Calcutta HC to decide fate of 32,000 primary teachers in West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court is set to begin hearing on May 7 the case of cancellation of 32,000 appointments in an alleged state primary teacher recruitment scam.
In 2014, about 1.25 lakh candidates had passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for primary teachers. The West Bengal Board of Primary Education then began their recruitment process in 2016. Of those who passed the TET, 42,949 were provided jobs. It was alleged that out of those 42,949 candidates, 32,000 were 'untrained' — allegedly employed without proper interviews or aptitude tests, among other 'irregularities'.
Uncertainty around the future of the primary teachers has heightened after the Supreme Court recently invalidated the West Bengal School Service Commission's appointment of 25,753 teachers and staffers, calling the entire selection process 'vitiated and tainted' on April 3.
In May 2023, 32,000 primary teachers were dismissed on the orders of then Calcutta HC Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay. The state approached a division bench challenging that verdict. The bench of Justice Subrata Talukdar and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya had then stayed the order.
The case was then referred to the Supreme Court, before it was transferred to the division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court. However, Justice Sen recused himself from the case, as a result of which, the case went to Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam.
Later, it was stated that the hearing of the case would be held by the division bench of Justice Tapobrata Chakraborty and Justice Ritabrata Kumar Mitra. This bench observed on Monday that since the Calcutta HC might not have enough time for the several petitioners and hence several lawyers arguing the case, it would be better for one lawyer to represent all of them. The bench has asked the parties to submit written statements in this regard.
The petitioners' counsel submitted in the court, 'We have been working for the last eight years. We were recruited in 2016. In 2022, the case was filed. In May 2023, the single bench had cancelled the jobs and had asked for new recruitments.'
The division bench observed, 'You all should sit together and then make a submission. Which paperbooks have all the information?'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

an hour ago

• First Post

Victory for Trump in US Supreme Court, his tariffs allowed to stay amid legal challenges over trade powers

The US Supreme Court refused to fast-track lawsuits challenging Trump's tariffs, allowing them to remain in effect for now. The court said that it will wait for the appeal court's order read more US President Donald Trump delivered remarks on tariffs, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. A federal appeals court reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs. File image/Reuters The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major legal victory after it refused to put a challenge to his sweeping reciprocal tariffs on the fast track. On Friday, the Supreme Court justices rejected a scheduling request from two family-owned businesses seeking to invalidate many of Trump's import taxes . The rejection means that the Trump administration would have the normal 30 days to file a response to the case. The Tuesday court filing stated that the companies involved in the case were seeking a quick response from the Trump administration, a request which has now been rejected by the country's apex court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to Bloomberg, the two family-owned businesses wanted the court to take the unusual step of considering the case without waiting for a federal appeals court to rule on the matter. Meanwhile, the Trump administration argued that the Supreme Court should let the normal appellate process play out. Trump's tariff went to the Supreme Court for the first time It is pertinent to note that this is the first time the challenge to Trump's reciprocal tariffs came to the US Supreme Court. As of now, the legal cases over tariffs are limited to district and federal courts. Meanwhile, a federal district judge agreed with educational toy makers Learning Resources Inc. and Hand2Mind Inc., the two companies involved in the Supreme Court case, that the POTUS lacked the authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to issue sweeping reciprocal tariffs. In a separate case, a federal appeals court ruled that the tariffs could stay in effect at least until that panel hears arguments on July 31. Both courts are dealing with Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which combine a universal baseline levy of 10 per cent with potentially higher rates for various trading partners. It is pertinent to note that each of these suits also concerns at least some of Trump's separate import taxes over fentanyl trafficking. The case that went to the Supreme Court is titled 'Learning Resources v. Trump'.

