Calcutta HC Questions Bengal Govt on Delay in SC Job Cancellation Order
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has raised concerns regarding the West Bengal government's delay in implementing the Supreme Court's order to cancel over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching jobs in state-run schools. The court has demanded explanations from the state and the WBSSC within a day.
Key Takeaways
- The Calcutta High Court is questioning the delay by the West Bengal government in executing a Supreme Court order.
- 25,753 teaching and non-teaching jobs are affected by the cancellation order.
- The state government has been ordered to provide an explanation within a day.
- The CBI is being urged to investigate payments made by tainted candidates.
- The next hearing is scheduled for April 23.
Kolkata, April 21 (NationPress) The Calcutta High Court, on Monday, questioned why the West Bengal government and the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) are delaying the implementation of the Supreme Court’s directive to cancel 25,753 teaching and non-teaching positions in state-operated educational institutions.
In response to a contempt-of-court petition against the state government and WBSSC for their inaction regarding the apex court's ruling, the division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Shabbar Rashidi instructed the state authorities and the commission to provide an explanation to the court within one day.
The next hearing regarding this issue is set for April 23, during which the state government and the commission are required to submit their responses.
Previously, last year, the same division bench annulled 25,753 teaching and non-teaching jobs, encompassing the entire WBSSC panel from 2016. The state government contested this order in the Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, reaffirmed the Calcutta High Court's decision, acknowledging that the entire panel needed cancellation due to the state government's and commission's inability to distinguish between “genuine” candidates and those deemed “tainted”.
Following this, a contempt petition was filed at the same division bench, claiming that the state government and the commission had not initiated job terminations for individuals already identified as “tainted” by the commission.
During the Monday hearing, the division bench noted potential issues if even the “tainted” candidates continue to receive salaries.
Additionally, the bench raised concerns regarding why Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials have not interrogated those identified as “tainted”.
The bench also stated that the CBI should investigate how individuals who were paid by “tainted” candidates obtained their jobs.
On Wednesday, the CBI's legal representative will also be required to provide an explanation to the court on this matter.
