West Bengal SSC has filed a review plea in the Supreme Court against the cancellation of 25,753 school appointments. The top court earlier termed the entire selection process as “vitiated and tainted.” New Delhi: The West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBCSSC) has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court asking for a reconsideration […]
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday, December 19, heard multiple petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision regarding the alleged teacher recruitment scam in West Bengal.
The case was heard by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi represented the state of West Bengal, arguing that the state government was cooperating with the investigation and supported the separation of tainted and clean candidates as noted in the High Court’s directives.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear pleas against the Calcutta High Court order invalidating over 25,000 teacher and staff appointments in West Bengal. Chief Justice Chandrachud labeled the alleged recruitment scam as “systemic fraud” and emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust and the digitized records of the appointments. The court granted an extension for written submissions and allowed the CBI to continue its probe without making any arrests. The state government challenged the high court’s order, arguing that the cancellations were arbitrary. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a closer analysis to differentiate between tainted and legitimate appointments. The Calcutta High Court not only annulled the appointments but also directed the CBI to investigate and report back within three months. Additionally, it ordered those appointed beyond the available vacancies, after the recruitment date, and those who submitted blank OMR sheets to return all remunerations and benefits with interest.
The Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, today refused to entertain a petition seeking judicial directives to combat superstition, emphasizing that education, societal reform, and legislative action are essential. The Court stressed that courts cannot address all societal problems and that the responsibility of addressing such issues lies with civil society and democratic institutions.
