WBSSC Recruitment Case: Commission Challenges Calcutta HC's Jurisdiction on Contempt Petition
Click to start listening
Synopsis
On April 23, the WBSSC's attorney questioned the Calcutta High Court's authority over a contempt petition linked to the Supreme Court's decision that annulled 25,753 teaching and non-teaching positions. The case raises significant legal implications regarding jurisdiction and compliance with judicial orders.
Key Takeaways
- WBSSC's counsel challenges Calcutta HC's jurisdiction.
- 25,753 jobs annulled by Supreme Court.
- Calcutta HC's bench previously invalidated WBSSC's panel.
- Next hearing scheduled for April 28.
- Legal implications on compliance with court orders.
Kolkata, April 23 (NationPress) The attorney representing the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) raised concerns on Wednesday regarding the jurisdiction of a division bench of the Calcutta High Court to address a contempt-of-court petition filed against the Commission and the state government. This petition pertains to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court which annulled 25,753 teaching and non-teaching positions in state-operated schools.
Last year, the same division bench, consisting of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Shabbar Rashidi, had invalidated the entire panel of WBSSC for 2016, leading the state government to challenge this decision in the Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, upheld the Calcutta High Court's ruling and concurred with the observation that the entire panel needed to be cancelled due to the inability of the state government and the Commission to distinguish between 'genuine' candidates and 'tainted' ones.
In response, a contempt-of-court petition was lodged against both the West Bengal government and WBSSC, accusing the latter of failing to execute the Supreme Court's directive. During the hearing on Wednesday, the Commission's attorney questioned the authority of the same division bench to deliberate on the contempt petition.
The WBSSC's counsel argued that while the Supreme Court had affirmed the Calcutta High Court's ruling, it simultaneously mandated alterations to the order, suggesting that any further proceedings should occur exclusively at the Supreme Court level.
Conversely, the petitioner's attorney contended that since the Supreme Court upheld the primary aspect of the Calcutta High Court's ruling concerning the cancellation of the WBSSC's entire 2016 panel, the division bench possessed the authority to hear the contempt petition.
Subsequently, the division bench instructed the petitioner's counsel to present pertinent documents supporting his claims at the next hearing, scheduled for April 28.
