The Calcutta High Court has recently come down heavily on the former Chairman of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBCSSC) while setting aside an order issued by the former Chairman depriving a candidate for the recruitment of assistant teachers in secondary and higher secondary classes in the State of her right to counselling.
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay while referring to the rules for recruitment as envisaged under the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Classes IX and X in Secondary and Higher Secondary Classes) Rules, 2016 (2016 Rules) observed with dismay,
“It is clear from the order that the order is an incomplete, suppressing and evasive one. The order is motivated to deprive the petitioner of her valuable accrued Right of counselling. The Commission is mandated under Rule 16 (1) of the above mentions Rules of 2016 to hold counselling. The order has deliberately tried to hoodwink the court and other persons, if possible, which has not been possible because of the scrutinizing eyes of the petitioners and of the court.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Commission and further directed the former Chairman of WBCSSC to pay costs to the tune of Rs 20,000 from his own pocket and not form the fund of WBCSSC.
“I do not know what kind and quality of person is now manning the post of Chairman of a statutory body, namely, WBCSSC. On the basis of the discussion made above, the report filed by the Chairman is quashed and set aside with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid personally by the Chairman of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission from his own pocket to the petitioner by cheque and not from the fund of the WBCSSC within a period of 15 days from date.”
Justice Gangopadhyay further expressed displeasure over the role of the Commission’s former chairman and wondered how he could continue in his chair. He thus remarked,
“The writ application is allowed. But before parting with the petition, I seriously doubt about the quality of the person who is manning the post of Chairman after perusing the order and it is for the Education Department of the Government of West Bengal to see whether such a Chairman can continue as the Chairman of WBCSSC or not”.
It may be noted that pursuant to the instant order, the Education Department has appointed Siddhartha Majumdar, an associate professor of economics of City College, on Amherst Street, as the new Chairman of WBCSSC, replacing Subha Shankar Sarkar.
Background
The petitioner is a waitlisted candidate with respect to the First State Level Selection Test IX-X Level 2016 and her rank in the waiting list is 149. She had alleged that some candidates belonging to the same category i.e. General Category having waiting list numbers 159, 181, 196 and 198 have been given appointment letters, but no appointment letter was issued to her being a waitlisted candidate above the candidates against those rank numbers. The other candidates had subsequently received their recommendation letters on February 8, 2021.
The former Chairman had issued the impugned order on December 15, 2021 which stipulated, “The relevant date in the system, as available, was examined. It transpired from record that the petitioner was informed to attend West Bengal Central School Service Commission Office on 03.08.2020 sending message to her Mobile No.8001901414 on 30.07.2020 like all candidates cited in the application dated 13.02.2021. The petitioner did not turn up on 03.08.2020 and failed to receive the recommendation but the candidates whose names were cited in the application dated 13.02.2021 attended and received recommendations. Therefore, there was not fault on the part of the Commission.”
The petitioner had further alleged that the Commission had proceeded with the counselling process for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th phases of counselling along with empanelled candidates in the merit list however, the petitioner was not called for even the 6th phase of counselling.
Observations
Referring to Rule 16 of the 2016 Rules, the Court noted that it provides for the procedure for sending recommendation letters but is however silent on how the intimation as to counselling would be sent to the candidates. However, it was observed that Schedule IV of the 2016 Rules states that candidates who had qualified for counselling should be informed about different particulars through speed post mentioning the date, time and venue of counselling and such notice shall be deemed to have been served as soon as it has been sent to the candidates by speed post.
Referring to the impugned order passed by the former Chairman of the WBCSSC, the Court observed that the order does not mention that names of the wait listed candidates were published in the Commission’s website well before the date of counselling. Opining that there is no evidence that a message intimating the petitioner about the date of counselling had been sent, the Court remarked further,
“Thus, it is evident that there was no publication in the website of the Commission as to the date of counselling of the wait listed candidates like the petitioner. It has also not been mentioned in the said casual order of the Chairman from which Mobile No. the message was sent to the petitioner in her Mobile No. 8001901414. It has also not been stated by reference of any document to substantiate that any message was at all sent to the Mobile No. of the petitioner.”
Reprimanding the former Chairman for sending a message as a mode of communication considering how vital counselling is the recruitment process, the Court underscored,
“A responsible officer of a statutory Body should know that sending message to one Mobile No. for the very vital stage of recruitment process i.e. counselling (if counselling was held on 03.08.2020) is always a very risky affair as to mode of communication. A message may not reach its destination for several reasons beyond the control of the receiver. The petitioner has stated that the Commission had the e-mail address mentioned in her application from which is at pages 17 and 18 of the writ application (vide page 18) but the Commission did not care to send an e- mail to the petitioner in her e-mail address for the event that was to be held on 03.08.2020 in WBCSSC’s office.”
Furthermore, the Court observed that the order passed by the former Chairman also does not disclose that any decision was taken in any meeting of the Commission that information/intimation as to date of counselling would be sent by message to the Mobile No. of the candidates and not to their e-mail address.
“In fact, the report of the Chairman dated 15.12.2021 is full of so such loopholes that it appears, unless the Chairman has relegated himself to a menial staff of the Commission and has passed the order, such order could not have been placed before a court of law like the High Court at Calcutta”, the Court remarked further.
The Court further dismissed the contention that many writ petitions filed by different candidates challenging the recommendations issued for classes IX and X are pending, the entire gamut of the matter is subjudice and the Commission as per the Commission’s Rule is not in a position to consider the prayer of the petitioner dated 13.02.2021. Calling such a submission on behalf of the Commission as ‘devoid of common sense’, the Court opined further,
“There may be other writ applications in respect of recommendation relating to 1st SLST (AT), 2016 for classes IX nd X, but that does not mean the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner when the Commission is clearly responsible for not giving real opportunity to the petitioner for attending the counselling (what else on 03.08.2020?) which is evident from the observations elaborated above.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and further directed,
“The Commission is directed to hold a counselling for the petitioner in respect of the undisputed vacancies declared in the said SLST if there is any and if there is no such undisputed vacancies, from any future vacancies in the region and at least five vacancies nearer to the residence of the petitioner are to be shown to her from the said future vacancies within a period of 30 days from date. Recommendation should be made within a period of 45 days from date. The time frame given above is mandatory.”
The Government of West Bengal in the Education Department was ordered to give due importance to the order and the Registrar General was also directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary of this State and the Principal Secretary of the Education Department, Government of West Bengal by Friday by January 14, 2022.
Case Title: Sumana Layek v. State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/calcutta-high-court-raps-former-chairman-of-wbcssc-imposes-20k-costs-191132
