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
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Domicile rule of T'gana for med seats flawed: SC
New Delhi: Supreme Court on Wednesday faulted the Telangana govt's domicile policy, which mandates a student to have pursued Classes 9 to 12 in the state to be eligible for admissions to state quota medical seats through NEET and said it was far removed from the ground reality, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. "These days, many students, to avail of better coaching facilities for competing in medical and engineering entrance examinations, pursue their Class 11 and 12 at places like Kota. Should they be barred from getting admitted on the ground that they are not domiciles of Telangana?" a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi asked. "You must have a humane approach." We do not want such students to be harassed. All students whose parents are domiciled in Telangana would be eligible for state quota seats irrespective of the place from where they passed Class 11 and 12," the CJI said, with a warning, "Either you (the govt) resolve the issue, or we will set it right." Appearing for students facing the domicile bar despite their parents being born in Telangana and continuously residing in the state, advocate Raghenth Basant told the bench that it has created a piquant situation. "Children of a person from Kerala, who is posted in Telangana for the last four years, on completing Class 9-12 in Telangana would be eligible for admissions to medical seats under state quota. But students who study outside, despite their parents being natural residents of Telangana, would not be eligible to avail these state quota medical seats," he said. He urged the court to modify the domicile criteria by allowing children of every resident of Telangana, irrespective of where they completed their schooling, to get admitted to medical colleges under state quota seats. The SC posted the matter for further hearing on July 29, by when the Telangana govt will have to come with an answer to the court's query.
News18
23 minutes ago
- News18
'Udaipur Files Is Deeply Communal': Arshad Madani Moves Supreme Court Against Clearance To The Film
In his petition, Madani argues that Udaipur Files promotes a dangerous narrative by portraying Indian Muslims as sympathisers or agents of Pakistani terrorists. Islamic scholar Maulana Arshad Madani has filed strong objections before the Supreme Court against the clearance granted to the controversial film Udaipur Files by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's screening committee. Madani, president of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, contends that the film's content is not only factually misleading but also deeply communal in nature. In his petition, Madani argues that Udaipur Files promotes a dangerous narrative by portraying Indian Muslims as sympathisers or agents of Pakistani terrorists. 'These narratives do not merely concern India-Pakistan tensions but actively portray Indian Muslims as inherently disloyal, sympathetic to, or working at the behest of terror groups," he stated in court filings. Such depictions, he argues, are both mala fide and aimed at stoking communal tensions across the country. He has also raised serious concerns over the manner in which the film received approval. Madani alleges that the Ministry's screening committee order lacked proper reasoning and failed to adequately respond to his detailed objections. 'The committee's report simply records some submissions and suggests six inconsequential changes, without analysing the broader communal implications," he claimed. Furthermore, Madani has alleged a 'conflict of interest" in the composition of the screening committee. Since the CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) had already granted certification to the film — a decision under challenge — Madani argues that delegating the matter to a committee largely comprising CBFC members undermines the credibility of the review process. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
40 minutes ago
- First Post
Jolt for Trump, US appeals court declares bid to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional
In a blow to US President Donald Trump, an appeals court has upheld a lower court's decision to block the president's executive order ending birthright citizenship. It agreed with the interpretation of the lower court that the executive order was unconstitutional. read more A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement nationwide. The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump's plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It marks the first time an appeals court has weighed in and brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. 'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from US District Judge John C Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. Coughenour was the first to block the order. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions. But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices. The case was filed by a group of states who argued that they need a nationwide order to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship only being the law in half of the country. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,' Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. 'We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions,' he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase 'subject to United States jurisdiction' in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states —Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon— argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's order asserts that a child born in the US is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the US. (This is an agency copy. Except for the headline, the copy has not been updated by Firstpost staff.)
