LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-84

BABITA SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On May 18, 2022
Babita Sarkar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At about 9.40 p.m. today two Learned Advocates came to my Chamber, when I was completing my day's job. I usually stay till 9.30 p.m. and sometimes till 10.30 p.m. Today was a day when I was herein my Chamber and after hearing the mentioning I became extremely surprised. Those two advocates mentioned the two matters heard by me yesterday and today, by submitting, that the Chairman of the Commission has resigned from the West Bengal School Service Commission as because he made some statements before the court yesterday in one of the matters (Babita Sarkar -versus- The state of West Bengal and Ors.) at the direction of the Court when it became clear that there was a clear case of corruption whereby a candidate namely Ankita Adhikari daughter of the Minister of State of Mr. Paresh Adhikai was appointed as a teacher though she was not eligible to get the recommendations and appointment. The learned advocates also mentioned before me that today at the same time of hearing of another matter namely Sabina Yeasmin and Ors., it was mentioned that the learned advocate for the petitioner in the matter submitted that the database and all other digital information was required to be preserved for the purpose of CBI investigation.

(2.) But some other persons after the Chairman resigned and left the School Service Commission office at Salt Lake entered the School Service Commission office and started interfering with the database etc. It was reported to the learned Advocates that the database was being destroyed.

(3.) I granted leave to them for hearing the matter ex-parte on the basis of urgency subject to the approval by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The said learned advocates Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta and Mr. Firdous Samim immediately made contact with the registry and the Learned Registrar General told them to contact with the Chief Justice and there is no problem in moving the matter if I had granted leave. However, as I made clear that the Chief Justice's approval was required, at about 10.30 p.m. today the Officer on Special Duty of the Chief Justice brought the Chief justice's approval one by virtual mode and the other by physical mode.