Partly allowed

Sk. Sirajul Islam v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC26 Mar 2025MAT/415/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench addressed an appeal regarding the illegal appointment of an appellant known as a fraudster. Upholding the principle that fraud unravels all, the Court ordered the appellant's immediate suspension, directed a CID investigation, and mandated a suo motu enquiry into the circumstances of his unlawful service. It dismissed a stay application on the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Appellant suspended forthwith; suo motu writ petition registered; CID inquiry conducted; stay application dismissed; appeal disposed of.

Sk. Sirajul Islam Vs State of West… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

26.03.2025. Item No. 2. Court No. 13 ap

¶2

M.A.T. No. 415 of 2025 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 And I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2025

¶3

Sk. Sirajul Islam Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Mr. Anindya Bose, Mr. GolamMohiuddin, Mr. Mridul Biswas.

¶5

…For the appellant.

¶6

Mr. BikashRanjan Bhattacharya, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. FirdousSamim, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. SampritiSaha, Ms. Swati Dey. …For the respondent no.13/writ petitioner. Mr. Sanjib Das, Mr. Madhusudan Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Patathree Paul, Sk. Abul Hasan. …For the Intervenor.

¶7

Mr. BiswabrataBasuMallick, ld. AGP Mr. BimanHalder. …For the State.

¶8

Mr. RudradiptaNandy, ld. APP Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Bibek Dutta, Ms. Keya Panja.

¶9

…For the CID.

¶10

…For the WBBSE.

¶11

Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Ms. Supriya Dubey.

¶12

…For the WBCSSC.

¶13

Mr. KanailalSamanta.

¶14

…For the respondent no.11.

¶15

CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for seeking leave to appeal. The proposed appellant was not a party to the writ petition.

¶16

In a writ petition filed by the private respondent, namely, Soma Roy, the Ld. Single Bench felt that there was something seriously wrong with the process of conducting the first SLST (of the year 2016) for the

¶17

¶18

recruitment to the post of Upper Primary Teachers in the State.

¶19

Several orders have been passed appointing a Special Investigation Team comprising of the Officials of CID, West Bengal.The issue as to whether the same overlapped with the CBI investigation in respect of the recruitment process conducted by the School Service Commission for all the posts was also considered by the learned Single Judge.

¶20

In course of such proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by a person who claimed to be an intervenor, that the proposed appellant, was illegally working as an Assistant Teacher of Biology at SibpurDinobandhu Institution (Main), Howrah. The said appointment continues till date is in direct contravention of an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 10^th January, 2001 in M.A.T. No. 493 of 1999 with M.A.T. No. 1107 of 1999. In the aforesaid order, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had found the proposed appellant to be a fraudster.

¶21

Briefly stated, the subject matter of the said M.A.T. No. 493 of 1999 with M.A.T. No. 1107 of 1999 was as follows :-

¶22

(a) The proposed appellant was the third empanelled candidate in a selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher in Biology (Zoology) conducted by the ShibpurDinobandhu Institution

¶23

¶24

School on 30^th November,1997. The SSC not come into force by then. The first empanelled candidate joined but resigned 10 days thereafter.

¶25

(b) The appellant filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of this Court being W.P. No. 27835 (W) of 1997 stated that since the first empanelled candidate had resigned and the second empanelled joined another school, he was entitled to appointment.

¶26

(c) The learned Single Judge by an order dated 24^th February, 1998 allowed the proposed appellant to be appointed in the said School. The second empanelled candidates Bikash Chandra Ghosh was not made a party to the writ petition. Neither the School nor the State were represented before the Single Bench. In fact he had not received any notice that he became entitled to the post.

¶27

(d) However, in a writ petition filed by the saidBikash Chandra Ghosh being W.P. No. 9457 (W) of 1998, the said learned Single Judge of this Court having realized that it has been defrauded by the proposed appellant,set aside his order of appointment recalling its earlier order, and directed the post to be filled up by the School Service CommissionWB School Service Commission Act 1997.

