MANIK BHATTACHARYA vs. RAMESH MALIK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 16325­16326 OF 2022 DR. MANIK BHATTACHARYA               …..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS RAMESH MALIK AND OTHERS       …..RESPONDENT(S) WITH SLP (CIVIL) NO(S).17649­17650/2022 SLP (CIVIL) NO.17412/2022 SLP (CIVIL) NO. 17137/2022 SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 17044­17045/2022 SLP (CIVIL) NO.17208­17209/2022 SLP (CIVIL) NO.17756/2022 O R D E R 1. The present set of petitions except SLP(C)Nos.17649­ 17650/2022 arises out of a judgment of a Division Bench of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.10.18 18:35:33 IST Reason: nd the High Court at Calcutta delivered on 2  September 2022, 1 | P a g e sustaining, in substance a set of orders passed by a Single Judge directing investigation by the CBI into the allegations of   irregularities   in   the   recruitment   process   of   Assistant Primary Teachers. Such recruitment took place through the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) examination 2014 which was held in the year 2015. A slew of other directions has also been issued by the Single Judge and we shall refer to them to the extent necessary later in this order. Altogether 23 lakh candidates participated in the selection process for filling up approximately   43,000   vacancies   and   about   40,000 candidates   were   appointed.   SLP(C)Nos.17649­17650/2022 has been filed by the petitioner in SLP(C)Nos.16325­16326 of 2022 directly  assailing the order of the Single Judge passed th on 27  September, 2022 (in WPA No.2005 of 2022 and WPA No.15010   of   2022)   by   which   the   Central   Bureau   of Investigation (CBI) was directed to register a case and take certain steps in relation to OMR sheets of the candidates who took part in the said examination. 2. The   Division   Bench   considered   in   the   impugned judgment/ orders passed in two writ petitions brought by unsuccessful candidates. In the first writ petition (registered 2 | P a g e as WP No. 7907 of 2019) applicants were Ramesh Malik and eight other aspirants for the said posts and this writ petition was filed in the year 2019. The petitioners in this proceeding sought cancellation of appointment of the private respondent impleaded   therein,   inter­alia,   on   the   ground   that appointments were made through corrupt process and not on the   basis   of   merit   and   performance   of   the   successful candidates. In the other writ petition filed by one Soumen Nandy, registered as WPA No. 9979 of 2022, complaint was non­disclosure of certain informations with regard to the 68 candidates pertaining to their answer scripts. These were in OMR sheets. From the prayers of the petitioner in the said writ application, a copy of which has been annexed to SLP (C) No.   17137   of   2022,   we   do   not   find   particulars   of   the information   he   has   asked   for.   In   both   the   writ   petitions, however, Court monitored CBI investigation had been asked for.  3. There   are   also   certain   other   writ   petitions   filed questioning legality of the recruitment process, but orders passed   in   these   proceedings   do   not   appear   to   have   been appealed against before the Division Bench in the judgment 3 | P a g e which   has   been   assailed   before   us.   In   the   judgment impugned in this batch of proceedings, the Division Bench th th th dealt with a set of orders passed on 13  June, 15  June, 17 th st June,   20   June   and   21   June,   2022.   The   next   series   of orders, as we find from the materials available before us, th th nd th th were passed on 19  July, 20  July, 22  July, 25  July, 29 st July and 1   September 2022. These orders were not under appeal before the Division Bench but they are linked with the first set of orders.   The orders and directions passed by the Single Judge  4. in the month of June can be categorized under three heads:­ (i)     Investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation Direction has been issued by the Single Judge on CBI   to   start   investigation   by   registering   a   case against   the   Board   and   start   interrogating   the President   of   the   Board   of   primary   education, Dr.Manik Bhattacharya as also the Secretary of the said   Board.   Said   Manik   Bhattacharya   is   the petitioner of SLP(C) Nos. 16325­16326 of 2022 and SLP(C)Nos.17649­17650   of   2022.   A   Special 4 | P a g e Investigation Team (SIT) has also been directed to be constituted   by   the   CBI   for   investigation.   The   SIT constitutes of senior officers from the CBI. (ii)  Invalidation of appointment of 269 candidates The Single Judge has also, by the order passed on th 13   June   2022,   invalidated   appointment   given   to 269 candidates (these candidates were not parties in either   of   the   two   writ   petitions).   