32000 Teacher Case: A series of sensational revelations has emerged during the hearing of the 32,000 primary teacher job cancellation case at the Calcutta High Court. The hearing took place before a division bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Ritabrata Kumar Mitra. Advocate Bikasranjan Bhattacharya, representing the aggrieved job aspirants, put forth several serious allegations, raising significant questions about the transparency of the recruitment process.
Key Points of the Hearing
During the proceedings, Advocate Bikasranjan Bhattacharya highlighted the following key issues:
- Absence of a Merit List: The Primary Education Board never published a complete merit list. It only specified whether a candidate was ‘Empanelled’ or ‘Not Empanelled,’ which created opportunities for corruption.
- Rank Jumping: Many candidates with lower scores reportedly secured jobs, while those with higher scores were deprived. Substantial evidence supporting this claim of rank jumping was presented to the court.
- Appointment of Unqualified Candidates: It was alleged that many individuals who did not even appear for the 2014 TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) were given jobs. There were also claims that some received appointment letters without passing the TET.
- The ‘Y’ Candidate Mystery: The hearing brought up a mysterious candidate referred to as ‘Y,’ who was allegedly given a job illegally. The board clarified that the candidate’s name was mistakenly registered as ‘Y’ during the form fill-up process.
- Non-Transparent Recruitment Process: Widespread irregularities were alleged in the Aptitude Test and interview process. Marks were allegedly allocated without any proper records, in complete violation of the rules.
- Misuse of the Relaxation Period: The relaxation period meant for the appointment of untrained teachers was allegedly misused. Appointments continued in violation of the rules even after the deadline had passed.
The Judge’s Observations and Next Steps
The court has taken all these allegations very seriously. The judges noted that such significant accusations of corruption in a recruitment process cannot be overlooked and raised several questions about the board’s role and the transparency of the appointments. While the judge also questioned why these issues were being raised after a delay of five years, it was emphasized that there is no pardon for corruption in the eyes of the law.
The next hearing for this case has been scheduled for October 29, 2025. Due to the upcoming Puja holidays, the delay has extended the anxious wait for the job aspirants. However, with the court delving deep into the matter, the deprived candidates are hopeful for justice. It remains to be seen which direction the case will take and what the ultimate fate of the 32,000 teachers will be.
