Calcutta HC allows pleas challenging WBSSC teacher recruitment notification
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday (June 3, 2025) granted permission to file pleas challenging the West Bengal government's notification on this year's teacher recruitment process. These pleas are expected to be heard by a vacation Bench of the court later this week.
On May 30, the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) and the State Education Department issued a notification for the State Level Selection Test (SLST) for the recruitment of assistant teachers for classes 9 to 12 in government-run and government-aided schools. Concurrently, the State government has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking modifications to the top court's April 3 order.
The Supreme Court had cancelled nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching appointments made through the 2016 recruitment process, calling it 'vitiated and tainted'. On April 17, the top court directed that fresh recruitment be initiated by May 31 and completed by December 31.
While many among the affected group of sacked teachers have reiterated their demand to be exempted from the new process, a section of waitlisted candidates from the 2016 panel have moved the Calcutta High Court against the 2025 notification itself.
A large section of the protestors and litigants who had earlier challenged the 2016 appointments had claimed that, despite clearing the examination, they were denied jobs due to irregularities in the selection process.
The current petitioners, who identify themselves as among those deprived, have argued that the latest recruitment guidelines violate the Supreme Court's directives. In particular, they have objected to provisions in the notification that appear to favour sacked teachers — such as the allocation of an additional 10 marks for prior teaching experience.
Notably, no such provision existed in the 2016 recruitment. The Supreme Court, in its April 17 order, had clarified: 'We clarify that this order shall not be read as conferring any special right or advantage on the aforesaid teachers, insofar as the fresh recruitment process is concerned.'
Suvojit Das, a teacher whose appointment from the 2016 panel was cancelled but who maintains he was untainted, told The Hindu that the current recruitment notification does not particularly benefit any category of affected candidates, whether sacked or waitlisted.
He claimed that the sacked teachers are unwilling to participate in fresh recruitment. 'In the most unfortunate case where we are forced to partake in recruitments, we should not be made to compete with the entire pool of candidates this year. We should only compete for the number of declared vacancies of 2016 for which we had originally applied,' he said.
'Moreover, in that case, the untainted appointees of 2016 who might not clear the SLST this year should also receive some benefit from the government,' Mr. Das added.
He further argued that a re-evaluation of the 2016 OMR sheets could help distinguish meritorious candidates — whether waitlisted or sacked — from those who were part of the tainted process.
Meanwhile, the Detective Department of the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate on Tuesday issued summons to two protesting teachers, Amit Ranjan Bhuiyan and Mehebub Mondal, for questioning.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
35 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP worker murder case: SC allows Karntaka Congress MLA Kulkarni to place additional documents
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted a day's time to Congress' Karnataka MLA and former Minister Vinay Kulkarni to place on record additional documents against the state government's plea for cancellation of his bail in connection with the murder of BJP worker Yogesh Gowda over allegations of witness-tampering. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request of Kulkarni's counsel to adjourn the hearing till next week for bringing certain documents which were filed before the trial court. After much persuasion, the Justice Karol-led Bench adjourned the hearing till Friday, and in the meantime, asked Kulkarni's lawyer to bring on record the additional documents. "It shall be open for the respondent (Vinay Kulkarni) to place on record any document either during the course of the day or hand over the same during the course of the hearing tomorrow," ordered the apex court. Earlier on Wednesday, the Justice Karol-led Bench restrained the trial court from examining any witnesses till further orders, and listed the matter for hearing on June 5. Kulkarni, presently the Chairman of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, was accused of conspiring in the murder of BJP Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Gowda in 2016. He was then a cabinet minister in the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government. Though his name came up, no action was initiated against him. The BJP made it an issue, and former Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa vowed at election rallies that he would send Kulkarni to jail if the BJP was voted to power. Later, the case was handed over to the CBI, and Kulkarni was arrested. He spent more than 9 months in jail and finally obtained bail from the Supreme Court. Last year, the Karnataka High Court had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to complete the inquiry and questioning of witnesses in the case swiftly. Kulkarni, who is deemed close to Siddaramaiah, was elected from the Dharwad Assembly seat in the 2023 state polls, despite the court banning his entry into the constituency, and his wife and daughter campaigning on his behalf.


Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How the new Trump travel ban on 12 countries differs from his previous ‘Muslim ban'
Effective Monday (June 9), citizens from 12 nations, primarily from Africa and the Middle East, will be denied entry into the US, following a proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday (June 4). The move revives an effort from his first term (2017-21) to ban entry to vast numbers of immigrants and visitors. Citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be banned from entry. The proclamation also announced restrictions on people travelling from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. While Trump has batted for banning entry to Muslim migrants and visitors during his first term, his efforts to institute a travel ban faced a Supreme Court challenge before it was implemented in a limited capacity. This ban was revoked by Joe Biden when he became President in 2021. The current ban, while expected, is expected to hold up against court challenges, and builds on an executive order signed on his first day, authorising US national security agencies to conduct 'a robust assessment of the risk that countries posed to the United States, including regarding terrorism and national security.' The present move comes on the heels of a terror attack by an Egyptian man in Colorado earlier this week, with the Trump administration officials promising a crackdown in its aftermath. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said while announcing the travel ban. 'We don't want them.' Here is what to know about the new ban, and how it compares to his efforts from his first term. In a Fact Sheet shared by the White House, the Trump administration said that the country-specific bans would 'encourage cooperation with the subject countries in recognition of each country's unique circumstances'. This opens the possibility for each country to seek bilateral talks and discussions with the US to ease the restrictions, in an effort similar to the trade deals following Trump's tariff announcements. The countries thus far have been identified based on: This rationale has also been used to restrict entry to people from seven nations, without instituting an outright ban. Countries Identified Travel Ban State-sponsored terrorism, or a safe haven for terrorists Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan Cuba Lack of a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents Afghanistan, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen Venezuela High visa overstay rate Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Sudan Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela Not accepting their removable nationals Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Iran, Somalia Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Venezuela The fact sheet explicitly calls Iran and Cuba state sponsors of terrorism, and Somalia a terrorist safe haven. Interestingly, it recognises that Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, without outright condemning them. The fact sheet also sees 'hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens' who entered the US during Biden's term as a national security threat. It also notes that the governments in Yemen and Somalia lack command and control of their territories, with Somalia in particular standing out for the extent to which this is the case. The ban exempts certain categories of individuals from the travel ban: For one, the current ban must be viewed in the context of Trump's larger, systematic crackdown on immigration. Since his return to the White House in January, he imposed a national emergency at the country's southern border, denying entry to asylum-seekers, has authorised nationwide immigration raids, and barred international admissions to Harvard University. Legal experts cited in a report in The New York Times believe the current iteration of the travel ban would withstand legal scrutiny better than the efforts in his first term. 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center told the NYT. 'But a lot will depend upon how it's actually enforced — and whether it's applied in ways that are themselves unlawful or even unconstitutional.' Vladeck noted that the announcement came after several months of Trump's inauguration, compared to the ban in the first term that came into place just a week after he became President. In the run-up to the 2016 US elections and after becoming President in 2017, Trump repeatedly expressed his desire to impose a 'Muslim ban', a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' This was accompanied by incendiary rhetoric, with Trump saying 'Islam hates us' and that the US was 'having problems with Muslims coming into the country.' Further, this iteration of the travel ban does not single out Muslim nations, but focuses on administrative issues like visa overstay, or a threat to national security from political instability from the other nation. Trump enacted his first travel ban on January 27, 2017, barring entry to citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for a 90-day period. This was overturned by a federal judge the next month. A second attempt at a travel ban on all these countries, barring Iraq, was made that March, and spared individuals with an existing green card or valid visa. This was overturned by two federal judges that month, who ruled that it was illegal to ban travel from half a dozen countries. A third travel ban was announced in September 2017, barring entry to most citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The move exempted Iranian nationals with valid student and exchange visitor visas. Chad was subsequently removed from this list after its administration reached out to the US. This ban was finally upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018, which said the president has authority over national security concerns relating to immigration. A fourth travel ban was announced in January 2020, banning entry to immigrants from Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. Tourists and visitors entering the US temporarily were exempted. All travel bans were subsequently revoked by Biden, upon assuming the presidency in 2021.


United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Sharmistha Panoli granted interim bail by Calcutta High Court; BJP welcomes it
Kolkata, June 5 (UNI) Pune University law student Sharmistha Panoli who was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram for her controversial social media comments in the aftermath of 'Operation Sindoor' was granted interim bail by the Calcutta High Court on Thursday. The BJP welcomed it, terming her arrest as an example of police overzealousness. A bench of Raja Basu Chowdhury of Calcutta High Court observing that there is no need to take the young woman into custody for interrogation granted her interim bail on a personal bond of Rs 10,000. However, the court said that Panoli must cooperate with the investigation and surrender her passport. The law student, a resident of Delhi and studying law at Pune University, was booked at a Kolkata police station for making controversial comments on social media in the aftermath of 'Operation Sindoor' following which she was arrested from Gurugram. Panoli who was brought to Kolkata on May 30 and was placed before a court was given judicial custody till June 13. However, the law student challenged the lower court order and approached the high court where she was granted bail. The court observed that there is no immediate need to take her into custody for questioning. She may return to Pune for academic purposes, but must cooperate with the investigation. Earlier, the High Court had summoned the case diary from the state in this matter. It had also stated that the investigation of other cases filed against her in different police stations would remain suspended. Additionally, no new cases could be filed against her for the same matter. The court also clarified that while freedom of speech is a right, one cannot make remarks against any community. The incident originated from a video Panoli posted on May 14, 2025, in response to a question from a Pakistani follower regarding India's military actions after the Pahalgam terror attack. The video reportedly included derogatory comments about a particular community, and invited strong criticism, including death and rape threats aimed at Panoli. Leader of Opposition, Suvendu Adhikari expressed happiness over the granting of interim bail to Panoli. 'Justice has been served today - Sharmistha Panoli, a law student, aged about 22 years, has been released on interim bail by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta,' he wrote on his X handle. 'This is a case of police atrocities as an innocent young lady, for using her freedom of speech and expression, has been illegally arrested by Kolkata Police and was sent to judicial custody. This is yet another example of police overzealousness and eagerness to please its political masters,' he added. UNI XC RN