58   of   these candidates   have   approached   us   with   SLP   (C)   No. 17412 of 2022. The background in which this order was passed is that after publication of the regular panel   of   successful   candidates,   a   second   or additional panel was also published. In this panel, the 269 candidates were found to be successful. The stand of the Board on this count is that there was agitation   and   several   representations   by   several unsuccessful candidates over the selection process. An expert committee was formed which found the model answer in respect of one question actually had two correct answers. Thus, that question had two 5 | P a g e correct answers but the model answer had ignored the other one. One mark was recommended to be added to all the candidates who had opted for the other correct answer. The Single Judge found this exercise was done without any public announcement and there was arbitrary selection of candidates for undue favour.  (iii)    Removal of the Board President The President of the Board, Dr. Manik Bhattacharya was added as party respondent in WPA No.7907 of 2019. He, alongwith Dr. Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi (who   was   also   added   as   a   party   respondent)   was directed to cooperate with the CBI. The Single Judge th in the order passed on 20   June 2022 opined that the   President   of   the   Board   was   responsible   for misleading   the   Court   and   made   dishonest   and unscrupulous attempt in producing documents. In the   same   order,   the   Court   removed   Dr.   Manik Bhattacharya from the post of President of the West Bengal   Board   of   Primary   Education   forthwith   and 6 | P a g e directed the State Government to appoint any other fit person as President of the Board. We are apprised in course of hearing that the State Government has already removed Dr. Manik Bhattacharya from the post of President of the Board and engaged another person as President thereof. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya was   also   directed   to   file   affidavits   of   assets   of moveable and immovable assets of his own as also in respect of his wife, son and daughter in law by two weeks. It has transpired in course of hearing that such   exercise   has   also   been   undertaken.   In   the judgment   under   appeal   certain   adverse   comments were also made against Dr. Manik Bhattacharya. 5. The   Division   Bench   in   the   operative   part   of   the judgment held:­ “A. The forensic investigation directed to be handled by the CBI deserves no interference. B. The Hon’ble Single Bench shall be also entitled to monitor   investigation   into   any   money   trail,   as considered necessary. C. The entire investigation shall be Court Monitored and the Hon’ble Single Bench shall be entitled to call for periodic reports from the investigation agencies. 7 | P a g e D. The disparaging remarks reflected in the Orders impugned of Hon’ble Single Bench shall be treated to be Obiter at this stage. However, at the same time, this Court does not interfere with the Order of the Hon’ble Singe Bench removing MB from his official position, in view of the visible proximity of MB to the evidence so far before the Court and also directed to be marshalled in the forensic investigation. E. The 269 terminated candidates cannot severally or jointly claim at this stage a prior right to be heard considering the prima facie materials which point to a fraudulent exercise connected to their appointments and, without also completely eliminating their several or joint complicit roles, if any, in abetting the fraud.” (quoted verbatim from the paperbook) 6. Special leave petitions have been filed by, apart from Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya,   the   State   of   West   Bengal   SLP (C)Nos.17208­17209 of 2022, West Bengal Board of Primary Education   SLP   (C)   No.17044­17045,   SLP   (C)   No.17137   of 2022 and SLP (C) No.17756 of 2022. The Main case, so far as Dr. Manik Bhattacharya is concerned, is that his removal could   not   be   directed   by   the   Board   as   the   statutory provisions under Section 9 of the Primary Education Act, 1973 vests such power with the State Government only. It has been submitted on his behalf that he was never given adequate opportunity of hearing and in the writ petitions also there was no specific allegation against him in any event. It is argued that he ought to have been given opportunity of filing 8 | P a g e affidavit before such drastic action was ordered against him. It   has   also   been   asserted   that   drastic   orders   were   being passed directing the course of investigation and the nature of the orders passed projected him as guilty before he had the opportunity to give his side of the case. 7. All   the   petitioners   have   questioned   legality   of   the orders directing investigation to the CBI by the Single Judge. In this regard reliance has been placed on the case of  State of West Bengal and Others vs. Sampat Lal and Others [(1985) 1 SCC 317]:­ “15. As already pointed out, power vests in the police authorities  of  the  State   Government   for  