Former Justice and current BJP MP Abhijit Ganguly has recently raised several serious allegations regarding the new teacher recruitment notification by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). In an interview, he highlighted various aspects of this notification that have sparked fresh anxiety and controversy among job aspirants. Let’s delve into the main points of his statement.
Manipulation in Experience Marks and Injustice to Newcomers?
According to former Justice Ganguly, allocating 10 marks for prior experience in the new notification is highly unscientific and amounts to extreme injustice towards new job seekers. He questioned why, in an advertisement meant for all candidates, marks are being awarded based on experience, implying that newcomers are disadvantaged from the very start. As a result, recently graduated meritorious candidates will not receive these 10 marks in any way and will fall significantly behind in the competition. This rule will deprive new candidates year after year because it’s impossible to gain experience without first getting a job. For example, a candidate with five years of experience will be significantly ahead of newcomers due to these 10 marks, virtually eliminating the chances of freshers securing a job.
Fears of Corruption in Oral Test and Demonstration
In the interview, former Justice Ganguly also questioned the transparency of the total 20 marks (10+10) allocated for the Oral Interview and Lecture Demonstration. In his opinion, these 20 marks are largely at the discretion of the examiner, and there is a strong possibility of mark manipulation here. He expressed fears that after the written examination, corruption, such as increasing marks in exchange for money, could occur at this stage. This would lead to deserving candidates being deprived and undeserving ones getting jobs, turning the entire system into a hotbed of corruption.
Complications with Rules and Advantage to ‘Tainted’ Candidates?
Abhijit Ganguly further mentioned that the 2016 candidates should have been assessed according to the 2016 rules. However, new rules are being formulated in 2025 for them, which is improper. The notification lacks clear guidelines on who is eligible to sit for the exam and who is not. Most importantly, despite clear directives from the Supreme Court, no distinction has been made between “tainted” and “untainted” candidates. He believes that by allocating 10 marks for experience, “tainted” candidates might also indirectly benefit.
Overall, according to former Justice Ganguly’s statement, this new notification not only deprives new job aspirants but also paves the way for corruption and fails to adhere properly to Supreme Court directives. These allegations have caused a significant stir in state politics and among job seekers. It now remains to be seen what steps the state government or the concerned authorities will take in this matter.
