A pivotal hearing unfolded in the Supreme Court on Monday, as arguments were presented regarding the alleged malpractices in the recruitment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in West Bengal’s government and aided schools. This case, which has stirred considerable controversy, was before a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The legal battle follows the Calcutta High Court’s decision on April 22 last year, which invalidated these appointments citing malpractice. This decision was contested, leading to a stay by the apex court on May 7, albeit allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to proceed with its investigations.
During the hearing, advocates representing various petitioners argued fiercely over the integrity of the selection process conducted by the state’s School Service Commission (SSC). “The entire selection process was vitiated by malpractice, and the state government sought to protect these illegal appointments,” asserted one lawyer. Discussions highlighted the inability of the SSC to distinguish between tainted and untainted candidates, raising concerns about the fairness of the recruitment process.
Another attorney accused the SSC of being part of a “large institutional criminal conspiracy,” urging the state to clarify the extent of tainted appointments. Despite extensive deliberations, the court adjourned the case to February 10, leaving several issues unresolved.
The controversy primarily stems from the 2016 recruitment drive, where despite 23 lakh aspirants vying for 24,640 posts, a surplus of 1,113 appointments sparked allegations of OMR sheet tampering and rank-jumping. Petitioners on January 15 emphasized the dire consequences of the high court’s ruling on untainted candidates, many of whom have now surpassed the age limit for competing in other exams.
The Calcutta High Court’s earlier ruling pointed to significant irregularities, leading to the cancellation of the appointments and a directive for the appointed individuals to repay received salaries if their recruitment was deemed illegal. The Supreme Court reiterated the seriousness of the allegations, labeling the recruitment as a “systemic fraud” and underscoring the state’s responsibility to maintain transparent and accurate digital records.