conducting investigation into allegations relating to an offence. However, the stand taken by the respondents was that the State Government and the police authorities had not acted properly and the investigation was not being conducted as required by law. As appears from the order of June 7, 1983, Borooah, J., directed notice to issue to the State of West Bengal as also to the other authorities concerned to show cause against the issue of a writ. No hearing was, however, afforded to the State Government or its officers when direction to appoint the Special Officer in whom power of inquiry was to be vested, was made. There could be no scope for appointing a Special Officer unless the statutory channel   of   investigation   was   found   not   to   have functioned properly. There was no basis at that stage to assume that the contents of the letters as also the facts stated in the columns of the newspaper had not been contradicted. It was the State Government or its officers   who   alone   could   have   authoritatively indicated the facts showing whether the allegations contained   in   the   letters   or   the   newspaper   reports 9 | P a g e were   true   and   if   so,   to   what   extent,   or   how   the investigation was being carried on and what stage it had reached so as to enable the Court to come to a prima facie conclusion that the State Government and the police authorities were not discharging properly their statutory obligation to carry out an investigation. But   when   no   notice   was   given   to   the   State Government and no opportunity was offered to them, it is difficult to see how an ex parte order could be made on such an assumption. When we say this, we do not wish to be understood to say that in no case an ex parte order can be made by the Court. If the facts   stated   in   the   letter   or   the   writ   petition   are credible and there is such urgency that the ends of justice might be defeated by not making an ex parte order or giving of notice without ex parte order might lead to aggravation of oppression or exploitation or removal or elimination of evidence, the Court would certainly be justified in making an ex parte order. But here there were no such circumstances at all and the Court   could   have   very   well   issued   notice   to   the respondents and tried to find out whether there was any necessity for directing the appointment of DIG, CBI to act as a Special Officer and requiring the police authorities of the State to extend all possible help as may be required by him. We are of the view that Borooah, J., should have issued notice to the State Government, afforded a reasonable opportunity to it and its officers who were already in seisin of the investigation to make a report in regard to the action taken by them and after making an overall judicial assessment of the situation, the need for appointing a Special Officer should have been considered.  The   appointment   of   a   Special   Officer   with   a 16. direction to inquire into the commission of an offence can only be on the basis that there has not been a proper   investigation.   There   is   a   well­defined hierarchical administrative set­up of the police in the State of West Bengal as in all other States and to have   created   a   new   channel   of   inquiry   or investigation is  likely to  create  an  impression that everything is not well with the statutory agency and it   is   likely   to   cast   a   stigma   on   the   regular   police hierarchy.   We   are   inclined   to   agree   with   Mr Chatterjee   for   the   appellant   that   in   the   facts   and circumstances of the case and keeping the nature of 10 | P a g e

On the same point the cases of   State of West Bengal and Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic  [(2010) 3 SCC 571],  Rights, West Bengal and Others Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others  [(2008) 2 SCC 409]   and   Kunga   Nima   Lepcha   and   Others   vs.   State   of  [(2010) 4 SCC 513] were also referred to Sikkim and Others by the learned counsel for the parties.  8. As regards the 269 candidates, whose appointments were   directed   to   be   dismissed   by   the   Single   Judge,   the reasoning   of   the   Division   Bench   can   be   found   in   sub­ paragraph E of the operative part of the order which we have quoted above. It has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners that they were serving for a period beyond four years and that they had acquired permanent status in the said posts. In such circumstances, it  is   their   submission   that   in   a   case   they   were   not   even 11 | P a g e impleaded as parties, their abrupt termination from service would be unsustainable in law. Petitioners have asked us to set aside investigation by 9. the CBI and also revoke all termination orders as according to them, these orders were passed without adhering to the basic requirement of procedural fairness. 10. Mr.  S.  V.   