Kolkata law college rape: Bengal govt frames rules for 2022 bill to recruit Group C and D staff in colleges via College Service Commission
Currently, such recruitments are carried out directly by individual college authorities.
The Higher Education department had passed a bill in the Assembly in 2022 mandating that all Group C and D staff in government-aided colleges be recruited through the Commission. Despite the bill's passage, rules required for its implementation had not been framed until now.
A senior official in the Higher Education department said, 'We have already framed the rules and sent them to the Finance and Law departments. We can only implement them after their approval. It was delayed for these years, but now we are expecting it will be implemented very soon.'
Monojit Misra, the main accused in the rape case, is a member of the ruling TMC's student wing and a former president of the college unit. Misra, 31, along with Zaib Ahmed (19) and Pramit Mukherjee (20)—both also members of the Trinamool Chhatra Parishad (TMCP)—has been arrested. After graduating, Misra was reportedly appointed as a casual staffer at the same college through the approval of the college governing body, allegedly without proper qualifications.
The incident has sparked wider allegations that several TMC-affiliated individuals have secured jobs in various colleges without meeting eligibility criteria. A senior TMC leader said, 'After the rape case, our leadership decided to avoid such controversy on recruitment. If all recruitment will be conducted through the College Service Commission, transparency will be maintained.'
He added, 'During the Left Front rule, such questions were raised in Group C and D recruitment in schools. After that, it was decided to recruit Group C and D staff through the Commission.'
As per current norms, the Higher Education department determines how many non-teaching staff can be recruited, their pay scales, and eligibility criteria. An official said, 'It is seen that, even after these norms are there, many colleges recruited casual non-teaching staff like Misra. To stop such malpractices, recruitment through the College Service Commission will be established.'
Atri Mitra is a Special Correspondent of The Indian Express with more than 20 years of experience in reporting from West Bengal, Bihar and the North-East. He has been covering administration and political news for more than ten years and has a keen interest in political development in West Bengal.
Atri holds a Master degree in Economics from Rabindrabharati University and Bachelor's degree from Calcutta University. He is also an alumnus of St. Xavier's, Kolkata and Ramakrishna Mission Asrama, Narendrapur.
He started his career with leading vernacular daily the Anandabazar Patrika, and worked there for more than fifteen years. He worked as Bihar correspondent for more than three years for Anandabazar Patrika. He covered the 2009 Lok Sabha election and 2010 assembly elections. He also worked with News18-Bangla and covered the Bihar Lok Sabha election in 2019. ... Read More
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
PM Modi in Namibia for final leg of diplomatic tour; JD(U) to launch campaign on voter list revision
In the last leg of his eight-day and five-nation tour, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Namibia on Tuesday in what is the first visit by an India PM in 27 years. In Namibia, Modi will meet President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah and 'chart a new roadmap for cooperation for the benefit of the two peoples, regions and the wider Global South,' the PM said. Modi will also address a joint session of the Namibian Parliament. During the visit, there will also be an agreement to introduce India's Unified Payments Interface (UPI) in the African country. The UPI system is already active in other foreign countries, including Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Singapore, France and the UAE. Prior to visiting Namibia, Modi had travelled to Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina and Brazil. In Brazil, Modi had attended the BRICS 2025 Summit, where the Pahalgam attack and India's response through Operation Sindoor were discussed. JD(U) awareness campaign on voter list revision With the Election Commission's ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls drawing flak from the Opposition across India and facing legal challenges in the Supreme Court, the state's ruling Janata Dal (United) is set to launch a state-wide cycle rally to raise awareness among voters on Tuesday. While addressing an organisational meeting of party leaders, JD(U) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Kumar Jha said that party workers will go door-to-door to inform voters about the SIR process and provide help in completing the enumeration forms that require voters to submit proof of citizenship. Jha said the campaign would cover all panchayats. BJP attacks TMC over law college rape In West Bengal, the BJP's Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari said he would release the names of 50 leaders of the Trinamool Congress's (TMC) student wing who are allegedly targeting pupils, specifically women, like Monojit Mishra, the prime accused in the rape case at a law college in south Kolkata. Adhikari alleged that all these leaders belong to the 'bhaipo (nephew) gang', an apparent reference to TMC's national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee, who is the nephew of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. 'I will release on Tuesday afternoon the names of at least 50 members of 'bhaipo gang' who are running havoc on the campuses,' he said. TMC spokesperson Jaiprakash Majumdar, however, rejected Adhikari's allegations as false and asserted that the party has zero tolerance towards crimes against women. 'His words should not be taken seriously. Such claims have no basis. In fact, Adhikari had given similar deadlines in the past but ended up with egg on his face every time. Still, he is not ashamed,' Majumdar said. – With PTI inputs
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
P B Mehta writes: In Bihar, now, prove your identity