¶28

Appeals were carried by the proposed appellant as well as the said Bikash Chandra Ghosh which were

¶29

¶30

numbered as M.A.T. No. 493 of 1999 with M.A.T. No. 1107 of 1999 in which the Co-ordinate Bench passed an order dated 10^th January, 2001. Not only did the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court find the proposed appellant guilty of being a fraudster but also imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on him. In default whereof, criminal proceedings wereto be filed against him. The post was directed to be offered to Bikash Chandra Ghosh. It was further directed that in the event Bikash Chandra Ghosh does not join, the post would be sent to the School Service Commission for being filled up by a regular recruitment process under 1997 Act.

¶31

Very strangely, and convenient to the proposed appellant, Mr. Bikash Chandra Ghosh expressed his unwillingness to join the post. This Court reasonably infers that there must have been appropriate persuasion from the proposed appellant on the said Bikash Chandra Ghosh and the first candidate but there is no evidence to that effect.However such inference may not be misplaced in the facts of the case. The proposed appellant came to be illegally,and in violation of orders of a Single and Division Benches of this Court, appointed in the said School and continues to work even as on day.

¶32

There appears to be a chain of dubious and suspicious circumstances that have led to the appointment of the appellant. The first circumstance is

¶33

¶34

that the first-ranked candidate resigned one day after the date of joining the service.

¶35

The second circumstance is that the appellant thereafter immediately approached this Court for his appointment by suppressing the fact that the secondranked candidate is eligible for consideration for appointment.The appellant was ranked 3^rd in the panel. To overcome this hurdle, he pleaded in the W.P. 27835 (w) of 1997 that the second-ranked candidate has already joined one Jhikira High School.

¶36

The third circumstance is the non-joining of the second-ranked candidate to the service, despite being armed by the order of the Division bench dated 10^th Jan 2001 (Supra).

¶37

The fourth circumstance is that notwithstanding the clear pronouncement by the Division bench dated 10^th January 2001 (Supra) that the appellant was a fraudster, he was appointed to the post of a teacher in the said ShibpurDinobandhu (Main) Institution Howrah.

¶38

Having regard to the above, this Court’s mind is not free from doubt that the first two ranked candidates coerced to resign/withdrawfrom service.

¶39

The question that therefore arises is whether a fraudster can be appointed as a teacher. Referencein this regard is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in KushaDurukav. The State Of Odisha reported in 2024 INSC 46 :-

¶40

¶41

About three decades ago, this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma was faced with a situation where an attempt was made to deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. The litigant was held to be guilty of contempt of court. It was a case in which husband had filed fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Finding him guilty of contempt of court, he was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment by this Court. This Court observed as under:

¶42

1.********************************************

¶43

Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice . Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.

¶44

It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justicedelivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, postIndependence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressioveri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. Its nothing but degradation of moral values in the society,

¶45

may be because of our education system . Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that `Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.'

¶46

emphasis applied

¶47

The decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan

¶48

RajyaVidhutPrasaran Nigam Limited and Another v . Anil Kanwaria reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136 , is

¶49

also relevant in the contest:-

¶50

“14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility

¶51

¶52

and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of trust . Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.

¶53

emphasis applied

¶54

Pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court, inter alia, dated 11^th March, 2025, a Special Investigation Team has been constituted comprising of the officials of the Board and other Authorities under the Education Department of the State to look into the legality and the circumstances under which the proposed appellant was appointed in ShibpurDinobandhu Institution (Main), Howrah.

¶55

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that his client was not a party to the writ petition and the impugned order has been passed behind his back. His client did not get an opportunity to be heard. He further submits that the subject matter of the writ petition had nothing to do with his client’s appointment. The Single Judge has unilaterally embarked on a roving enquiry and has passed orders that are in no way concerned with the subject matter of the writ petition.

¶56

¶57

Mr. Bhattacharya, has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

¶58

case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari

¶59

v.DosukhanSamadkhan Sindhi & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 475 particularly paragraph 14 thereof.

¶60

This Court is of the view that the principle that “fraud unravels” all, overrides every procedural considerations.

¶61

A Writ Court, being notified of a continuing fraud, is not powerless to remedy the same in the larger interest of the society and particularly the teacher and/or teachers, who were actually entitled to appointment to such post in the School in question. The damage to the student, cannot be measured by any stretch of imagination. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parimal Kumar v.

