Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhamay Bhunia & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 February, 2023
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
08.02.2023 Item No. 04 Court No.18 P.Jana W.P.A. 25380 of 2022 Subhamay Bhunia & Ors.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Mr. Arka Nandi, Mr. Sutirtha Nayek, ......for the petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, A.G.P. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh.
... for the State.
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Ms. Supriya Dubey, ...for the WBCSSC.
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, ... for the WBBSE.
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, D.SGI Mr. Arijit Majumder.
... for the CBI.
Mr. Joydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Abhisek Baran Das, Ms. Srijoni Chongdar, .......for the intervenor (Pritisha Das). Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Mr. Avijit Kar, ...... for the intervenor. (Md. Samiullah Mondal).
This Court by the order dated February 02, 2023 directed the Commission to file affidavit disclosing the modality to be adopted by the Commission to exercise its power under Rule 17 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for classes IX and X in Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016(hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules of 2016' in short).
2Dr. Patra, learned counsel for the Commission files the affidavit, as directed. Let it be kept with the record.
The relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit is quoted herein below:
"4. In reply to the above I submit as follows regarding the steps contemplated to deal with the candidates whose OMR marks (as evaluated originally with the initial model answer key) do not match with the SSC server data:
i) First, it is respectfully submitted that the marks of 15 candidates were increased by 1 in compliance with an order of the Hon'ble Court (WP No. 15579 of 2018), and hence, if the above-mentioned mismatch is equal to 1 in case of such candidates, the difference is legitimate. Therefore, the number of mismatched OMR is
937.
ii) Second, in respect of the 937 candidates, it is found that the mark differences vary from 1 to 53. Considering the large number of cases to be handled, it is respectfully submitted that SSC proposes to move from the most palpable and severe irregularity to the least severe irregularity, that is, from the case where the marks difference is 53(fifty three) to the case where the mark difference is 1 (one). In the latter case, it is respectfully submitted that further due diligence is called for, and 3 SSC will deal with such cases at the end.
The following table illustrates the actual number of candidates for whom invoking of Rule 17 would be applicable.
Non-joining 2In the system 803 (i) Sub total 805 The following table illustrates the actual number of candidates for whom invoking of Rule 17 would not be applicable Not 121 Recommended Expired and resigned 4 Sub-judice in other Court 1 Rule 17 already applied 6 (ii) Sub-total 132 Grand Total 937
5. As regards the procedure to be followed by Commission, the exercise will be carried out in phases as mentioned in paragraph 4(ii) above. It is further respectfully submitted that calling the candidates for a hearing is not necessary under Rule 17, as the cancellation notice itself is in the form of a reasoned order, and the decision of the Commission is final in this regard. Rule 17 does not provide for giving any hearing and contemplates rectification of wrong recommendations on the basis of records.
6. The Commission undertakes to initiate the process in seven days' time. However, it is not possible to fix a time 4 frame for total disposal of the 805 cases".
Mr. Joydip Kar, learned Senior Counsel, appears on behalf of Smt. Pritisha Das whose name is appearing under paragraph '9(3)' of the writ petition and it has been alleged that her OMR sheet is manipulated.
Mr. Kar submits that civil right of his client would be affected if the Commission is allowed to exercise its power under Rule 17 of the said Rules of 2016 to recall and/or cancel the recommendation without affording her an opportunity of hearing.
The argument is pre-matured. The Commission in its affidavit since has given an undertaking to initiate the process of exercising its power under Rule 17 of the said Rules of 2016 within seven days, it is expected that it would be able to report a positive outcome of such drill on the adjourned date. Matter to be listed on February 15, 2023 at 10.30 A.M. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)