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar is becoming a travesty. It is hard to disagree with the formal objective of the exercise: No eligible voter should be excluded, and no ineligible person should be included. But this reasonable aim is being transformed into a bureaucratic dystopia that threatens the rights of ordinary voters. The last intensive revision of electoral rolls was carried out in 2003. Now, the Commission announces a special revision just weeks before an election — on the heels of a special summary revision that involved extensive surveys barely six months ago, with an updated list published as recently as January. Yet voters are now required to furnish documentary proof of citizenship from a list of 11 prescribed documents — most of which they are unlikely to possess. This demand is unprecedented in the history of electoral roll creation. The new documentation requirements are not just onerous, they are bewilderingly complex. Those whose names appeared in the 2003 rolls may furnish an extract as proof. But others face steeper hurdles. Those born before 1987 must provide a document with place and date of birth. Those born between 1987 and 2004 must produce a document with their parents' date of birth and one of 11 documents proving their own place and date of birth. Those born after 2004 must go further, furnishing proof of both parents' date and place of birth in addition to their own. This process places an extraordinary burden on the citizen and risks mass disenfranchisement. The logic of the order is perverse: Every principle turns into its opposite. The Commission boasts of giving voters a choice among 11 documents — what liberty! But this liberty is hollow. The Commission refuses to recognise the documents most citizens actually have — like Aadhaar or MGNREGA cards — while demanding documents that are beyond the reach of most. Even conservative estimates suggest that lakhs of voters could be excluded. Almost all the petitions against the order provide data on the minuscule number of citizens who possess all the relevant documents. And the arbitrariness is striking: Why should a family register carry more weight as proof of citizenship than, say, other excluded cards? Dissect the list of the 11 acceptable documents, and its social bias becomes evident. Most relate to education, government employment, or property rights — echoes of an era when suffrage was tied to privilege. This is not a direct return to educational or property-based qualifications, but the privileges conferred on the educated and propertied are stark. It is almost a throwback to the 19th century, when the privileges of the educated and propertied were taken for granted. In principle, the Election Commission allows for safeguards: Electoral registration officers (EROs) must conduct inquiries and provide a fair hearing before deletion. But these procedural protections, in context, can invert their meaning. They expose vulnerable citizens to local officials' discretion, particularly in a state like Bihar where administrative capacity is uneven. The time frame is implausibly short, and it is unrealistic to expect lakhs of inquiries to be conducted fairly and consistently. Even worse is the looming threat that the citizens flagged in this process could be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal. Is the appeals process a remedy — or merely another way to ensnare citizens in an opaque and hostile system? We need not speculate about the Commission's motives; they may well be honourable. Nor do we need to predict the political fallout of this move — it is often unpredictable. What matters is the potential effect: This exercise reveals the state's presumptuous character. It burdens citizens with the constant demand to prove their identity, as if they are forever on probation. The KYC (know your customer) mania has extended to voting: Proof must be furnished again and again, often under arbitrary or shifting standards. This formalism — articulating reasonable objectives while ignoring practical realities — inflicts real harm. It ignores the ground realities of documentation in India, particularly in poorer states. It overlooks how documentation requirements impose disproportionate burdens on the marginalised. The order also disrupts lives with its unreasonable timelines. On various estimates, about a tenth of the population of Bihar migrates out for work; floods severely affect families during this time of year. Even in the best of times, the state does not have the capacity to conduct these kinds of exercises in short order. This order replicates the disruptive logic of demonetisation, where the state asserts its power by inducing mass anxiety. Even if one accepts that an intensive revision is necessary, it cannot inspire public trust if announced suddenly, weeks before an election. If the Commission truly believes these exercises are essential, it should have evolved consistent and reasonable norms regarding format, documentation, and timing in consultation with political parties. Our bureaucracy has long had a penchant for placing citizens at the mercy of petty officials. It remains deaf to the claims raised by social movements around enfranchisement. To put it bluntly, this exercise appears to be a pilot for a backdoor NRC, introducing new and discriminatory documentation standards. This is not just about Bihar. Even if one believes an NRC is necessary, it must be carried out fairly, without fear, and only when the state has built the infrastructure and political conditions to support it. This has not happened. Instead, the burden of state failure is being shifted onto citizens. The state demands documentation it neither trusts nor has enabled people to obtain. We should be cautious in impugning constitutional authorities — their credibility is a precious resource. The courts also should not tread on other constitutional authorities lightly. But voting is so fundamental to our identity as citizens, and so constitutive of the republic, that the courts need to do the minimum necessary to ensure that such exercises are not just formally fair, but also fair in substance. But this initiative by the EC is ill-judged and ill-timed. It should be deferred until it can be executed credibly, with transparency, and without placing an undue burden on genuine citizens. The EC's order is, at the very least, an exercise in bureaucratic insensitivity and state overreach, and will erode trust in institutions. The task of the state is not to manufacture new sources of fear — it is to relieve citizens of their anxieties. The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Even the first citizen is answerable under the RTI Act!
A Telugu phrase says: 'Darina poye daanayya' (anybody who walks in the street). According to Cambridge Dictionary, 'Tom, Dick, and Harry' is an idiom that refers to ordinary people, anyone, or everybody. It's often used to indicate that something is not exclusive and is available to or intended for the general public. The question is: whether a citizen can ask for information from the President of India under the Right to Information Act? Who is a citizen? Should one prove his or her citizenship and if so how? Even a passport is not proof of citizenship, according to the Union Home Minister. This writer also does not have proof of citizenship. Under the Right to Information, a PIO (Public Information Officer), who is supposed to provide information, cannot demand proof of citizenship. Can the PIO prove whether he has citizenship? If a PIO asks for citizenship proof, it means he has denied an individual of RTI. Under the RTI Act, he is liable to pay a Rs 25000 penalty. In this case the question was sent to the President; it is the story of the RTI question. How the RTI gave the 'details' of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, former President, is very interesting, as explained by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi. One Subhash Chandra Agrawal had on August 9, 2010, filed a petition under RTI. Shailesh explained: The institutions of democracy had not become robust enough to withstand an assault, and it is imperative for citizens to know the reasons why and how democracy in India was nearly lost. He allowed an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) and under-secretary at the President's Secretariat to provide the complete information on the declaration of internal emergency by the then president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. Gandhi said, 'The Commission cannot pass any direction in this regard, as it does not come within the Commission's powers as mandated under the RTI Act. Now that various functionaries like ministers, judges, and Information Commissioners have voluntarily put up details of their assets on websites, it is for the President to take a decision on this matter. The PIO's reply was therefore correct.' The PIO also stated that the issue of whether exchanges between the President of India and the Prime Minister can be revealed under the RTI Act was the subject matter of a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench decision in the SR Bommai & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 1918), discussed the meaning and scope of Article 74 of the Constitution of India. Specifically, as regards Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India observed as follows: '… Then comes Clause (2) of Article 74 which says that the question 'whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the Ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any Court.' The idea behind Clause (2) is this: the Court is not to enquire—it is not concerned with—whether any advice was tendered by any Minister or Council of Ministers to the President, and if so, what was that advice. That is a matter between the President and his Council of Ministers. What advice was tendered, whether it was required to be reconsidered, what advice was tendered after reconsideration, if any, what was the opinion of the President, whether the advice was changed pursuant to further discussion, if any, and how the ultimate decision was arrived at, are all matters between the President and his Council of Ministers. They are beyond the ken of the Court. The Court is not to go into it. It is enough that there is an order/act of the President in appropriate form. It will take it as the order/act of the President. It is concerned only with the validity of the order and legality of the proceeding or action taken by the President in exercise of his functions and not with what happened in the inner Councils of the President and his Ministers. No one can challenge such decision or action on the ground that it is not in accordance with the advice tendered by the Ministers or that it is based on no advice. If, in a given case, the President acts without, or contrary to, the advice tendered to him, it may be a case warranting his impeachment, but so far as the Court is concerned, it is the act of the President…' (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court ruled that this obligation could not be evaded by seeking refuge under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, clearly laid down in SR Bommai that Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India merely barred an enquiry into the question whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the council of ministers to the president. It did not bar the court from calling upon the council of ministers to disclose to the court the material upon which the President had formed the requisite satisfaction. The material on the basis of which advice was tendered did not become a part of the advice. Even if the material was looked into by, or shown, to the president, it did not take the character of advice. 'Given that the advice tendered by the council of ministers to the president enjoys the Constitutional protection of Article 74(2) and cannot be disclosed to the courts, a citizen under the RTI Act cannot seek information pertaining to such advice. However, the Supreme Court has held that the materials on the basis of which such advice is tendered by the council of ministers or on the basis of which the president forms the requisite satisfaction is not covered by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Since Article 74(2) does not cover such material, it can be accessed under the RTI Act, subject only to the exemptions under the RTI Act.' He wrote in the Second Appeal 'complete and detailed information on all documents/ records/ deliberations/ correspondence/ file notings on declaration of internal emergency in the country by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the then president is not barred from disclosure under Article 74 of the Constitution of India; only the advice received by the then president from the then prime minister is protected from disclosure under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India (in line with the ruling in SR Bommai) and therefore cannot be provided to the appellant under the RTI Act.' It was based on and the report of Moneylife on the website. 18 June 2013. Being a former President, he committed a serious blunder. How can such a Constitutional wrong be repaired by a Right to Information petition? The people of India need to answer! (The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
