Today(31st July), the Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Arindam Mukherjee, issued a stay on the appointment of temporary staff in North 24 Parganas and South 24 Parganas district courts. Justice Mukherjee also directed authorities to submit an affidavit explaining the reasons for hiring contractual staff in these courts.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has issued a stay on the appointment of temporary staff in two significant district courts of West Bengal, specifically North 24 Parganas and South 24 Parganas. This ruling, delivered by Justice Arindam Mukherjee today(31st July), has raised important questions about the staffing policies in the judiciary.
In his order, Justice Mukherjee not only halted the temporary appointments but also instructed the concerned authorities to submit an affidavit explaining the rationale behind hiring contractual staff for the district courts.
The judge remarked-
“If this practice continues, will district judges also be appointed on a contractual basis?”
This comment underscores the judiciary’s concern about the long-term implications of such staffing decisions.
The issue of vacancies in the state’s district courts is not new. As of November last year, there were over five hundred vacancies in these two districts alone, with 267 vacancies in North 24 Parganas and 257 in South 24 Parganas. To address this gap, a decision was recently made to appoint temporary staff. However, this decision was contested by the West Bengal Court Employees Association, which brought the matter to the High Court.
The organization’s lawyer, Firdous Shamim, presented their case on Wednesday, challenging the decision to hire temporary staff. Shamim pointed out that “Certain government departments or positions do not allow for the appointment of temporary staff.” including court staff. He also highlighted past directives from the Supreme Court that reinforce this stance.
Shamim argued that the state government has not appointed any permanent staff in the district courts since 2014. As a result, “more than 25 percent of the vacancies are lying,” leading to a significant staffing shortfall. This long-standing issue raises questions about the state’s commitment to filling these essential positions on a permanent basis.
During the hearing, Justice Mukherjee’s stay order brought immediate relief to the plaintiffs, with the next hearing scheduled for September. This decision is seen as a significant step in addressing the staffing crisis in the judiciary and ensuring that the courts operate efficiently and effectively.
