The fourth division bench also returned the SSC case


Even the fourth attempt failed. The school service commission (SSC) case was returned by a division bench of the Calcutta High Court. With this, four division benches returned the case. Later, when the petitioner’s lawyers approached the Chief Justice again, the Chief Justice told the lawyers, ” Work according to the rules. You can’t come whenever you want.”

In the SSC-related corruption case, the finger of blame was pointed at the members of the advisory committee for recruitment of teachers and staff of the state. A single bench of the Calcutta High Court headed by Justice Abhijit Ganguly on Friday asked the four members of the committee to confront the CBI. The members of the advisory committee had appealed to the division bench against the verdict. But all the three division benches returned the case. The case was heard by a division bench of Justice Jayamalya Bagchi and Justice Vibhas Patnaik on Tuesday. But the bench also said it was not interested in hearing the case.

As the four division benches did not accept the case, the lawyers rushed to the division bench of the chief justice on Tuesday. But rebuking the lawyers, the chief justice said, “You must maintain courtesy. Why are you going to mention the case on anytime? What will junior lawyers learn from this? Mention has a fixed time limit. Come in that time.”

On November 1, 2019, the state formed a five-member committee to oversee and monitor the recruitment process in the school. Apart from Shantiprasad Sinha, advisor to the committee, there were Sukanta Acharya (personal secretary to the then education minister), Prabir Kumar Bandyopadhyay (OSD to the then education minister), Alok Kumar Sarkar (deputy director of the education department), Tapas Panja (legal officer of the education department). The lawyers of the committee went to the Chief Justice’s court against the verdict of Justice Gangopadhyay. The case came up in three division benches under his direction. But all three benches returned the case. This time the fourth bench also took the same decision.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here