Protesting teachers in Bengal go on hunger strike ‘till government meets demands'
Protesting teachers in West Bengal, whose appointments were cancelled after the Supreme Court order, have gone on a hunger strike, demanding that the government pause fresh recruitments until their review petition yields a result.
Ten protesting teachers — Mita Sarkar, Chinmoy Mondal, Koushik Sarkar, Balaram Biswas, Sukumar Soren, Bikash Roy, Manik Majumder, Kishore Kumar Roy, Anirban Saha, and Achinta Das — started 'fasting unto death' from 1 am on June 13.
As of going to press, they would have completed nearly 48 hours of their hunger strike.
'We lost our livelihoods for no fault of ours, but because of the government's corruption. So we have been forced to take this extreme step. We will not end our hunger strike till our demands are met, or till our bodies give in,' fasting teacher Mr Mondal said.
This development follows months of protests after a Supreme Court order on April 3 invalidated nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching job appointments from the recruitment panel published by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) in 2016, citing a 'vitiated and tainted' hiring process.
Following a consequent order by the Supreme Court, the West Bengal government published the rules and notification for fresh recruitments to fill 44,203 vacancies for the position of assistant teachers.
Meanwhile, the State and the SSC have also filed review petitions at the Supreme Court. 'The process of the review petition [before the Supreme Court] and fresh appointments will continue simultaneously,' Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had said on May 27 this year.
However, 'sacked and untainted' teachers have raised questions on why the application deadline for fresh recruitments is set before the Supreme Court can take a decision on the review petition.
'Our primary demand behind the hunger strike is for the government to postpone or put on hold fresh recruitments till the Supreme Court pronounces a judgement on the review petition. As of now, the deadline to apply for fresh recruitment closes before the Supreme Court is due to reopen after summer recess on July 14. We believe the government is not interested in pursuing the review petition earnestly,' Mehebub Mondal, a protesting teacher and leading voice of the Jogyo Shikkhok Shikkhika Adhikar Mancha (JSSAM), told The Hindu.
He explained that the review petition is one of the last remaining hopes for 'untainted' teachers to have their job appointments reinstated without re-examination.
'We have proved our worth once and have worked diligently as teachers for seven years. We are innocent victims of the government's corruption. The SSC should publish a certified list of 'untainted candidates' and a fresh merit list for 2016 after re-evaluating our OMR sheets. That will help us retain our jobs, and the worthy waitlisted candidates can also find their deserved position in the merit list,' Mr Mondal said.
He added that if the sacked teachers must reappear for fresh recruitments, they demand to be recruited through a separate notification and selection process, meant only for the affected teachers of the cancelled 2016 panel.
Mr Mondal also claimed that the SSC chairperson, during his meeting with JSSAM representatives on June 12, did not accept any of the demands put forth by the protesting teachers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Police personnel in plain clothes firing upon car driver cannot be considered as official duty: SC
New Delhi, The conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant cannot be considered under duties of public order or effecting lawful arrest, the Supreme Court has said, dismissing a plea of nine Punjab cops to quash murder charges against them in an alleged fake encounter case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also restored the destruction of evidence charge levelled on Deputy Commissioner of Police Parampal Singh for directing the removal of the number plate of the car after the firing incident in 2015 in which a driver was killed. It has been held that the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice, the court observed noting that prior sanction was not required to prosecute the DCP and other police personnel for their alleged actions. The bench in its April 29 order uploaded recently dismissed the appeals of nine police personnel challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of May 20, 2019, where it refused to quash the case against them. The apex court said having gone through the material placed on record, the court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the high court. The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants. "Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. "Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest," it said. The bench further said, "The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty." Dealing with the case involving DCP Parampal Singh, the bench said an act that is per se directed to erasing potential evidence, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. "The test consistently applied by this court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions. "We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognisance," the bench said. It said this court in a verdict of 2000 while dealing with Section 197 of CrPC held that "the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice". The top court said the criminal complaint alleges, in clear and specific terms, that the nine policemen surrounded the Hyundai i-20 car, alighted with firearms, and fired in concert, fatally injuring the occupant. It added that the narrative was supported, at least prima facie, by two eye-witness depositions recorded under Section 200 CrPC during the preliminary inquiry. "In addition, the Special Investigation Team constituted at the behest of senior police administrators, found the self-defence version subsequently projected in FIR…to be false and recommended prosecution of eight of the petitioners for culpable homicide. "A CCTV clip recovered by the SIT depicts the three police vehicles converging on the i-20 exactly as alleged. Taken together, these materials furnish a coherent evidentiary thread sufficient, at the threshold, to justify summoning and the framing of charges," the top court said. Justice Nath, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench said the order of the magistrate summoning the policemen and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court framing charges proceed on an appreciation that there exists prima facie evidence of concerted firearm assault. "No error of law or perversity of approach is shown," the bench said and dismissed the appeal filed by the policemen. The top court, however, allowed the appeal of complainant Princepal Singh seeking reversal of the high court's order of May 20, 2019, by which it had quashed a criminal complaint and the summoning order against DCP Parampal Singh in the destruction of evidence case against him. The bench said, "In our considered opinion, at the summoning stage, those two depositions, read with the detailed narrative in the complaint, furnish a legally sufficient basis to proceed. Their credibility is a matter for trial, not for preliminary scrutiny." As per the complaint, at 6.30 pm, on June 16, 2015, a police party, travelling in a Bolero jeep, an Innova and a Verna, intercepted a white Hyundai i-20 on the Verka-Batala Road in Amritsar of Punjab. It said nine policemen alighted in plain clothes and, after a brief exhortation, opened fire from pistols and assault rifles at close range, killing the car driver, Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha. The complainant and another witness claim to have seen the shooting and to have raised an alarm that drew local residents to the spot. They claimed shortly after the firing incident, DCP Parampal Singh arrived with additional force, cordoned off the scene and directed the removal of the car's registration plates.