Calcutta High Court Demands SSC to Clarify Fees on Exam Objections
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the West Bengal SSC to explain the fees collected from candidates challenging exam questions. This case raises crucial questions about the legality of such charges and the integrity of the recruitment process.
Key Takeaways
Calcutta High Court has instructed the SSC to clarify fee structures.
Legal basis for charging candidates is under scrutiny.
Approximately 24 exam questions were flagged as potentially incorrect.
Next hearing scheduled in four weeks .
Implications for candidate rights and recruitment integrity.
Kolkata, Feb 23 (NationPress) The Calcutta High Court has instructed the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) to provide an affidavit detailing the fees collected from candidates who challenged the accuracy of certain questions in last year’s recruitment test. During the hearing, Justice Amrita Sinha requested clarification on whether the questions raised by candidates were genuinely erroneous and inquired about the fees charged for filing objections.
The court also requested the SSC to clarify, in accordance with its established policies, the amount refunded to candidates in instances where the questions were later determined to be incorrect.
Justice Sinha further demanded information regarding the total number of questions ultimately recognized as incorrect and the volume of complaints submitted to the Commission concerning alleged mistakes in the examination.
The High Court has mandated the SSC to file a comprehensive affidavit within four weeks, addressing all inquiries raised during the proceedings.
Additionally, the court questioned the legal authority for imposing such fees, noting that if no specific legal provision exists allowing these charges, the Commission must justify the rationale behind collecting money from candidates.
This case pertains to claims that approximately 24 questions in the second State Level Selection Test (SLST) administered by the SSC in September of the previous year were incorrect.
A group of candidates, including one Chandan Dhar, has filed a petition with the Calcutta High Court, contesting the legitimacy of the questions and the fees associated with raising objections.
The petitioners assert that the SSC charged Rs 100 per question from candidates seeking to review or contest questions, despite a lack of clear legal justification for such charges.
Legal counsel for the petitioners, Firdous Shamim, argued that while fees may be applicable for accessing or reviewing answer sheets, there is no legal foundation for charging candidates to contest errors in question papers.
Furthermore, the petitioners contended that such fees hinder the rights of candidates to challenge potentially inaccurate questions and pursue fair evaluations.
Taking these arguments into consideration, the High Court instructed the SSC to document its response through an affidavit and clarify the legal and procedural rationale for charging objection fees.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for this matter in four weeks.
Point of View
This case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in educational assessments. The court's inquiry into the SSC's fee structure reflects a commitment to ensuring fairness in the recruitment process.
NationPress
10 May 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Calcutta High Court direct the SSC to do?
The court directed the SSC to disclose details of fees collected from candidates who raised objections to exam questions.
How much was charged for raising objections?
Candidates were charged Rs 100 per question for raising objections.
What is the next step for the SSC?
The SSC must submit a detailed affidavit addressing the court's inquiries within four weeks.
Why is the court questioning the SSC's fee collection?
The court is questioning the legal authority behind the fee collection, as there may be no specific provision in law permitting such charges.
What is the significance of this case?
This case highlights issues of fairness and transparency in the recruitment process and the rights of candidates to challenge potentially incorrect exam questions.
