#calcuttahighcourt Archives

20 Jun

NEET-UG 2024: Supreme Court Halts High Court Proceedings on Paper Leak Allegations; While Stating that Counselling will not stop.

Blog #BOMBAY HIGH COURT, #calcuttahighcourt, #Counselling, #NEET, #NTA, #Rajasthanhighcourt, #StayOrder, #SupremeCourt

An interesting development has come up in the cases dealing in the alleged NEET-UG 2024 paper leak, where the Supreme Court on Thursday (20^th July), issued a notice to Stay the proceedings in three other High Courts, namely the Rajasthan, Calcutta, and Bombay High Courts. The ruling was issued in response to a notice on a transfer petition filed by the National Testing Agency (NTA) by a vacation bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti. The NTA is requesting that the Supreme Court hear these cases after they were originally heard in the High Court.

“There may be some individual cases where petitions have been filed asking for the answer sheets, issue of higher marks and lesser marks, let those matters be thrashed out by the High Court.” – Justice Vikram Nath stated while issuing the stay order.

The Supreme Court in addition, tagged certain other writ petitions that claimed irregularities in NEET-UG 2024’s conduct with related matters that were posted on July 8. The Court verbally stated that it is known that the admission procedure will be contingent upon the outcome of the petitions, while reiterating that it was not going to halt the counseling process.

The following matters are the ones for which the Court issued notices:

NTA vs. Keshav Pareek and others (T.P.(C) No. 1602/2024) – Rajasthan High Court.
NTA vs. Shreya Banerjee and others (T.P.(C) No. 1597/2024) – Calcutta High Court.
NTA vs. Tanmoy Chattopadhyay and others (T.P.(C) No. 1596/2024) – Calcutta High Court.
NTA vs. Nikita (Minor) and others (T.P.(C) No. 1600/2024) – Bombay High Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

18 Jun

Calcuttta High Court sets New Precedent; Orders Bengal Government to impose 1% reservation for Transgenders in Public Employment.

Prime Legal

Blog #calcuttahighcourt, #Education department, #teacher, #transgender#equality#equalrights#protection

The Calcutta High Court in the case of Mrinal Barik v. State of West Bengal & Ors., has now set a new precedent, in which the issue was a petition filed by a transwoman who sought an appointment as a teacher. She had passed the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) in 2014 and 2022 but was not invited for the counselling process or interview. The West Bengal government has been ordered by the High Court to impose a one percent reservation for transgender individuals in State public employment roles.

The Calcutta High Court noted that there was also a State policy from 2022 in West Bengal that mandated treating transgender people equally in the workplace. The High Court did, however, instruct the government to follow suit because the State government had not yet established any reservations for transgender people seeking employment. Now, In the order dated June 14, the High Court requested that the relevant State entity schedule the petitioner’s interview and counselling as a special case and hire her to work as an assistant teacher in the primary section.

Written by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

3 Jun

Date of Birth Not Grounds for Disqualification in IBPS Exam Application: Calcutta High court

Prime Legal

#High court of Calcutta, Blog # Constitution of India, #article21, #calcuttahighcourt, #IBPSexam, #Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Article 14 of the Constitution of India:

Case title: Reshmi Bhagat VS State of West Bengal and others

Case no.: WRIT PETITION No. 5442 of 2024

Dated on: 27^th March 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble. MR Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a young lady, hailing from interior parts of Jalpaiguri, where internet connectivity is poor according to the petitioner, applied for taking the examinations for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for banks. The respondent no. 2, that is, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) was the common online platform conducting the said examinations. The petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted her credentials and duly filled up the requisite application form and submitted the same online for taking part in such examinations through a cybercafé with the help of her father. even after the petitioner passed the prelims and mains, when the petitioner’s turn came to be interviewed, certain discrepancies regarding her date of birth between the various documents submitted by her was apparently detected. According to the petitioner, the concerned banks left the decision as to whether to permit the petitioner to the respondent no. 2, which was in charge of conducting the examinations. Either way, since the age of the candidate was to be between 20 and 30 years at the relevant point of time, the petitioner fully qualified the said age criterion, whichever may be the date of birth taken for the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, challenges the decision of the respondents from letting her sit for the interview on the basis of such discrepancy.

ISSUES

Whether the discrepancy in the petitioner’s date of birth, as reflected in different documents, can disqualify her from participating in the interview process for the banking examinations.
Whether the eligibility criteria, specifically the date of birth mentioned in the online application, should be considered final and unmodifiable after submission.
Whether the petitioner’s limited access to internet facilities, given her background from an interior part of Jalpaiguri, should be taken into account in the scrutiny of her application.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The petitioner argues that the discrepancy in her date of birth should not disqualify her as it does not give her any undue advantage and thus should not be treated differently from others who might have similar minor errors.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article extends to the right to livelihood, meaning that arbitrary actions that could deprive someone of their means of livelihood, such as disqualifying a candidate on trivial grounds, may violate Article 21.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Counsel for appellant is argued that whereas the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner and her PAN Card, in consonance with her declaration in the application, showed her date of birth to be March 30, 2000, the birth certificate of the petitioner and, consequentially, her Indian School Certificate admit card depicted her date of birth as April 23, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported at (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1 for the proposition that if the person concerned gains no undue advantage and the mistake does not constitute wilful misrepresentation or fraud, considering the gravity of the lapse, the candidature can be permitted. Trivial omissions and errors, it is contended, cannot come in the way.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent IBPS argues that if the petitioner was armed with all the said documents, there was no conceivable reason why the petitioner disclosed her date of birth to be March 30, 2000, which is in contradistinction with her birth certificate and her ISC Admit Card. The rules are clear, it is submitted, to the effect that the eligibility criteria are to be satisfied by the concerned candidate by submission of due documents. It is further pointed out that as per the eligibility criteria, all particulars mentioned in the online application, inter alia including the date of birth of the candidate, will be considered as final and no challenge/modification will be allowed after submission of the online application form. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner loses out on the eligibility criteria itself and as such was rightly not considered for the interview.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The judgment cited by the petitioner is apt in the circumstances of the present case. The Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed that after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse and not for trivial omissions or errors. In the present case, the petitioner hails from the interior parts of the State where even proper internet facilities are not available. One can very well appreciate the impediments and handicaps under which such a person has uploaded the online application and furnished due details and credentials, which was done through a cybercafé, since the petitioner did not have the means to do the uploading from her own data pack. That apart, the object of such examinations for the banking sector and other public services is not to restrict the participation but to ensure that the participation reaches every nook and corner of the country, to the places which are not so advantaged as large townships or cities. It is not the case of the petitioner merely that she wants to have a modification of her online application. The petitioner places her case on a wider footing inasmuch as either of the dates of birth, if taken to be correct, would make the petitioner eligible as per the eligibility criterion regarding age. The object of a public examination cannot by any means be construed to be so restrictive as to be cruel on the candidates, particularly for brilliant people like the petitioner, who has already cleared the preliminary and mains in the tough banking examination concerned. The endeavor of the authorities ought to be encourage such people and not to shut them out on trivial issues. I do not find from the records that the petitioner could derive any undue advantage or, for that matter, any advantage whatsoever from the discrepancy in her date of birth, as either way, the petitioner would qualify on the eligibility criterion in respect of age. There does not arise any question, thus, of any willful misrepresentation on her part. The petitioner was permitted to take the prelims and mains and already crossed those hurdles and as such made herself eligible with flying colors to have an opportunity to participate in the interviews. Accordingly, the petitioner in the present case comes within the window as provided by the judgment of the Supreme Court, there being no gross anomaly or mala fides in the discrepancies relating to her date of birth. As such, for the purpose of the concerned banking examinations for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees, the petitioner is held to be fully qualified, since the documents submitted by her indicate that she is eligible in terms of age for participating in the said examinations. Since, the published timelines leave it open to the concerned banks to extend the date of interview till the end of this month, it is expected that the petitioner shall be permitted to have an interview with the concerned banks for the purpose of considering her candidature for the concerned posts. Accordingly, WPA No. 5442 of 2024 is allowed on contest, thereby directing the respondent no. 2-IBPS to immediately intimate the concerned banks that the petitioner is fully eligible for participation in the interviews for the examinations being held for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in banks. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2-IBPS shall publish the name of the petitioner in the provisional allotment list within 24 hours. Hence petition is allowed contest, thereby directing the respondent no. 2-IBPS to immediately intimate the concerned banks that the petitioner is fully eligible for participation in the interviews for the examinations being held for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in banks There will be no order as to costs.

Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

9 Apr

The Competent Authority cannot discharge the Employee on the Sole ground of Non-Disclosure of Information: Calcutta High Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Constable, #attestationform, #calcuttahighcourt, #CriminalCase, #discharge, #Dismissalorder, #employee, #non-disclosure, #pending

Case title: Sankar Mandal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Case no.: WPA 3225 of 2016

Decision on: February 5th, 2024

Quoram: Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

Facts of the case

The petitioner, Sankar Mondal had participated in a recruitment process for the post of Constable with reference to the Employment Notice issued by the Railway Protection Force. On successful completion of the same, he was called for training and was required to report to the SSB ATC Debandra nagar, Assam, along with other successful candidates. He was then posted at the 8^th Battalion, Railway Protection Special Force CLW where he completed his further practical training. However, on 5th January, 2016, he was discharged from enlistment for the post of Constable, on the ground of false declaration or non-disclosure of a pending criminal case against him in the Attestation Form. The petitioner, through a writ petition challenged the order which forfeited his appointment.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

The Counsel submitted that the respondents had mechanically dismissed the petitioner from service without considering the order of acquittal in the criminal case wherein he was a co-accused. Further, pointing out to the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, he submitted that the petitioner was only a co-accused in connection with a false complaint lodged against him relating to a dispute with his neighbor wherein the Judicial Magistrate held that the accused persons were not guilty of the charges levelled against them.

He contended that since the charges were trivial in nature, the discharge of service of the Petitioner on the basis of the same amounted to a violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. As such, he submitted that the charges of misrepresentation levelled against the petitioner, should be treated to be a mere omission and nothing more. The Counsel quoted various judgments to support his contentions and thus, prayed to allow the present petition and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service by setting aside the order of discharge.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

The Counsel, on the contrary submitted that the Petitioner, on the date of filling up the Attestation Form was conscious and aware of a criminal proceeding was pending against him and as such he deliberately and willfully suppressed the fact. Further, he contended that the very act of suppression of criminal case pending against the Petitioner while filling up the Form amounted to furnishing false declaration and misrepresentation. He submitted that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to those persons who have misrepresented themselves and relied on the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal to support him contentions.

Further, by referring to Rule 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and highlighting the power of the authorities to verify the petitioner’s candidature he submitted that there was no irregularity in carrying out the same. Furthermore, distinguishing the judgments relied on by opposite Counsel, he submitted that in none of the cases a person who is charged with a heinous or a serious offence has been let off. Therefore, the Counsel in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Avtar Singh v. UOI & Ors submitted that the petitioner may also be remanded to the authorities for a decision in the matter.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court on brief perusal of the facts at hand and materials on record observed that an employer while passing an order of discharge from service for giving false information may take into consideration the criminal antecedents and has a right to consider continuance of such candidate. However, the employer cannot be compelled to appoint such a candidate with criminal antecedents. Further, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, quoted the precedence from various cases to adjudicate the matter.

Firstly, in the case of Pawan Kumar v. UOI & Anr, the Apex Court had categorically stated that mere suppression of material or false information in a given case does not authorize the employer to arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service. Secondly, in the case of Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Ors the Court reiterated the rulings of Avtar Singh case which held that that although empanelment creates no right to appointment, there cannot be any arbitrary denial after empanelment as well. Thirdly, relied on the case of Union of India & Ors v. Sri Sukdev Mondal which held that the Learned Single Judge had rightly directed reinstatement of the employee in service in the post of constable at the stage from where he was dismissed by his employer and had consequentially affirmed the said direction.

The Bench noted that the respondents had passed the order of discharge by overlooking the order of acquittal of the petitioner. It observed that apart from the failure of the petitioner to disclose the relevant information in the Attestation Form, there was no other conduct for which the Petitioner was discharged. Therefore, the court held that non-disclosure of information cannot form the sole ground for the competent authority to discharge the Petitioner by the stroke of a pen. The Court noted that the order of discharge cannot be sustained, although it is ultimately vested with the employer to decide the matter judiciously and thereby, directed the respondent no. 2, to review the aforesaid decision of discharge in the light of the observation made herein and to reinstate the petitioner.