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
FIR to final verdict within 3 years: Amit Shah's big promise on speedy justice
A new system will evolve over the next five years in which justice will be delivered within three years from the time a first information report (FIR) is filed, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said Sunday. He said the three new criminal laws—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—will ensure the speedy delivery of justice, from the lodging of the FIR to the Supreme Court. Shah was in Lucknow to be part of the distribution of appointment letters to 60,244 police constables. Congratulating the new appointees for becoming part of 'country's biggest police force', he also praised administration under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. 'In Niyuktiyon mein Na kharchi, na parchi, na shifarish, na hi jati ke adhar par koi bhed bhav hua (in these appointments, there was no discrimination based on expenditure, use of any slip [cheating], recommendation of caste. Instead, the entire process of transparent and completely based on merit),' Shah said. Shah claimed that the state has become 'danga mukta (riot-free)' during the Yogi Adityanath regime. He emphasised that, unlike in the past, goons no longer control law and order since the BJP government, led by Adityanath, came to power. He also highlighted that among the 60,244 youth appointed to the UP Police, around 12,000 are women, which he said demonstrates the government's success in implementing reservations for women in the police force. Shah said technology played a significant role in ensuring a transparent selection process, claiming that none of the 60,244 candidates had to pay a single bribe for their selection—an achievement he described as the most significant for any administration. He said not only was the process transparent, but it also ensured representation from every section and region. Maintaining that Naxalism, which was prevalent in 11 states, is limited to just three states now, Shah said by March 31, 2026, the entire country will be free of it. He told the new appointees that they are joining the UP Police during 'Amrit Kal' and will thus be able to witness India's transformation into a world leader. He also instructed them that goons and mafias should primarily experience the fear of the UP Police, while for the poor, backward classes, and Scheduled Tribes, the police should be viewed as 'masiah (saviour)'.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Despite SC nod, HCs not keen on appointing retired judges to tackle backlog
New Delhi: Despite the Supreme Court clearing the idea nearly five months ago, the high courts seem not to be keen on appointing ad-hoc judges to tackle pending criminal cases, details available with the government showed. According to people aware of the procedure to appoint Supreme Court and high court judges, none of the high court collegiums have so far recommended names of retired judges to be appointed as ad-hoc judges. There are 25 high courts in the country. Till June 11, no high court collegiums sent any such proposal to the Union Law Ministry . Considering a backlog of over 18 lakh criminal cases, the Supreme Court on January 30 allowed the high courts to appoint ad-hoc judges, not exceeding 10 per cent of the court's total sanctioned strength. Article 224A of the Constitution allows the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges in high courts to help deal with pendency. Live Events According to the laid down procedure, the respective high court collegiums send recommendations or names of candidates to be appointed as HC judges to the Department of Justice in the law ministry. The department then adds inputs and details of the candidates before forwarding the same to the Supreme Court Collegium. The SC Collegium then takes a final call and recommends to the government to appoint the selected persons as judges. The president signs the 'warrant of appointment' of the newly-appointed judge. The procedure to appoint ad-hoc judges will be the same except that the president will not sign the warrant of appointment. But the assent of the president will be sought for appointing ad-hoc judges. Except in one case, there is no precedence of appointing retired judges as ad-hoc HC judges, officials had earlier pointed out. In a judgement dated April 20, 2021, on the appointment of ad-hoc judges in the high courts, the top court imposed certain conditions. However, later a special Supreme Court bench comprising then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices B R Gavai (incumbent CJI) and Surya Kant relaxed certain conditions and kept some in abeyance. The verdict, which was authored by former chief justice S A Bobde, directed retired high court judges to be appointed as ad-hoc ones for a period of two to three years to clear the backlog. While one condition said that ad-hoc judges cannot be appointed if a high court was working with 80 per cent of its sanctioned strength, the other said ad-hoc judges could sit separately on benches to deal with cases. Relaxing the conditions, the court said the requirement that vacancies should not be more than 20 per cent of the sanctioned strength for the time being shall be kept in abeyance. The bench also said each high court should keep the appointment to two to five ad-hoc judges and not exceed 10 per cent of the total sanctioned strength. "The ad-hoc judges will sit in a bench presided over by a sitting judge of the high court and decide pending criminal appeals," the apex court's order said. The rarely used Article 224A of the Constitution deals with the appointment of ad-hoc judges in high courts. "The chief justice of a high court for any state may at any time, with the previous consent of the president, request any person who has held the office of a judge of that court or of any other high court to sit and act as a judge of the high court for that state," it says.
