On Wednesday, the Calcutta High Court made notice of the “conflict of interest” that newly appointed Advocate General Kishor Datta would have if he represented the West Bengal government in matters involving school employment for cash fraud. Datta should not represent the state government going forward because she had appeared for one of the parties in the dispute, according to single-judge Justice Amrita Sinha.
“Datta, you made an appearance on behalf of one of the parties to this dispute. And now the state has hired you as its legal counsellor. Thus, a clear conflict of interest exists,” Justice Sinha stated. It’s noteworthy that Datta previously represented Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee in this case.
Nevertheless, in December 2023, he was named West Bengal’s Advocate General. Considering this advancement, Justice Sinha stated, “Party interests and state interests are incompatible. If that happens, it will be exceedingly challenging for the court and everyone else to decide on this matter. Allow justice to be served. You can’t appear before me as the AG in this instance because you are now out of the office.”
The judge today also requested that the state government and other relevant parties get together and devise a plan to address the problem of staffing the ninety-five school jobs that had become empty after it was discovered through investigations that the individuals occupying the positions had been appointed unlawfully.
“I’ve already suggested that more examinations be given. You can excuse this and think about appointing after holding tests under the same conditions as previously, as the majority of these individuals who were eligible in 2014 may have exceeded the age limit, Justice Sinha stated.
She did point out, though, that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE) had declined to accept the proposal. Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya responded to this by telling the bench that the state may just use the waiting list and merit list to appoint new candidates on behalf of the petitioners or unsuccessful candidates.
“A large number of people were on the waiting list. They may think about appointing the ninety-five individuals on the aforementioned list. But before they can do that, they must first produce the merit list, which they haven’t yet done,” the senior advocate stated. In the meantime, the Enforcement Directorate submitted a report outlining the investigation’s progress. The bench announced that it will continue to hear the case next month.
