Court cannot punish B for A’s mistake: Counsel on HC order nixing 32k primary teachers’ appts
Times of India | 4 July 2025
Kolkata: Senior counsel Anindya Mitra challenged the 2023 Calcutta High Court order by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay annulling services of 32,000 primary school teachers and argued that a court of law cannot cancel appointments of people not made parties in a case because that would constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Arguing before a division bench of the Calcutta HC on Thursday, Mitra said, "The petitioners who moved the single bench didn't even make such a prayer.
" The senior counsel restricted his arguments to the 2016 selection of primary teachers that concluded in 2017 and distinguished it from the 2014 Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).
Mitra argued that the writ petition was moved five years after the selection process had concluded and pointed out that the petitioners did not make any allegations of illegality. "The basis of the illegality recorded in the judgement was the judge's own, based on irrelevant considerations.
Counsel submitted that the judge in the case made references to allegations of corruption against ministers, MLAs and the former president of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, describing the selection process as the "biggest scam" in Bengal's education system.
"A minister or an MLA or a former president might have been arrested for doing something wrong. But for an offence committed by A, you cannot punish B," Mitra said. He submitted that the judge made these observations in relation to the 2014 TET and not the 2016 selection process by the Board.
The senior counsel drew the division bench's attention to the part of the single bench judgement stating: "the sense of justice is above the sense of law" and argued that such a conclusion goes against the basic framework of the Constitution and rule of law.
The counsel pointed out that the judge, while taking on an investigation on his own, had questioned candidates from only four of 20 districts and made a generalised observation on aptitude tests, when nine among those questioned had said that aptitude tests were held. Mitra cited SC judgements to substantiate that a court cannot generalise issues.
He further pointed out from the records that the judge had initially ordered the cancellation of 36,000 teachers. "He made changes to his order, calling it a typographical error. Is this believable?"