¶62

The State Of Jharkhand reported in 2025 INSC 1 may be referred to:-

¶63

To educate is not merely to impart information, but to instil the ability to think critically, to inspire curiosity and to foster the love of learning. By imparting knowledge and life skills, teachers shape the foundation for lifelong learning and responsible citizenship. The importance of education and the paramount role of teachers in today’s day and age cannot be underplayed.

¶64

The appointment of the appellant touches upon the integrity of the administration of teaching service warranting a scrutiny of the appointment of the appellant and those who have participated in the processof his appointment.Thus, a public element

¶65

¶66

arises in the issue of appointment of the appellant forwhich the learned single judge has called for an inquiry.

¶67

The said issue maytravel beyond the subject matter of the writ petition. The Court is required to take note of the persons who, though invisible in the immediate proceedings before the Court, are likely to be affected by the outcome of such proceedings.Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in

¶68

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 746 wherein it was held thatnew tools are required to be formulated by the Court to uphold the ‘rule of law’ in the following words:-:

¶69

The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve ‘new tools’ to give relief in public law by moulding it according to thesituation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law. While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949 under the title “Freedom under the Law” Lord Denning in his own style warned:

¶70

“No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do : and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient,our procedure for, preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovelis no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus,certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in thenew age. They must be replaced by new and up-to date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for negligence…. This is not the task for Parliament … the courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the welfare state; but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be allowed in this country

¶71

emphasis applied

¶72

This Court records its dismay as to how the appellant is continuing to work in the said School

¶73

¶74

despite clear and explicit orders of the learned Coordinate Bench (Supra).

¶75

It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that an FIR has been registered by the CID WB, in respect of the omissions and commissions of the appellant, with the Howrah Police Station being P.S.Case No. 105 of 2025 dated 13.03.2025 under Sections 336(2)/337/336(3)/340/318(4) of the BNSS 2023.

¶76

While the order of the Single judge dated 11^th March 2025 is morally justified, there may be some procedural issues in addressing the grievances against the proposed appellant. He is required to be heard.

¶77

This Court therefore directs that aSuo-moto writ petition be registered before the Single bench as regards the proposed appellant’s service. The Registry shall provide a number for the same.

¶78

Since an FIR has already been registered, let the CID conduct investigation and committee appointed by the Single bench inquire into the following additional issues:-

¶79

i. Under whose orders was the appellant granted appointment in the ShibpurDinobandhu Institution (Main) Howrah ?

¶80

ii. On what basis has the office of the DI of Schools Howrah fixed and released salary and allowances to the appellant?

¶81

¶82

iii. Was the School Service Commission and WBBPE notified of the order of the Division bench dated 10^th January 2001 passed in M.A.T. No. 493 of 1999 with M.A.T. No. 1107 of 1999?

¶83

iv. What steps has the School Service Commission and the WBBPE taken after being notified of the aforesaid order and why have they allowed the appellant to continue to work illegally for nearly 20 years?

¶84

The proposed appellant shall be suspended from service forthwith. Based on the reports of the Committee and or the CID WB, the Single judge may proceed to deal with the appellant.

¶85

Let investigation in the subject FIR be completed as expeditiously as possible.

¶86

It is expected that the HM of School, namely, SibpurDinobandhu Institution (Main), Howrah and its Managing Committee post and present, extend full cooperation in the investigation by the CID, West Bengal.

¶87

With the aforesaid observations, the application being CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed. The appellant shall be formally added as party to the proceedings to the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶88

CAN 2 being an application for stay of the impugned order dated 11^th March, 2025 shall stand dismissed.

¶89

¶90

In view of the disposal of the interim applications, nothing further remains to be decided in the appeal and the same is also disposed of.

¶91

There will be no order as to costs.

¶92

After the order is dictated in open Court, Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya prays for stay of the aforesaid order for sometime. Such prayer is considered and refused by this Court.

¶93

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶94

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )

¶95

( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )

Sk. Sirajul Islam v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Sirajul Islam v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

North 24 Parganas District Primary School Council & Anr. Vs Faizul Kabir & Ors.

Manotosh Kumar Barman Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bimal Naiya Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Gitanjali College of Pharmacy Rep by Its Director Md. Majibur Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Achintya Sahu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Partha Sen Vs Netaji Subhas Open Univ & Ors.