The division bench of the high court that restored the jobs of 32,000 primary teachers on Wednesday explained why it struck down all seven findings on which their 2023 dismissal had been based.
In a signed order, the division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty detailed why those findings could not justify the termination of the teachers. At the core of its reasoning was the view that each of the seven findings was either unsupported by evidence, contradicted by the case record, or beyond the scope of the writ petition.
Finding I: “No aptitude test was taken”
The bench said: “The first finding was contrary to the statement of the writ petitioners themselves that they were called for interview.”
Finding II: “There was no formal engagement letter for acting as an interviewer nor any guidelines for awarding marks for aptitude test”
The bench said: “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.”
Finding III: “the marks given to the candidates against aptitude tests is wholly illegal and a false exercise to hoodwink all concerned including the court”
The bench said: “Mere suspicion, however high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof and writ Court ought not to interfere with the selection made by the expert bodies upon assessing the comparative merits of the candidates.”
Finding IV: Alleged corruption
The fourth finding was that interview assessments were “wholly absurd” and such assessment reveals “extraneous factors (which includes corruption) as has been alleged by the petitioners and now has come to the light from the investigation by the CBI & ED”.
The bench said: “The investigation by CBI and ED could not have been the basis towards cancellation of the recruitment process more so 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… the fourth finding is not sustainable.”
On extraneous factors, including corruption, the court additionally observed: “Proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch and hesitancy.”
Finding V: Reserved category candidates
The fifth finding concerned the alleged improper exclusion of reserved category candidates in open category panels despite higher marks.
The bench said: The fifth finding was “arrived at being oblivious of the fact that the similar ground as urged in the earlier writ petitions had been turned down and no appeal had been preferred against the said judgments...”
Finding VI: No “selection committee”
The sixth finding said that no selection committee had been constituted to conduct interviews.
The bench stated: The sixth finding “is not sustainable in as much as the Court found that the interviewers were engaged and thirty interviewers were summoned and questioned by the Court.”
Finding VII: Alleged scam
The bench said: “The seventh finding that in the recruitment scam stinking rats are being smelt is also not supported by the pleadings in the writ petition...”
On the seventh finding, the bench added: “There is no existence of any material to suggest that the candidates appointed were involved in any money trail. Such finding is the mere outcome of surmises and conjectures.”
Overreach
The division bench said the irregularities alleged in the writ petition related to the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) 2014, through which the candidates became eligible to participate in interviews and aptitude tests. It stated: “While dealing with the issue urged, the court went beyond the pleadings and cancelled the appointment made upon a purported finding that no aptitude test was held.”
It added: “It is true in the dispensation of justice, Courts are prevented from innovating at pleasure. Neither can they don the helmet of a ‘Knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness’. At all times, courts are expected to draw ‘inspiration from consecrated principles.”
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay — who issued the 2023 sack order and later resigned, joined the BJP, and became an MP from Tamluk — had described the state primary education board’s conduct as akin to “a local club” and alleged that jobs were sold to candidates with money.
The division bench said on Wednesday: “The court made sweeping observations that the board and its officials… conducted the whole affair as that of a local club… in the absence of appropriate pleadings. Even a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by the facts.”
It added: “The law casts a heavy burden on the persons alleging mala fide to prove the same on the basis of facts… Such proposition of law, however, was not considered, which renders the finding to be unacceptable and beyond the pale.”
