Court orders are not playthings: Calcutta High Court slaps Rs 3.8 lakh costs on WB Primary Education Board for distorting court order

The Calcutta High Court on Friday imposed costs of Rs 3.8 lakhs on the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education on finding there was an attempt to distort an earlier order of the Court to avoid complying with the same. (Payal Bag & Others v. State of West Bengal & Others)..Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay found the respondent authority had desperately tried to distort clear and unambiguous directions in an earlier judgment of the Court. .By doing so, a very serious illegality was committed, the Court opined. The Judge added that the Board’s conduct in this case was highly irresponsible, illegal and wholly meaningless..“Respondents should keep in mind that court's orders are not things with which they can play by taking different stance and taking shelters under different legal principles existing or not existing. I say that the respondents have clearly failed to act fairly and, I say - with ill intention which is writ large in the actions of the respondents”, the Court found..The Court proceeded to order the President of the Board to pay the penalty from his own pocket, with Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to 19 petitioners individually, within two weeks from the communication of the order copy..The Court also cautioned that the time lines fixed by the Court must be strictly followed.“If the timeframe fixed above is not followed by the respondents which include the president of the Board, the Board shall be debarred from taking any step after expiry of the said period from giving appointment in any post of primary teachers from the date of expiry of the time period given till the directions as above are fully complied with”, the Court said..Case background.The High Court was hearing writ applications by 19 candidates who were seeking to be considered for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School..The petitioners had earlier participated in the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET), 2014 but were declared not successful in the same..Subsequently, they filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act for the OMR sheets, question papers and answer key. After scrutinising the same, the petitioners found that the answers shown in the answer key in respect of six questions were wrong..The petitioners claimed that had marks been awarded to them in respect of those six questions, they would have qualified in TET 2014..After the petitioners moved the High Court for relief, the Court in 2018 had directed the Board to award marks to the petitioners who attempted these six questions and to consider them for appointment if they are found to be eligible thereafter..These petitioners moved the Court again on a grievance that they were not awarded the marks, and, as a result, not considered for appointment in the 2020 selection process..On the other hand, the West Bengal Board of Primary Education and its representatives maintained that it had sufficiently complied with the Court’s earlier directions. It was claimed that marks were awarded where correct answers were provided and that no marks were awarded where answers were found to be incorrect in the answer key..“Where the key answer provided by the Board was not found to be correct by the Expert, the marks awarded to the petitioners for the said questions were deducted as the petitioners themselves questioned the correctness of the key answers provided by the Board and having done so, they cannot ask for marks for the wrong key answer”, the Board had submitted..The Court, however, was not impressed by the Board’s stance. It was noted that of the six questions which ran into controversy, “the experts have stated that one question was wrong, one question was confusing and four options in respect of other four questions were wrong.”.While so, Justice Gangopadhyay further observed that in its earlier order, the Court had clearly ordered that “marks were to be awarded to the petitioner/petitioners who attempted the wrong question/options in the key answers.”.As such, the Judge ultimately concluded that the Board’s authorities were only distorting the order’s interpretation in a bid to harass the petitioners. Taking a dim view of such conduct, the Court said,.“I hold that the whole intention of the respondents is to harass the petitioners by not awarding them marks as was directed by the court and their intention is to show the door of the court to the candidates time and again who are dying for a service of a primary school teacher. In my view the respondents have committed a grave (I repeat grave) wrong to the petitioners by not awarding them six marks. The respondents have shown the courage of fools to modify the clear and unambiguous order of the court and have instead followed their own which wholly shows total disrespect to the court which is a dangerous trend which can never be allowed.”.Apart from imposing costs to be paid by the Board’s President, the Judge has also issued directions to award the six marks sought for by the petitioners (in seven days) and to accept their applications for participation in the teacher selection process..“If the petitioners qualify in the interview, no further impediment shall be created for giving them appointment in the post of teachers in primary schools”, the Court ordered..Advocates Bikram Banerjee, Sudipta Dasgupta, Arka Nandi and Saikat Sutradhar appeared for the petitioners. Senior advocate LK Gupta and advocates Subir Sanyal and Ratul Biswas appeared for the Board. Advocate Sauvik Nandy appeared for the NCTE..[Read Order]