Should the Bengal School Job Case Prompt WBSSC to Reveal the Complete List of 'Tainted' Non-Teaching Staff?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- The Calcutta High Court has ordered the WBSSC to reveal the complete list of 'tainted' non-teaching staff.
- Allegations of corruption and discrepancies in staff categorization have surfaced.
- The Supreme Court's ruling impacts recruitment opportunities for non-teaching staff.
- Urgent hearings are set to address challenges in the recruitment process.
- Transparency in public employment remains a critical issue.
Kolkata, Dec 1 (NationPress) A directive was issued by the Calcutta High Court’s single-judge bench, led by Justice Amrita Sinha, on Monday, instructing the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) to disclose the entire list of 7,293 “tainted” non-teaching staff in state-operated schools. This group was part of the 26,000 individuals who lost their jobs following a ruling from the Supreme Court back in April of this year.
Justice Sinha's ruling came after allegations emerged that while the WBSSC informed the Supreme Court about the identification of 7,293 non-teaching staff in Group-C and Group-D categories from the 2016 panel as being “tainted” for having secured positions through monetary transactions, the commission subsequently released a list with only 3,512 names.
In light of these accusations, Justice Sinha ordered the commission to release the complete list of 7,293 “tainted” non-teaching staff from the 2016 panel.
The court also noted that publishing the full list is crucial for assessing a new petition challenging the ongoing recruitment process for non-teaching positions, aimed at filling vacancies created by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling that annulled WBSSC’s entire 2016 panel of approximately 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff.
This fresh petition is scheduled for urgent hearing on Tuesday, as applications for the new recruitment process for non-teaching staff in Group-C and Group-D categories must be submitted by Wednesday.
In the petition, the petitioners accused the commission of serious irregularities in classifying “untainted” and “tainted” non-teaching staff in the 2016 panel. They alleged that numerous “tainted” individuals, who have clearly obtained jobs through corrupt means, were included in the “untainted” list.
Conversely, the petitioners claimed that several “untainted” individuals from the 2016 panel were unjustly excluded from the “untainted” list.
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year, the “untainted” non-teaching staff from the 2016 panel will be allowed to participate in the new recruitment process, while the clearly identified “tainted” staff will not.