‘Corruption of this Magnitude…’: HC Sets Aside 2016 Appointment of 36,000 ‘Untrained’ WB Primary School Teachers
‘Corruption of this Magnitude…’: HC Sets Aside 2016 Appointment of 36,000 ‘Untrained’ WB Primary School Teachers
"It is clear the Board and its officials, including its former President (who is now in custody after arrest by ED) conducted the whole affair like affair of a local club and that jobs for primary school teachers were sold...," the Calcutta HC said

A single-judge bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhay of the Calcutta High Court (HC) recently cancelled the appointment of 36,000 primary school teachers in West Bengal, who were untrained at the time of recruitment, claiming that “corruption of this magnitude was never known in the State of West Bengal”.

Further, the bench also observed, “From the gross illegality in the selection procedure in the recruitment exercise of 2016 conducted by the Board, it is clear that the Board and its officials, including its former President (who is now in custody after arrest by Enforcement Directorate for transaction of huge money in the recruitment procedure) conducted the whole affair like affair of a local club and now it is gradually coming to light by investigation of Enforcement Directorate that jobs for primary school teachers were actually sold to some candidates who had the money to purchase the employment.”

However, the Court ordered the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to organise a new recruitment process within three months for candidates who participated in the 2016 recruitment process. No new or other candidates will be permitted to participate in such a recruitment test.

It was required that all examinees shall undergo both an interview and an aptitude test, and that the entire interview process be properly videographer, recorded and preserved.

140 PETITIONERS

The bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by 140 writ petitioners who qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test 2014 (TET 2014), participated in the 2016 recruiting process, and were summoned for interviews but were not appointed.

During the hearing, the petitioners disclosed various details gathered from the Board’s website that demonstrated severe irregularities in the preparation of the panel for the 2016 recruitment process, particularly with regard to untrained candidates who were hired during the 2016 recruitment process.

The petitioners requested the marks of the most recently appointed individuals in various categories such as SC, ST, OBC, and so on, but no such information was provided.

Justice Gangopadhyay directed that the same recruitment process will be followed as per the norms and legal procedures as the 2016 recruitment process. The court stated that no fresh or additional candidates will be permitted to participate in the recruitment process.

“If any of these teachers are recommended again by the board following the selection process, then those candidates will work in the schools where they are currently employed and will receive no monetary benefit from their seniority, and the salary of primary teachers for the next four months will not be paid to them if they are employed again,” the court mentioned.

THE ORDERS

The court directed that services of the present employed candidates who will not succeed in the selection process will be “terminated.” He stated that if any candidate who appeared in the 2016 recruitment process has crossed the age bar in the meantime or will cross the age bar within three months from date, will be allowed to take part in the recruitment exercise. “Crossing the age bar now will not create any impediment for them to participate and get selected in the recruitment process,” Justice Gangopadhyay said.

The Court also noted that, despite the fact that Rule 7 of the West Bengal Board of Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules of 2016 requires the formation of a selection committee, no such committee was formed for the purpose of selecting eligible candidates and preparing a panel of such candidates for teacher appointment.

Lastly, the judge said, “It was done by one outside agency, a third party that was not a member of the Board, and this third party was referred to as the Board’s “confidential section.” This clearly violates the Recruitment Rules. The Board has remained completely silent.”

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://umorina.info/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!