Calcutta HC allows pleas challenging WBSSC teacher recruitment notification
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


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump tells Brazil 'to leave Bolsonaro alone'; 'do not interfere,' says Lula
File pics WASHINGTON/SAU PAULO: US President Trump defended former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Monday in a social media post that said his former ally was the victim of a "witch hunt", a term Trump has used to describe his own treatment by political opponents. Bolsonaro is on trial on charges of plotting a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in Jan 2023. "The only trial that should be happening is a trial by the Voters of Brazil - It's called an election. Leave Bolsonaro alone!" Trump wrote. Lula responded, saying Brazil is a sovereign country that "won't accept interference or instruction from anyone". "No one is above law. Especially those that threaten freedom and the rule of law." Bolsonaro said he was pleased with Trump's support, and again labelled the case against him "political persecution". Brazil's Supreme Court agreed in March to hear the case against Bolsonaro and seven others, who were charged with plotting a coup. (This is a Reuters story)


Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Bihar Electoral Roll Revision: SC to hear Oppn plea on July 10
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear petitions challenging the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in poll-bound Bihar on July 10. The bench, however, refused to stay the ongoing exercise. Hearing a bunch of pleas challenging the Election Commission's exercise, a vacation bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi said the matter would be heard on Thursday. A battery of senior lawyers led by Kapil Sibal argued on behalf of a bunch of petitioners and said notices should be issued to the poll body. Challenging the poll body's exercise, petitions have been moved by several Opposition leaders, including Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), PUCL, and activist Yogendra Yadav. In his petition, Bihar leader argued that the Election Commission's June 24 order pertaining to the intensive electoral roll revision drive be quashed as it violated several provisions of the Constitution. The exercise was violative of Articles 14 (fundamental right to equality), 21 (fundamental right to life and liberty), 325 (no person can be excluded from electoral roll based on caste, religion and sex) and 326 (every citizen of India who has attained 18 years of age is eligible to be registered as a voter) of the Constitution, Jha said in his petition. The Election Commission ordered a special intensive poll revision drive in Bihar on June 24, reportedly to weed out ineligible names and ensure only eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll ahead of the crucial Bihar Assembly elections. The last such intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
In digital era, US supreme court insists on vast piles of paper
WASHINGTON: In his year-end report in 2023, chief justice John Roberts celebrated "the digital revolution in the federal courts". Electronic filing, he wrote, was "rendering paper largely optional". But not at the Supreme Court. In addition to requiring electronic submissions, its rules instruct litigants who are not prisoners or poor to file 40 paper copies of many documents, including petitions seeking review, briefs opposing them, briefs from the parties in the cases the court agrees to hear and the accompanying flood of friend-of-the-court briefs. And that is just the beginning of the court's elaborate requirements. The paper filings must take the form of handsome little typeset booklets printed on paper "that is opaque, unglazed and not less than 60 pounds in weight". The rules specify permissible fonts and margins, along with how the booklets are to be bound - "firmly in at least two places along the left margin (saddle stitch or perfect binding preferred)." The booklets are, allowing for the subject matter, a pleasure to read. They are also redundant, expensive and wasteful. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo by Taboola by Taboola "The court's rules impose significant and unnecessary costs to litigants and to the environment," William J Aceves, a law professor at California Western School of Law, wrote in a study published last month in the University of Colorado Law Review. He urged the court to do away with paper submissions, particularly for the first round of briefs, over whether the justices should hear a case at all. Focusing solely on those early filings, Aceves calculated the court's rules require the submission of more than 5 million pieces of paper each term. "If stacked together, these filings would reach beyond 2,000 feet, which exceeds the height of the tallest building in the US," he wrote. "If weighed, these filings would take over 33 tonnes of paper to produce." The court can make do with electronic filings and a single hard copy. Indeed, it did so during the pandemic, when it suspended the usual rules for filings during the first round of briefing starting in April 2020. Litigants and scholars welcomed the development. Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, said the change signalled the end of a "byzantine policy for submitting printed briefs." More than a year later, though, the court reinstated the rule. Some justices have said they read at least some briefs electronically. Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, used an iPad. In a 2009 interview, Justice Elena Kagan said she preferred a Kindle. Aceves said he had sent copies of his article to the court's clerk and to the chief justice to urge them to consider the matter. "In light of my arguments, I recognise the irony of sending hard copies... But I don't have their email addresses."