderabad but subsequently returned and then sent to Kolkata Branch. Rohatgi added, “The report has not come, and the HC has given a judgement without that Report, the DB order suffers from a fatal flaw in not following the remand order by this Court.”
He further emphasized that apart from the 3 hard disks recovered earlier, as per the latest CBI report, a 3rd supplementary chargesheet has been filed where it is stated that another hard disk has been retrieved from Bansal’s employee Niladri Das. Rohatgi stressed that considering these aspects, it is incorrect to assume that the trial is complete- “The hard disk is apparently of the same exam, this is an investigation, not final proof”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for category C employees, urged the Court to undo the quashing of all the appointments as the High Court overlooked several aspects of the CBI Report. He submitted that the OMR sheets were not legally seized and the High Court based its opinion on a ‘casual inquiry’.
He expressed: ” We have been working for 4 years to the satisfaction of all concerned, our families will be ruined based on this casual inquiry….yes learned judge may have views on the politics in the state, but to order a full-scale inquiry by CBI and saying everything is wrong and must go out?”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for candidates belonging to the untainted category (upon whom no express irregularity is found by the High Court) briefly explained that the CBI in its report has separately identified the tainted candidates with manipulated OMR sheet results from the untainted one. Considering the possible segregation by the CBI, the High Court was incorrect in wholly setting aside the appointments.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat also appearing for untainted group C and D employees submitted a detailed chart to the bench which listed the particulars of the tainted and untainted candidates.
Appearing for the untainted assistant teachers, Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy stressed that the percentage of irregularities for the teaching staff was very less merely 10-15% out of the total 3 Lakh candidates who gave the exam. She added that the High Court overlooked the precedent of the Top Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (NEET-UG Paper Leak Case) which held that an entire exam should not be cancelled if the tainted candidates can be separately identified.
Other Senior Advocates including Meenakshi Arora, Karuna Nandy, Ranjit Kumar, PS Patwalia, and Vikas Singh also made brief submissions for their respective categories of petitioners.
It may be noted that the Top Court had earlier passed an interim order protecting the appointments made in pursuance of the alleged West Bengal SSC recruitment scam, stating that those appointees whose appointments are found to be illegal shall be liable to refund their salaries.
The top court has also permitted the CBI to continue its probe to determine the officials involved but precluded the agency from taking any coercive steps.
-The High Court had directed CBI to undertake further investigation and interrogate all persons who had received appointments after the expiry of the panel and after submitting blank OMR sheets. The state had also asked the central probe agency to undertake further investigations concerning the persons involved in the State Government, approving the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate illegal appointments.
The matter will now be heard on January 27.
Background
On April 22, 2024, the Calcutta High Court invalidated these jobs across government and aided schools. The jobs came under the scanner due to the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam.
The State has argued that the High Court, instead of segregating the valid appointments from the invalid ones, has erroneously set aside the 2016 selection process entirely. It has also been averred that this will affect around 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff in the State.
It has also been pleaded that the High Court solely relied upon the oral arguments without the support of affidavits. Further, it has been argued that the High Court has acted in utter disregard of the fact that the same will result in a huge vacuum in the State Schools unless a new selection process is completed. The State has emphasized that this will adversely impact the students given that the new academic session is approaching.
The State has also assailed the impugned order on the ground that it ordered the SSC to conduct a new selection process for declared vacancies within two weeks of the upcoming election results without acknowledging the understaffing issue in schools.
Findings Of The High Court
In a detailed order running into more than 280 pages, a division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi cancelled the entire panel of the 2016 SSC Recruitment upon finding irregularities with OMR sheets and ordered the state to conduct fresh examinations for the same.
Not only this, but the Court also directed the appointees, who were recognised to have been fraudulently appointed, to return the salary they had drawn.
The Court observed that the entire panel of recruitment originating out of the 2016 recruitment process had been tainted due to the irregularities with the OMR sheets, many of which were found blank, and were liable to be cancelled.
The Court also found that many of those whose appointments had been challenged had been appointed after the panel for the 2016 recruitment had expired by submitting blank OMR sheets.
In view of the above projection, the Court had also directed an investigation into those who perpetrated the fraud and disposed of the pleas by canceling the entire 2016 SSC Recruitment Panel.
Case Details : THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. BAISHAKHI BHATTACHARYYA (CHATTERJEE) SLP(C) No. 009586 – / 2024 and connected matters
