Calcutta High Court dismisses teachers' petitions against new SSC recruitment rules
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed all the petitions regarding the School Service Commission (SSC)'s new recruitment notification where 'untainted' teachers who lost their jobs after the Supreme Court ruling had petitioned against many of the subject seats being reduced, and the eligibility criteria of the 2025 exams being different from 2016 making the process harder for older candidates.
The division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De delivered the judgement on Wednesday (July 16, 2025). They said that they will not interfere in the new notification issued by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) new recruitment notification. A week back, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya of Calcutta High Court had only said that the government must take out the 'tainted' candidates out of the new examination; this judgement was upheld at the division bench ruling on Wednesday.
Mehboob Mondal, a representative of the 'Joggya Sikkhak Sikkhika Adhikar Mancha' (Deserving Teachers' Rights Forum) told The Hindu that the new rules of the 2025 recruitment is not allowing special B.Ed. candidates to fill up forms, even candidates with 40-45% marks are barred, but all of them had cracked the exams in 2016. This has left them in the lurch, even though they have served in schools as untainted teachers for over seven years. He also added that some subjects like Chemistry or Nepali language have no seats in 2025 exams, but the same teachers got jobs in 2016, now they have no option but to skip the exams and lose their jobs.
'We had petitioned that we should not have to compete with fresh candidates because we had already passed the exam. The 2016 panel should have been separately recruited. We are losing all faith in the judiciary because they failed us and we are being punished and losing jobs because of the government's corruption,' Habibullah, a representative of JSSAM said.
He also shared doubts that the same WBSSC body, which was caught in a corrupt recruitment process by the Supreme Court, has been directed to conduct the rehiring process. 'What is the guarantee that they will not steal our jobs again? Finding the tainted candidates cannot be our responsibility. It was either the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) responsibility or the government's responsibility, why are we being criminalised for their lacking?' Mr Habibullah added.
Previously, the JSSAM representatives had said that they were against filling out the new recruitment form because they are 'untainted' candidates, the last date for which is July 21. They wanted a review petition at the Supreme Court before the last date, but it has not yet been listed. According to the representatives, this has led to a section of the 'untainted' teachers filling up the new recruitment form to stay on the safe side, so they have a shot at getting back to their old jobs.
After the verdict was announced, state lawyer and Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee called it a victory for the state. 'The court has recognized the state's rights. The Supreme Court has said that the recruitment process has to be started according to the 2016 recruitment process. The court did not accept the unreasonable request. We also have to consider how many people have come in the last nine years,' Mr Banerjee added.
According to the last WBSSC notification for the 2025 recruitment, the experienced teachers will get a 10 marks advantage. This is the only leeway that the 2016 panel of teachers will get in the fresh hiring process.
The petitions were in response to the Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the cancellation of approximately 26,000 appointments made during the 2016 recruitment process conducted by the WBSSC, citing irregularities.
On April 17, the top court allowed 'untainted' candidates to continue in service until December 31, or until a fresh selection process is completed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
36 minutes ago
- The Wire
‘No Assessment Made' on Impact of Pahalgam Attack on Locals Dependent on Tourism: Govt
Union tourism minister Gajendra Shekhawat was answering a question posed in the Lok Sabha. New Delhi: The Union tourism ministry has not assessed the economic impact of the Pahalgam terror attack on locals dependent on the tourism industry, minister Gajendra Shekhawat said in parliament. In an unstarred question, Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi asked whether the government is aware of the decline in tourist visits and the subsequent losses suffered in Jammu and Kashmir following the terrorist attack, which he noted occurred during peak tourist season. To this, Shekhawat on Monday (July 28) tabled the number of domestic and foreign tourists the Jammu and Kashmir tourism department recorded in the Union territory from 2020 to 2024 as well as between January and June this year. Asked if the government had prepared an assessment on the attack's 'economic impact on local tourism-dependent stakeholders', Shekhawat answered in the negative. 'No such assessment has been made by the Ministry of Tourism on economic impact on local tourism-dependent stakeholders in Jammu and Kashmir,' he wrote. Owaisi also asked for details of specific measures the government has taken to 'restore tourist confidence and promote tourism in the region' following the April 22 attack. While Shekhawat listed various official tourism-related initiatives applying across the country, including to Jammu and Kashmir, he did not characterise any steps as having been undertaken specifically in light of the terrorist attack. Terrorists singled out and killed 25 tourists – one of them a Nepali national – in the Baisaran meadow near south Kashmir's Pahalgam on April 22, sparking an exodus of tourists from the resort town during peak visiting season. They also killed a local man who offered pony rides to tourists. India blamed Pakistan for the attack and launched its 'Operation Sindoor' against nine sites identified as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan as well as Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir on May 7, sparking a four-day-long military conflict that ended with a ceasefire and numerous casualties on both sides. According to the data tabled by Shekhawat, 96,12,234 tourists – 95,92,664 of them from India and 19,570 from abroad – visited Jammu and Kashmir in the first six months of this year. In all of the previous year 2,35,90,081 tourists visited the Union territory. Data obtained via RTI has also suggested that only 10% of the purported tourist footfall in the territory since Article 370 was read down in 2019 went to the Kashmir valley. The activist who obtained the data has however claimed that the number of tourists going to the valley may have been inflated by poor methodology. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
