Monika Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 December, 2019
180. The first finding is contrary to the statement of the writ
petitioners themselves that they were called for the interview, as recorded in
paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and in the second paragraph of the
order dated 20.12.2022. The second finding has been arrived at being
oblivious of the fact that the Board did produce the letters issued to different
interviewers which were perused by the Court on 06.02.2023 and some
interviewers were also examined by the Court. The third finding was arrived
at on the basis of a perception that the marks in aptitude and the marks in
academics should be proportional. Mere suspicion, howsoever high, cannot
be a substitute of actual proof and writ Court ought not to interfere with the
selection made by expert bodies upon assessing the comparative merits of
125
2025:CHC-AS:2189-DB
the candidates. The investigation by CBI & ED could not have been the
basis towards cancellation of the recruitment process moreso when in the
writ petition no appointment of any candidate amongst the 32,000
appointees could be cited as an instance of biased or illegal selection and
that as such the fourth finding is not sustainable. The material on record
does not prove the chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt of the
appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt cannot be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch and hesitancy.
The fifth finding has been arrived at being oblivious of the fact that similar
ground as urged in the earlier writ petitions had been turned down and no
appeal had been preferred against the said judgments delivered in the cases
of Monika Das (Supra) and Md. Rabiul Sk. (Supra). The sixth finding that no
selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection by the
Board is not sustainable inasmuch as the Court itself found that
interviewers were engaged and thirty interviewers were also summoned and
questioned by the Court. Rule 4 of the RR, 2016 conferred authority towards
engagement of any specialized agency. The Court made sweeping
observations that the Board and its officials including its former President
conducted the whole affair as that of a local club and jobs were actually sold
to some candidates who had the money to purchase the employment, in the
absence of appropriate pleadings. Even a point which is ostensibly a point of
law is required to be substantiated by facts. The allegations of mala fides are
more easily made than proved. The law casts a heavy burden on the persons
alleging mala fides to prove the same on the basis of facts. Such proposition
of law was, however, not considered which renders the finding to be
126
2025:CHC-AS:2189-DB
unacceptable and beyond the pale. The seventh finding that in the
recruitment scam stinking rats are being smelt is also not supported by the
pleadings in the writ petition. There is no existence of any material to
suggest that the candidates appointed were involved in any money trail.
Such finding is thus the outcome of mere surmises and conjectures.