Raju,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General has appeared on behalf of the CBI and his submission is that his clients are in the process of uncovering a recruitment scam of extraordinary dimension and the investigation at this stage   prima­facie   reveals   exchange   of   monetary considerations for giving appointments. He has argued that investigation ought to be allowed to continue under these circumstances.   The  Learned   Senior  Counsel  appearing   for the   writ   petitioners/respondents   in   effect   echoes   the submission of the CBI to sustain their main plea that the investigation   ought   to   go   on.     Further   argument   of   the respondents/writ   petitioners   is   that   having   regard   to   the nature   of   the   allegations   and   the   materials   which   have surfaced during hearing of the case investigation ought not to 12 | P a g e be scuttled at this stage. It has been emphasised that the writ petitioners represent all the genuine candidates and all they want is recruitment in a fair and transparent manner. In our opinion, under normal circumstances, it would 11. not be appropriate to straightaway direct CBI investigation in a   recruitment   related   controversy   unless,   of   course   the allegations   are   so  outrageous   and   the   perpetrators   of   the alleged   offences   are   so   powerful   that   investigation   by   the State police would be ineffectual.  The reasons given by the learned Single Judge in directing investigation by the CBI at such an early stage of the proceeding may fall short of the standards laid down in the case of  Sampat Lal  (supra). But considering the submission of learned counsel for the CBI and   the   fact   that   investigation   by   the   said   agency   has substantially   progressed,   we   do   not   want   to   stall   such investigation at this stage and wait to see if the State Police can   carry   on   the   same   investigation   impartially.   We accordingly decline the plea of the petitioners to stay that part of the order impugned, by which continuance of the investigation by the CBI has been directed. Before we issue 13 | P a g e further   order   in   this   matter,   we   direct   the   CBI   to   file   a comprehensive report as regards the  scope and  nature of illegalities   they   have   found   in   the   subject­recruitment process.  12. Now, we shall turn to that part of the order by which cancellation   of   appointment   of   269   candidates   have   been effected. Such cancellation has not been interfered with by the   Division   Bench.   The   Division   Bench   has   referred   to prima­facie materials which point to a fraudulent exercise connected   with   their   appointments.   On   behalf   of   the respondents,  however, no material has  been shown  to  us through   which   these   candidates’   direct   complicity   in   the process of appointment has been shown. What weighed with the learned Single Judge in directing their termination in a case where they were not even the parties appears to be materials   that   was   revealed   in   response   to   orders   of   the Court. Such orders reflect some kind of investigative role that was   being   undertaken   by   the   Court   itself   in   obtaining documents from the recruiting bodies. It was also not a case the respective appointments were of very recent origin.  14 | P a g e 13. The duty of the judiciary to follow the principles of natural justice has been highlighted in the case of   Divine     [(2008) 3 Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and Others SCC 542]. In this case it has been held: “51.  The   order   directing   the   investigation   on   the basis   of   such   vague   and   indefinite   allegations undoubtedly is in the teeth of principles of natural justice. It was, however, submitted that the accused gets a right of hearing only after submission of the charge­sheet,   before   a   charge   is   framed   or   the accused   is   discharged   vide  Sections   227  and  228 and   239   and   240   CrPC.   The   appellant   is   not   an accused and, therefore, it was not entitled for any notice   from   the   High   Court   before   passing   of   the impugned order. We are concerned with the question as to whether the High Court could have passed a judicial   order   directing   investigation   against   the appellant   and   its   activities   without   providing   an opportunity of being heard to it. The case on hand is a case where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion   on   the   basis   of   the   allegations   made   in anonymous   petition   filed   in   the   High   Court.   No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly when such order results   in   drastic   consequences   of   affecting one's own reputation .  In our view, the impugned order   of   the   High   Court   directing   enquiry   and investigation into allegations in respect of which not even   any   complaint/information   has   been   lodged with  the  police   is  violative  of  principles   of  natural justice.