The Hindu

3 hours ago

• The Hindu

Moral policing shadows couples in Chennai

Does the sight of young lovers or people of different genders hanging out together irk Chennaites? This February, advocate Thilagavati confronted a patrolman who harassed her for being with a male friend at night on Patinapakkam beach. She had recorded the encounter and uploaded it on social media. This led to much discussion on the topic of moral policing in public places in the city. Uproar over Ms. Thilagavati's experience had led to the officer being transferred. But the woman later faced cyberbullying about which she complained to the cyber police. 'More than men, women are targeted by law enforcement officers in such circumstances,' she says. Courts not supposed to do moral policing: Supreme Court sets aside HC order against Tehseen Poonawalla Many young men and women complain of similar experiences of being victims of the moral police brigade, that have left them traumatised. 'Couples, especially teenagers, are easily targetted. They are then threatened and blackmailed into bribing or assault,' says Ms. Thilagavati. Out with her boyfriend in Anna Nagar Tower Park, Thamizh, a woman in her twenties, says that they too were picked on by policemen. 'It happens all the time. Sometimes they even call up our parents,' she tells The Hindu. Even as she was speaking, a policewoman stared down at the young couple and asked them to 'move ahead.' They silently obeyed. UCC Bill 'introduces moral policing, criminalises autonomy' 'It is not good for young people if their future spouses see them being with another man/woman. Girls should carefully choose good boys that their parents approve of. They can do these intimate things after marriage also. Why now? That too in public,' reasons Meena (name changed), head constable at a police station in Anna Nagar. Meanwhile, a senior police officer of the Greater Chennai Police says, 'Policemen are not instructed to confront couples, unless a safety issue arises. They have the right to be together in public.' The 8.8 acre Thiru. Vi. Ka. Park in Shenoy Nagar has 26 security personnel and reportedly no CCTV camera inside. It is known for its watchful guards who spring into action when men and women sitting together even begin to think of holding hands. They whistle, glare down and show hand gestures before directly confronting the couples. 'We have instructions from the CMRL to interfere when couples sit too close together,' says Surya, a guard there. Sartorial preferences of women should not be subjected to moral policing: HC 'The Thiru. Vi. Ka. Park is designed in a way that there are no hideouts for couples to do inappropriate things. Every corner has high visibility and is covered by guards, who have been told to prevent intimacy between couples,' confirms a CMRL official, on the condition of anonymity. Those facing moral policing can assert their rights under Articles 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (right to life and liberty). The Supreme Court and Madras High Court have upheld personal liberty under Article 21, affirming adults' rights to consensual relationships and privacy in public spaces. 'They can demand specific legal grounds for intervention, refuse arbitrary demands, and record interactions as evidence. Unlawful detention can be challenged with a habeas corpus and complaints can be filed with the Human Rights Commission or Women's Commission,' says Sonam Chandwani, an advocate. 'Healthy interaction between the opposite sexes should always be encouraged,' says advocate and human rights activist Sudha Ramallingam. 'In Western cultures, couples openly engage in public display of affection and this is not looked upon as vulgar. Why should it be vulgar here? I don't understand what morality or decency people are trying to uphold and impose by moral policing,' she adds.

Scroll.in

3 hours ago

• Scroll.in

Calcutta HC restraints Bengal from paying monthly stipend to sacked non-teaching staff

The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the West Bengal government to stop paying monthly stipends to a group of non-teaching staff who had been sacked after the Supreme Court in April found irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process, Live Law reported. On June 9, Justice Amrita Sinha had reserved the judgement in the matter but had stayed the state government's plan to provide monthly stipends of Rs 20,000 to Rs 25,000 to the persons. In its Friday order, the court reinforced that restriction, prohibiting such payments till at least September 26. Sinha issued the direction on a writ petition challenging the provision of the allowance to the staff whose services had been terminated. The petition was filed by a candidate on the waitlist who was not recruited despite being on the merit list, allegedly due to irregularities in the hiring process. On April 3, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's April 2024 order terminating the appointment of about 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff by West Bengal's School Service Commission. The bench passed the order after observing that the recruitment process was 'vitiated by manipulation and fraud'. The top court on April 17 permitted 'untainted' teachers to be retained until the end of the academic year or until fresh appointments are made, whichever was earlier. However, it did not grant relief to the non-teaching staff, or Group C and Group D employees, whose appointments were also cancelled. In response, the state government had announced in April that the sacked non-teaching staff would receive a monthly allowance until the Supreme Court delivered a verdict on its review petitions. On Friday, the High Court criticised the state for attempting to financially assist individuals whose employment had been declared fraudulent by the Supreme Court and directed 'tainted' candidates to 'refund any salary/payment received', Live Law reported. By introducing a stipend scheme, the state was undermining the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court observed. 'Once the highest court of the land has decided the issue of illegal appointment conclusively and opined that the appointments were result of fraud, no person who was the beneficiary of a fraudulent act of the statutory authority ought to be provided any support, that too, from the public exchequer,' the court said. The court also instructed the state government to submit its counter-affidavit addressing the petitioners' claims within four weeks, and allowed the petitioners two weeks after that to file their response, PTI reported. In April 2024, the High Court had passed its direction on the termination of the appointments based on the findings of a re-evaluation of the Optical Mark Recognition sheets from the 2016 recruitment examination in the case. The re-evaluation found that the selected teachers had been recruited against blank Optical Mark Recognition sheets.