Calcutta High Court cancels appointment of 36,000 'untrained' primary school teachers recruited in 2016 due to gross illegality and corruption in selection process

Calcutta High Court cancels appointment of 36,000 'untrained' primary school teachers recruited in 2016 due to gross illegality and corruption in selection process

Corruption in teacher recruitment process: Calcutta High Court cancels appointment of 36,000 primary school teachers, orders fresh selection process.

The Calcutta High Court cancelled the appointment of 36,000 "untrained" primary school teachers recruited in 2016 due to gross illegality and corruption in the selection process. The court directed the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to conduct a fresh recruitment exercise within three months, only for the candidates who participated in the 2016 recruitment process. The court observed that jobs for primary school teachers were sold to some candidates who had the money to purchase the employment, and that a corruption of this magnitude was never known in the State of West Bengal. The court further ordered that both interview and aptitude test of all examinees shall be taken, and the whole interview process has to be videographed carefully and preserved. The court also directed that if any candidate who appeared in 2016 recruitment process has crossed the age bar in the meantime or will cross the age bar within three months from the date they shall be allowed to take part in the recruitment exercise. The court also observed that the Board violated the law declared by the Supreme Court and has committed extreme illegality.

1. Jobs for primary school teachers were sold to candidates who had money to purchase employment, and a corruption of this magnitude was never known in the State of West Bengal.

2. Serious illegalities were observed in the preparation of the panel of the 2016 recruitment process.

3. There was no aptitude test conducted for the candidates.

4. Candidates whose marks were very poor in Secondary, in Higher Secondary and in TET, have been given 9.50 and 10 marks i.e. full marks out of the full marks 10 in the interview and aptitude test.

5. The Board violated the law declared by the Supreme Court and committed extreme illegality by not empanelling reserved category candidates who got better marks than the general category candidates in open competition.

6. No selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection of eligible candidates and preparation of the panel of such candidates for the appointment of teachers.

Jobs "Sold" Like A Commodity: Calcutta High Court Cancels Appointment Of 36,000 'Untrained' Primary School Teachers Recruited In 2016

The Calcutta High Court on Friday cancelled the appointment of 36,000 "untrained" primary school teachers who were recruited by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education in 2016.

The single judge bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay 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. A corruption of this magnitude was never known in the State of West Bengal. The former Education Minister, the former President of the Board and a number of middleman through whom the jobs were sold like a commodity are now behind the bars and the CBI and ED investigation is being continued now in full seeing.”

However, the Court directed the West Bengal Board of Primary Education to arrange for a fresh recruitment exercise in 3 months, only for the candidates who participated in 2016 recruitment process. No new or any other candidate shall be allowed to take part in such recruitment test.

Both interview and aptitude test of all examinees shall be taken and the whole interview process has to be videographed carefully and preserved, it ordered.

The Court further clarified that if any candidate who appeared in 2016 recruitment process has crossed the age bar in the meantime or will cross the age bar within 3 months from date they shall be allowed to take part in the recruitment exercise.

The Court further held:

“The primary teachers who are employed now in Primary Schools against the recommendation of the Board in respect of 2016 selection process shall be allowed to work in the respective primary schools where they are working now for a period of 4 (four) months from date at the remuneration equal to a Para Teacher of Primary School and if any of such teachers are recommended again by the Board after the selection process as has been directed above, those candidates shall work in the Schools where they are working now and they shall get notional benefit of their seniority with no monetary benefit at all but the salary of primary teachers for the coming 4 (four) months shall not be given to them if they are employed again. The present employed candidates who will not succeed in the above mentioned selection process, their services shall be terminated.”

The present writ petition was filed by 140 writ petitioners who were qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test 2014 (TET 2014) and participated in 2016 recruitment process and called for interview, but did not get appointment.

During the course of hearing, the petitioners disclosed various particulars collected from the publication made by the Board in its website showing that there were serious illegalities in preparation of panel of 2016 recruitment process when viewed in respect of untrained candidates at the time of recruitment who were given appointment against 2016 recruitment process.

The petitioners wanted the marks of last empanelled candidates of different categories like SC, ST, OBC etc. but no such particulars were supplied and produced by the Board despite direction given by the Court.

The Court observed, “In the affidavit in opposition of the Board, Board maintained silence in this regard. This is nothing but suppression of facts from petitioners as well as from the court.”

The Court further observed, “In respect of in holding of aptitude test the chairman of Board in his report said that aptitude tests were taken but from the evidence adduced by the interviewers and the candidates it has been proved before this court that no aptitude test was taken.”

The Court opined that marks given to the candidates against aptitude test is a wholly illegal and false exercise to hoodwink all concerned including the court.

The petitioners further alleged that candidates whose marks were very poor in Secondary, in Higher Secondary and in TET, have been given 9.50 and 10 marks i.e. full marks out of the full marks 10 in the interview and aptitude test (no aptitude test was taken at all) and the allegation that there was no aptitude test, was proved before the Court from evidence of the candidates and from the interviewers on record.

The Court remarked:

“The Board has not given any reply in respect of the allegation of the petitioners in the pleadings as to non empanelment of reserved category candidates in the panel for general category candidates of those reserved category candidates who got better marks than the general category candidates in open competition. Thus the Board has violated the law declared by the Supreme Court and has committed extreme illegality.”

The Court further observed that though the Rule 7 of West Bengal Board of Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules of 2016 mandates constitution of selection committee, no selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection of eligible candidates and preparation of panel of such candidates for appointment of teachers.

“It was done by one outside agency, a third party which was not at all a part of the Board and this third party was named as ‘confidential section’ of the Board. This is clear violation of Recruitment Rules. The Board has maintained total silence in this regard,” the Court said.

Case Title: Priyanka Naskar & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.

Coram: Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay

Read More