Supreme Court quashes FIR against Lakshya Sen in birth certificate forgery case
The Supreme Court on Monday quashed an FIR against badminton player Lakshya Sen, his family members and coach in the birth certificate forgery case. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar said the continuation of criminal proceedings against Sen was an abuse of the process of court. The top court observed the very allegations that were examined and debunked by competent authorities were now being sought to be revived as it ruled out any fresh evidence meriting reopening of the appellants, particularly appellant 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events," the court said. The top court went on, "To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice."The invocation of criminal law in such circumstances, the bench held, would amount to an abuse of process, which this court cannot countenance. The top court observed the Sports Authority of India (SAI), upon receiving complaints, initiated a verification process in 2016, which included medical testing and factual players were stated to have undergone bone ossification and dental tests at government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi."The findings of these tests supported the birth years as recorded in official documents. On that basis, the SAI closed the matter. The CVC, an independent oversight body, was also seized of the issue and recommended no disciplinary proceedings against D K Sen. These findings were accepted by the relevant authorities and have not been set aside or reopened," the bench M G Nagaraj alleged birth certificates of Sen and his brother Chirag Sen were top court was hearing a plea against a February 19 Karnataka High Court order rejecting the petitions filed by Sen, his family members, and his coach U Vimal high court found prima facie evidence, warranting an investigation into the alleged Sen's parents Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, along with his brother, coach, and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association were involved in falsifying the birth to the complaint, the accused allegedly manipulated the birth certificates of the Sen brothers, reducing their age by approximately two-and-a-half alleged forgery was intended to allow them to participate in age-restricted badminton tournaments and avail government supported his claims with documents obtained under RTI Act and requested the court to summon original records from SAI and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in New on the evidence, the court directed the High Grounds police station to conduct an police subsequently lodged an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of petitioners moved the Karnataka High Court in 2022, securing an interim order, which stalled the argued the complaint and subsequent FIR were baseless, motivated, and intended to harass was alleged to have acted out of personal vendetta, after his daughter applied to join the Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy in 2020 but was not selected after the evaluation a coach at the academy, was named in the high court, while dismissing the petitions, observed the petitioners' counsel did not present arguments despite being given sufficient opportunities.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Why did Justice Varma submit to in-house inquiry if it was contrary to Constitution, Supreme Court asks
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) questioned High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's choice to submit to an in-house inquiry procedure into an allegation of 'burnt cash' found at his official residential premises in Delhi, despite finding the procedure to be 'completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme'. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih asked whether he was at the time looking for a favourable outcome. Supreme Court hearing on Justice Varma's petition updates: SC asks Sibal to place on record the fact-finding committee report, adjourns case to July 30 The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing 'burnt currency', 'convicted' Justice Varma in the public eye. 'There was a public furore, media interactions named the judge, accusations were levelled against the judge and the findings of the inquiry committee found its way into the public domain. He was convicted in the public eye from day one,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal said the process of removal of a judge was covered under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The inquiry had to be done under the Judges Inquiry Act. The in-house procedure was meant to 'enhance' the moral vigour of the judiciary and depicted zero tolerance to judicial misconduct. 'Violation of Article 121' The senior counsel said the outing of sensitive material regarding a sitting High Court judge and very public discussions on his conduct violated the bar under Article 121 of the Constitution. 'Article 121 restricts discussions even in the Parliament on a sitting judge unless there is evidence of proven misconduct against him… Here, he was already 'convicted' in the public eye. The in-house inquiry procedure was devised to enhance the moral authority of the judiciary. The conduct of the in-house inquiry and its report, now in the public domain, hardly meet that objective,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal challenged the inquiry committee's finding of misbehaviour against Justice Varma. 'If cash is found in an outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to do with it… There is no 'behaviour' or 'misbehaviour' involved. They have to prove the cash belonged to him. They never found that… There could never have been a recommendation for my [read Justice Varma's] removal,' Mr. Sibal argued. 'Political overtones' The counsel said the issue of 'removal' of the judge has taken on political overtones. 'But removal is also a political procedure,' Justice Datta observed. 'Yes, inside the Parliament, not outside,' Mr. Sibal responded. 'You could have raised these points immediately, without submitting to the committee's jurisdiction… why did you not?' Justice Datta asked. Mr. Sibal contended that the decision of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) in May to forward the committee report and recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma was 'illegal'. 'Why do you think sending it to the President, who is the appointing authority of the judge, illegal? And what is wrong in sending it to the Prime Minister? He is the leader of the Council of Ministers. His advice is taken at the time of appointment of judges. Sending it to the President or the Prime Minister does not mean the Chief Justice is trying to impress or persuade the House to accept his point of view,' Justice Datta responded. The court listed the case on July 30, directing Mr. Sibal to place the inquiry committee's report on record.
