Senior Judge Justice Basak, leading the special division bench, inquired, "Are we at liberty to provide copies of the final report to the other involved parties in this case?"
Bhattacharya stated, "The chargesheet copies should not be disclosed publicly. However, copies of the final report can be provided to the other involved parties." The additional parties in this case encompass the school service commission (SSC), the state government, job applicants contending unfair job denial, and concerned teachers anxious about potential termination if their appointments were deemed illegal.
On December 20, the SSC presented a report to the high court, revealing the cancellation of recommendations that led to the appointment of 808 secondary-level teachers, 842 Group C employees, and 1,911 Group D employees in government-aided schools. The cancellations were based on findings that these appointments had been made improperly. The report outlined that the SSC had identified approximately 770 teachers at the higher secondary level whose appointments were purportedly unauthorized, yet they remained employed. Presently, the report is in the possession of the special division bench, comprising Justice Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.
In response, the bench provided a copy of the report to the CBI, instructing the agency to present their submissions by January 9. The CBI's investigation into the alleged irregularities stemmed from an order by Justice Avijit Gangopadhyay of the high court.
Justice Gangopadhyay had mandated the SSC to revoke the appointments of teachers hired through illegitimate means and allocate those positions to deserving candidates.
Both the SSC and the state government lodged an appeal against the order, directing the cancellation of appointments, before the high court division bench presided over by Justice Subrata Talukdar. Simultaneously, apprehensive teachers facing potential job losses also approached the division bench. Upon review, the division bench upheld Justice Gangopadhyay's directive, compelling the appellants to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court for further consideration.