15 | P a g e

(emphasis supplied by us) 14. We are of the opinion that the part of the order of the Single Judge by which appointment of 269 candidates was terminated   ought   to   be   stayed   and   they   also   should   be impleaded as party respondents in WPA No.7907 of 2019. Upon giving them opportunity of filing affidavits and hearing them,   the   Single   Judge   shall   take   appropriate   decision, depending   on   the   defence   that   may   be   taken   by   those candidates in the writ petition.  In the event the Single Judge wants the investigation as regards their appointment to be conducted through the SIT already formed, he may direct so.  As regards the case of President of the Board, our view 15. is that the order of his removal by the High Court was flawed, not fulfilling the requirement of procedural fairness that is necessary to direct removal of a person from a public post. We are not observing here that the High Court cannot at all direct   removal   of   any   person   from   a   public   post.   But 16 | P a g e ordinarily, such a course shall be taken in a   quo warranto proceeding.   Even   otherwise,   if   the   Court   finds   that   an incumbent has appropriated a public post through deceit, the Court may hold him to be unfit for the post.  But in this case   the   Court   found   him   to   be   responsible   for misinformation and for relying on questionable documents before the Court. In a case like this he should have been given appropriate opportunity to defend his position. At best, the Court could have directed him, pending his explanation, not to discharge his duties in the said post. The order of the Single Judge directing his removal accordingly shall stand stayed alongwith the order of the Division Bench which has confirmed the removal order. But at this stage, we are not directing his reinstatement in the same post. We have been apprised   that   the   State   Government   itself   has   already engaged   someone   as   the   President   of   the   Board.     We accordingly hold that the present incumbent to the post of President,   West   Bengal   Board   of   Primary   Education   shall continue to remain in the said post till final outcome of the writ petition before the Single Judge in which the directions of   the   said   petitioner’s   removal   was   passed.   Dr.   Manik 17 | P a g e Bhattacharya shall be entitled to file affidavits to the writ petitions   as   also   any   additional   affidavit   taken   out   in connection with the said writ petitions which may contain allegations against him. The Single Judge shall take decision on this aspect as also on other points which may be urged in the pending writ petitions. Till then, the present incumbent to   the   post   of   President,   West   Bengal   Board   of   Primary Education shall continue to discharge his duties in the said post   and   Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya’s   position   shall   be dependent upon the outcome of the pending writ petition.  We accordingly direct:­ 16. (a). The   CBI   under   the   SIT   shall   continue   their investigation as directed by the Single Judge and file a comprehensive report before this Court within a period of four weeks as regards progress of the investigation. (b) (i). The order passed directing cancellation of 269 th candidates by the Single Judge on 13  June 2022 and the part of the order of the Division Bench confirming that order shall stand stayed and remain in abeyance. 18 | P a g e (ii). Each of these 269 individuals are directed to be added as a party respondent in WPA No.7907 of 2019 and they shall be entitled to file affidavits to defend their appointment to the said posts, if so advised. The appointing authority will proceed in accordance with law and take appropriate decision after the writ court adjudicates   on   legality   of   their   appointments.   This direction would be subject to any order that may be passed by this Court at a subsequent stage of  this proceeding. (c)   (i).   The   order   removing   Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya passed   by   the   Single   Judge   and   confirmed   by   the Division Bench shall remain stayed until further order of   this   Court.   We,   however,   are   not   directing   his reinstatement   for   the   reason   already   disclosed   in earlier part of this order. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya shall be entitled to defend his position in the writ petition by filing affidavits in respect of allegations made against him.  19 | P a g e (ii). We have protected Dr. Manik Bhattacharya from any coercive steps that may have been taken by the CBI   in   course   of   the   investigation.   There   was   no allegation from the CBI in course of hearing of these matters   that   he   was   not   cooperating   with   the investigation.  It was, however, mentioned before us on th 12   October 2022 that he has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. So far as CBI is concerned, let   the   order   protecting   him   from   coercive   steps continue until further order. Notice be issued in SLP(C)No.17756 of 2022. 17. Let   counter­affidavits   be   filed   within   two   weeks. Rejoinder thereto within one week thereafter. List the matters after four weeks. ………………………………. J. (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) ………………………………. J. (VIKRAM NATH) NEW DELHI; th 18  October 2022 20 | P a g e