Kolkata, Nov 29: The West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) has identified as many as 269 “tainted” teachers from the commission’s panel for 2016 who not only appeared for the fresh recruitment of primary teachers but also qualified for the interview.

In April this year, a division bench of the Supreme Court cancelled WBSSC’s entire panel for 2016 and barred the “tainted” teachers, who were proved beyond doubt of securing teaching jobs in state-run schools by paying money, from participating in the fresh recruitment process.

A petition was filed at the Calcutta High Court recently alleging that some “tainted” teachers not only participated in the written examination for fresh recruitment of higher secondary teachers in September this year but also qualified for the interview.

These “tainted” teachers, WBSSC sources said, got interview-qualified by taking advantage of the new weightage criterion, carrying 10 marks for past teaching experience.

The commission, thereafter, reviewed the background of the interview-qualified candidate and identified the 269 “tainted” teachers from the 2016 panel who qualified for the interview.

The commission had rejected the candidature of these 269 “tainted” teachers for the fresh recruitment process.

However, WBSSC sources said that even this list, if not final, and in the future, if more such interview-qualified “tainted” teachers are identified, their candidatures would also be cancelled.

On Friday, while hearing on the petition filed in the matter, Calcutta High Court’s single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha questioned the basis on which WBSSC determined the “untainted” teachers from the commission’s 2016 panel, which would be deemed eligible for participation in the fresh recruitment of secondary and higher secondary teachers this year.

Justice Sinha raised the critical question on the basis on which WBSSC will determine which candidates will be eligible for the 10-mark weightage criterion for past teaching experience.

She also said that, apparently, it seemed that several eligible candidates were deprived of participating in the fresh recruitment process because of new rules introduced in the fresh recruitment process.

However, her bench did not give any specific direction on the matter.

The next date of hearing will be on December 1, when the counsels of the state government and WBSSC will present their arguments in the matter.

The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Ultra Lifespace Pvt Ltd and its three directors Mayank Shah, Jignesh Shah, and Tushar Shah in connection with an FIR alleging cheating of Rs38.12 crore. A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil, on November 19, directed that the investigation continue till the next hearing on December 10, but no chargesheet should be filed in the meantime.

The directors have sought quashing of the FIR, first registered at Bandra police station and later transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Their lawyers, Aabad Ponda and Sujay Kantawala, argued that the matter stems from a commercial dispute and not a criminal offence.

The case originates from a complaint by Vijay Thakkar, 54, a builder from Vile Parle (West), who in 2014 booked three flats in a Bandra Reclamation project developed by Satra Buildcon Pvt Ltd (SBPL). Two flats were priced at Rs11 crore and the third at Rs11.75 crore. Thakkar paid Rs7.33 crore, after which a registered agreement was executed.

Under the agreement, construction was to be completed by December 2017, with the occupancy certificate (OC) within a year. In case of delay, the buyer was entitled to a refund with 18% interest, which Thakkar sought when the project failed to meet the deadline. SBPL later assured possession by December 2019 after redevelopment, but the project was subsequently handed over to Ultra Lifespace.

Ultra Lifespace obtained the OC in 2020 and began giving possession to other buyers. Thakkar alleges he was denied possession of all three flats and approached MahaRERA, which directed Ultra Lifespace to hand over possession and refund pending dues with interest. Thakkar claims Rs30.76 crore is owed and, along with Rs7.35 crore paid for development and maintenance, brings his total claimed loss to Rs38.12 crore.

Thakkar eventually lodged a complaint with the EOW alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust.

Ultra Lifespace directors argue that Thakkar misused police machinery to settle a civil dispute and suppressed crucial facts. They maintain that the original sale was completed under Praful N Satra, former director of SBPL. They claim Thakkar paid only Rs5.23 crore of the total Rs33 crore, leaving Rs27.77 crore unpaid.

The petition also alleges fabricated ante-dated letters from March 2018, permitting deferred payment after the OC. An FIR regarding this alleged forgery had already been lodged, which Thakkar allegedly concealed.

The Mayank Shah group took over SBPL in August 2019, later renaming it Ultra Lifespace. After the takeover, they secured the OC on March 2, 2020, and sent repeated reminders to Thakkar for outstanding dues. Both parties have challenged the MahaRERA order before the appellate tribunal and the High Court, where the matter remains pending.

The plea concludes that no ingredients of cheating are made out, noting: “Surprisingly, no allegation is made against Praful Satra.”

New Delhi, Nov 29: A Delhi court on Saturday deferred the pronouncement of its decision to December 16, on whether to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged National Herald money laundering case.

The high-profile case arrays Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress Overseas chief Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, and others as accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Special Judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne, who was expected to deliver the verdict on Saturday, has deferred the pronouncement to December 16.

The Rouse Avenue Court had reserved its order on November 7 after the ED submitted additional clarifications following the court’s inspection of the case records.

“Further submissions and clarifications have been advanced by the Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the ED in light of the inspection of the case files by the court. List for orders on November 29,” Judge Gogne had stated.

As per the ED, top Congress functionaries allegedly conspired to wrongfully acquire control of assets exceeding Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), the original publisher of the National Herald, by paying a nominal price of Rs 50 lakh.

Earlier, the court had deferred its decision, noting that further scrutiny of the transaction documents, alleged rent receipts, and fund flow patterns was required before determining whether the prosecution complaint met the statutory threshold for cognisance under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

While the ED argued that the case involves a “serious economic offence” and a conspiracy to usurp AJL’s properties through Young Indian — in which Sonia and Rahul Gandhi are majority stakeholders — for a nominal sum, the Congress leaders have described the money laundering allegations as “really strange” and “unprecedented”.

As per the ED, a conspiracy was hatched to form Young Indian to acquire control over the vast assets of the now-defunct newspaper, aimed at benefiting the top Congress leadership personally.

The probe agency reported that several senior Congress leaders were involved in “fake transactions,” alleging that individuals, acting on their instructions, had issued fraudulent advance rent payments for years using fabricated rent receipts.

The controversy over the National Herald’s assets came into focus in 2012 when BJP leader Subramanian Swamy filed a complaint in a trial court, alleging that Congress leaders had engaged in cheating and breach of trust in the process of acquiring AJL.