Read Time: 09 minutes

The Calcutta High Court on Monday expressed serious doubt over the capacity of Chairman of West Bengal School Service Commission and asked the state government to consider whether he should continue in the position or not. The Court was hearing a petition of foul play in teachers' appointments in the state. 

"I do not know what kind of person is manning the post of Chairman", the Court said, adding, "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."

Sumana Layek, the petitioner, stated that she is a waitlisted candidate in respect of First State Level Selection Test IX-X Level 2016 despite her rank in the waiting list being 149.

She alleged that some candidates of the same category i.e. General Category in waiting list rank number 159, 181, 196 and 198 have been given appointment letters, but no appointment letter was issued to her, despite being a waitlisted candidate above the candidates against those rank numbers.

Ventilating this grievance, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chairman but the Chairman has not given any reply to that letter, so, the petitioner does not know the reason of recommendation and appointment of the candidates ranked below her.

The Court in an earlier order had directed the Chairman of Central School Service Commission to pass an order disclosing specific reason in respect of the said application of the petitioner within a period of three weeks.

Pursuant to the same, the Commission issued an order stating that the petitioner was informed to attend West Bengal Central School Service Commission's office via a message sent to her in this regard, however, as she did not turn up, she failed to receive the recommendation.

The bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay presiding over the matter observed that the Commission has left out as to what was happening in the SSC office on the date the candidate was called. 

Justice Gangopadhyay further noted that under the West Bengal School Service Commission Rules, intimation of particulars are to be sent via speed post to the candidates, which the Commission failed to do.

The Court observed that "in the casual order" passed by the Chairman of the WBCSSC it has not been stated that names of the waitlisted candidates were published in the Commission’s website well before the date of counselling.

It saw that the order also does not record the phone number from which the text was sent to the petitioner. The Court further noted that the Commission ought to have sent atleast an email, and stated:

"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, 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 Court further went on to say:

"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 abovementioned 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."

The Court thus set aside the report filed by the Chairman 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. 

Further, the Court directed the Commission to hold counselling for the petitioner in respect of undisputed vacancies declared in the SLST.

If there are no such undisputed vacancies from any future vacancies in the region, atleast five vacancies nearer to the residece of the petitioner, are to be shown to her from the said future vacancies, within a period of 30 days from date.

Recommendation is to be made within a period of 45 days from date.

"The time frame given above is mandatory," the Court stated. 

Cause Title: Sumana Layek v State of West Bengal & Ors.