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

15 Jan

Modern criminal justice prioritizes the Reformative aim of punishment, not mere Retribution: Calcutta High Court.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #article21 #righttolifewithdignity #fundamentalrights, #calcuttahighcourt, #reformation, conviction

Case Title: Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others

Case No: W.P.A 22366 of 2023

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Coram: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt

Facts of the Case

Two key arguments have been raised by the petitioner, the wife of a life-sentenced convict, against the West Bengal State Sentence Review Board’s (SSRB) rejection of her application. Firstly, she claims the SSRB’s composition wasn’t compliant with proper procedures. Secondly, she asserts that the Board’s reasoning for denial contradicts rulings consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, this Court, and other High Courts. In support of this second point, she cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajo alias Rajwa alias Rajendra Mandal vs. The State of Bihar, where the apex court stressed the reformative purpose of imprisonment, even for major offenses, after serving a substantial sentence.

The details outlined in the writ petition about the comprehensiveness of the rejection grounds, stemmed from the petitioner’s Right to Information Act,2005 request seeking clarification on her husband’s denied premature release application. Notably, the petitioner’s husband has already served over two decades in custody.

Issue

Whether Article 21 can be denied merely because the petitioner’s husband was convicted?
Whether petitioner through Right to Information Act,2005 seek clarification on her husband’s denied premature release application?

Legal Provision

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution –

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”.

Right to Information Act 2005 –

It mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information. It is an initiative taken by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to provide a– RTI Portal Gateway to the citizens for quick search of information on the details of first Appellate Authorities,PIOs etc. amongst others, besides access to RTI related information / disclosures published on the web by various Public Authorities under the government of India as well as the State Governments

Court Decision and analysis

In considering a life sentence review, the court went beyond the mere severity of the crime and its wider impact. They emphasized additional factors for the government to assess, not just future danger but also the possibility of redemption and societal reintegration. This includes considering the convict’s age, health, family ties, and potential for rebuilding life. Positive developments like earned remission, educational progress, and prison engagement are vital indicators. Notably, the court warned against relying solely on the judge’s opinion or police reports, highlighting the need for a nuanced evaluation based on various factors contributing to the convict’s overall development and potential for a positive future. This holistic approach emphasizes the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration, offering hope beyond the initial sentence. The same view was reiterated in certain judgments like Gopal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal AIR Online 2022 CAL 2520 as well as two unreported judgments in Narayan Mahato alias Naran Mahato vs. State of West Bengal and Biresh Poddar and another vs. State of West Bengal and others etc.

It’s crucial to remember that modern criminal justice prioritizes the reformative aim of punishment, not mere retribution. Moreover, apart from the crime’s nature and future risk, the Supreme Court has consistently stressed several additional factors for consideration in such cases.

Examining the rejection grounds, we find a crucial absence – consideration of the factors beyond the crime itself. No reports appear to have been consulted from the Probation Officer or prison management regarding the petitioner’s ongoing conduct and progress throughout his incarceration. Similarly, details about his participation in rehabilitation programs, education, or productive work while in custody are missing. Notably, the cited police report seems fixated on the crime’s distant past, offering cryptic reasons without concrete evidence. The supposed risk of witness retaliation, for instance, feels like mere speculation. Adding to this, while the family’s poor socio-economic status and victim’s family’s opposition are mentioned, these lack clear justification. Furthermore, the petitioner’s own wife seeking his release casts doubt on the narrative of family resistance. In essence, the rejection grounds fail to address crucial aspects of the petitioner’s present circumstance and potential for reintegration, raising concerns about the process’s thoroughness and fairness.

The right of the petitioner under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because the petitioner was convicted.

The petitioner, having endured lengthy incarceration, deserves a chance at reintegration. Denying premature release becomes double punishment, especially considering their potential eligibility. Further, the Board’s improper composition casts doubt on the process. Therefore, we direct the authorities to have a properly constituted Board re-evaluate the petitioner’s request, considering all relevant factors, including those outlined above. This reconsideration should be done within a month. No costs awarded.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

1 2 3