The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from carrying out any “precipitative steps” in connection with the West Bengal teacher recruitment scam, even as it pulled up the state for “fraud” in appointing 23,000 persons whose services have been terminated by a recent Calcutta high court order.
A bench headed by chief justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by the West Bengal government against the April 22 high court order, which will now be taken up on May 6, along with similar appeals filed by the affected teachers. The top court refused to stay the termination order.
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime, anywhere. Explore now!
Raising questions over the alleged irregularities in the recruitment process, the top court said, “We are on the way this whole process has gone about. Originally, the agency NYSA (appointed for conducting the selection examination) was appointed without a public tender. The chairman of the WB school service commission (SSC) said I do not know how they came in. The OMR sheets were deleted from the server and the people not in the panel get recruited. This is complete fraud.”
The state government represented by senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, rather than commenting on on the manner in which these persons were recruited, raised a larger issue on the high court allowing the CBI to undertake further investigations on creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate illegal appointments, which was based on a state cabinet decision.
“This direction allows the CBI to investigate against the whole Cabinet decision for approving supernumerary posts. If the order is not stayed, the entire cabinet will go to jail,” Dwivedi argued. The state cabinet note was not an issue in the petition and it was stayed by a separate bench of the high court hearing a challenge to the creation of supernumerary posts.
Noting this portion in the order, the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said, “No precipitative steps shall be taken in pursuance to direction no 8.”
“CBI will undertake further investigations with regard to the persons involved, in the State Government approving creation of supernumerary post to accommodate illegal appointments. If necessary, CBI will undertake custodial interrogation of such person involved,” the high court order had said.
“Why were supernumerary posts created once these appointments were held to be illegal,” the apex court asked on Monday. Dwivedi said that the cabinet decision was taken in May 2022, while the order holding them illegal came in November that year. No person was appointed against these posts, he added.
A battery of senior lawyers led by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, PS Patwalia and Dushyant Dave appeared for the affected teachers and non-teaching personnel, and sought a stay on their termination. “These people will be left without a job. The high court has set aside their appointment without undertaking any enquiry,” Rohatgi said. The CBI in its enquiry found irregularities in the appointment of 8,000 odd teachers, he pointed out.
It was wrong to suggest that the OMR data was deleted when state rules allowed this data to be retrieved for a period of up to two years, Rohatgi said. “These appointments are of 2016. Eight years down the line, how do you expect the data to remain? You cannot remove 23,000 persons if the entire recruitment is not held to be wrong,” he added.
“The whole process is replete with irregularities,” the bench replied, wondering that if OMR sheets have not been retrieved, how will it be possible to segregate the valid appointments from those which were invalid.
“To terminate 23,000 persons requires consideration of a high order unless you can show that the entire process is fraught with fraud. The question is of segregation. How do we demonstrate it in court if OMR sheets are not available?” the court asked. It refused to pass any order staying the termination. “We need factual clarity for which we have to hear the matter threadbare,” the bench said.
“We told the high court that we are in a position to checkup which are the tainted persons. But the high court went on the reasoning that it cannot be segregated,” said senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the SSC.
Concerns about an imminent arrest of teachers was raised by senior advocate Dushyant Dave while senior lawyer Neeraj Kishan Kaul said any official could be picked up by the CBI and they were currently on election duty. Patwalia further submitted that none of the selected candidates were made a party before the order cancelling their appointment was passed.
The state in its appeal filed through advocate Astha Sharma said: “The high court has proceeded in a cursory manner to cancel all appointments of teachers and non-teaching staff, in utter disregard to the fact that the same will lead to a huge vacuum in the state schools, unless new selection process is completed by the SSC, especially when the new academic sessions is on its brim, leading to the students being adversely impacted.”
While the CBI found alleged irregularities in the case of 4,327 teachers and non teaching staff, the high court, instead of segregating them, cancelled the entire recruitment process involving 23,123 teachers and non-teaching staff and directed all persons who got benefit of employment to return all remuneration and benefits received by them to the state exchequer along with 12% interest within a period of four weeks.
“The selection process does not inspire any confidence to hold that appointed persons had been selected in a fair and transparent manner,” the high court bench of justices Debangsu Basak and Mohammad Shabbar Rashidi said in its order. “Persons submitting blank OMR sheets had secured appointments, amongst other stark illegalities.”
While ordering CBI probe into the creation of supernumerary posts, the high court said, “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 knowing fully well that such appointments were obtained beyond the panel and after expiry of the panel, at the bare minimum.”
