The Supreme Court is deliberating on the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in West Bengal, following the Calcutta High Court’s invalidation of these appointments due to alleged corruption in the 2016 recruitment process. Concerns over the integrity of the selection process persist as the CBI continues its investigation into the malpractice. Hearings are set to resume on February 10.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 27th) heard arguments concerning the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in government and aided schools in West Bengal. The case stems from allegations of malpractice and corruption in the 2016 recruitment process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC). The entire selection process has been called into question, with claims that the state wanted to protect illegal appointments made through corrupt means.
The controversy began with the Calcutta High Court‘s decision on April 22, 2024, which invalidated the appointments of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in state-run and state-aided schools. These appointments were made under the 2016 recruitment process, which has now been under scrutiny due to various irregularities. The Supreme Court stayed the high court’s order on May 7, 2024, but allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to continue with its probe into the alleged corruption without any coercive steps.
On Monday, during the Supreme Court hearing, the bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar considered several pleas against the high court’s decision. The petitioners, including some of the candidates who had been affected by the high court’s verdict, argued that the ruling had seriously impacted the livelihoods of untainted candidates. These petitioners emphasized that many of the untainted candidates had crossed the permissible age limit to take any further competitive exams, thus rendering them unable to pursue alternate employment opportunities.
The 2016 recruitment process was marred by allegations of OMR sheet tampering and rank-jumping, which led to a large number of illegal appointments. The high court found significant irregularities in the process, including manipulations in the ranking system and tampering with answer sheets, which it cited as reasons for invalidating the appointments.
One of the petitioners’ lawyers stated that “the entire selection process was vitiated because of the malpractice,” arguing that the state government seemed to want to “protect the illegal appointments.” The lawyer also pointed out that the state’s SSC had failed to separate the untainted candidates from the tainted ones, making it difficult to resolve the matter fairly. Another lawyer involved in the case mentioned that the recruitment process was tainted by a “large institutional criminal conspiracy”, suggesting a deep-rooted problem within the system.
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of corruption in the recruitment process, with one of the lawyers claiming that the state’s school service commission had a duty to segregate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The bench expressed concern over the systemic fraud involved and stated that the state authorities were obligated to maintain digitized records related to the appointments, which would play a crucial role in determining the legality of the appointments.
The arguments in the case remain inconclusive, with the Supreme Court deciding to continue the hearings on February 10. The final decision will determine the fate of the teachers and non-teaching staff whose appointments were made under the controversial 2016 process. If the appointments are found to be illegal, they could be forced to refund their salaries and other emoluments received since their recruitment.
The investigation into the alleged recruitment scam, which has been labeled as a “systemic fraud”, continues to unfold, and the CBI‘s probe will likely shed light on the full extent of the corruption involved. The case has raised serious concerns about the integrity of recruitment processes in the state and the need for greater transparency in government hiring procedures.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE