Cancellation of over 25K jobs: State moves SC against HC order
Kolkata: The state government has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) at the Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging the judgement of the special bench of Calcutta High Court which cancelled the appointment of 25,753 candidates, which includes both teaching and non-teaching staff who were appointed in 2016.
Reportedly, the state argued that the High Court instead of segregating the valid from invalid appointments has set the 2016 recruitment entirely. It was further pleaded that the special bench had relied upon oral arguments without the support of affidavits.
It was stated that the result of this judgement would create a vacuum in the state unless the new selection process is completed. Hence, it will impact the students considering the upcoming new academic session.
Following the Supreme Court’s direction, a special bench was constituted by the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to hear the matters related to the 2016 selection process of Group C and D, assistant teacher appointments in classes IX-X and XI-XII. The apex court had asked the special bench to complete the hearing within six months.
Commission in a report submitted to the court had specified the total number of recommendations in the four categories and the number of alleged irregularities. However, in the judgement, it was mentioned that during the hearing the SSC did not discount the fact that possibilities of further illegalities may exist.
The SSC was directed to conduct a fresh selection process a fortnight after the declaration of the Lok Sabha Election result. Appointments for preparation, evaluation and scanning of OMR sheets will be made by SSC by open tender and after declaring the eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions of the contract, the Bench directed.
Observing that it has given “anxious consideration to the passionate plea” that persons who had obtained the appointments legally would be prejudiced if the entire selection process is cancelled, the Special Bench said it hardly had any choice left. The court held that all appointments granted in the selection processes involved were violative of Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 16 (prohibiting discrimination in employment in any government office) of the Constitution.
