The chairperson of the school service commission on Thursday denied allegations that it did not cooperate with Calcutta High Court in tracing candidates who secured jobs in government-aided schools allegedly through unfair means.
Siddhartha Majumdar told a news conference that the commission had informed the court through three affidavits that 5,300 teaching and non-teaching employees had got their jobs fraudulently.
Majumdar said: “It could be that we have not been able to satisfy the court. The observation in the court order suggests this. But we will not accept the allegation that the commission did not cooperate.”
The division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Mohammad Shabbar Rashidi of the high court said in its order on Monday: “SSC, State and Board have perseveringly non-cooperated so that even the possibility of trying to separate the grain from the chaff could be rendered nugatory.
“In such circumstances, with the possibility of the second option of attempting to sift the grain from the chaff becoming inconsequential, we are left with the only option of cancelling all appointments in the four categories (Group C and D staff, and secondary and higher secondary teachers) of the selection process involved.”
Thursday's news conference follows a special leave petition, filed by the state government in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, challenging the high court order.
Over 25,700 teachers (from Classes IX and XII) and school staff stand to lose their jobs after Monday's order.
The SSC chairperson said the three affidavits were filed on December 18, 2023; December 20, 2023; and January 5, 2024.
The court order mentions that the SSC had in a “statistical report”, submitted after the affidavits, said 4,327 candidates had been allegedly recruited through unfair means.
The SSC chief on Thursday said: “In the three affidavits submitted in the court, we have mentioned the appointment of 5,300 teaching and non-teaching employees. While most of them are undeserving, some of the appointments are disputed. By disputed, we mean we recruited many candidates after the expiry of the panel following the court’s permission.”
Why the discrepancy between the figures mentioned in the affidavits and those stated in the statistical report, which was signed by the SSC secretary?
“The secretary (in the report) mentioned the number of candidates who had been recommended by the commission (for appointment). But the affidavits contained more details. For instance, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay
had straightaway revoked the appointment of some Group C and Group D employees in 2022. We included those details in our affidavits. Justice Biswajit Basu had in
August last year allowed the recruitment of 130 teachers at the secondary level after the expiry of the panel,” said Majumdar.
“Justice Basu said although these candidates had been recruited after the expiry of the panel, the exercise was conducted on the basis of merit. That, too, was mentioned in an affidavit. Which is why the figures swelled to 5,300 in the affidavits. We wanted to bring everything to the attention of the court.”
Majumdar said: “It would be unfair to say that the commission did not furnish any details. The affidavits are in the public domain. Anyone can check these.”
When did the commission not mention in the affidavits how many candidates had been recruited legally?
Majumdar said: “That is not the method. The method was to trace those who had been appointed through alleged irregularities, based on what the CBI had shared with us and what the commission had found out. We cannot certify each of the candidates who, we think, have been fairly recruited until the commission is directed to do so by the court.”
The pool of candidates recruited through fair means could change, Majumdar
said.
“For instance, we appointed a candidate by the name of Bobita Sarkar following the court’s order. But when it came to light that there were errors in the calculation of her academic score, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay revoked Bobita’s appointment and gave it to the candidate who had challenged the appointment. This was a bona fide mistake (on the part of the regional office of the commission),” Majumdar said.
The division bench said in its order: “These illegalities admitted by SSC cannot be said to be within tolerable errors of a selection process of large magnitude. In the course of hearing, SSC did not discount the fact that possibilities of further illegalities exist.”
