32000 Primary Teacher Case: Fate of 32,000 Primary Teachers in Calcutta High Court Hearing, Lawyer’s Role Questioned
Primary Teacher Recruitment: The case regarding the cancellation of jobs for 32,000 primary teachers has taken a new turn in the Calcutta High Court. The hearing is ongoing in the court of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, where significant questions are being raised about the future of the petitioners. In a recent hearing, the role of the petitioners’ lawyer, Tarunjyoti Tewari, and the court’s observations have sparked much speculation.
Lawyer’s Weak Argument and the Judge’s Observations
In the recent hearing, many believe that the petitioners’ lawyer, Tarunjyoti Tewari, failed to present a strong argument in court. Video analysis shows that he could not present the information in an organized manner and failed to delve into the depth of the case. As a result, the main demand of the petitioners, which is to secure their jobs, was not effectively presented to the court.
Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty raised several important questions during the lawyer’s argument. He directly asked if the main objective of the petitioners was merely to get a job. When the lawyer replied “no,” it created some confusion in the courtroom. According to the judge, the primary demand of the petitioners should have been their jobs, and that demand should have been clearly stated before the court.
Uncertainty Over Petitioners’ Motives
The lawyer’s “no” has raised questions about the real intentions of the petitioners. Many speculate that there might be a political motive behind this. If the main goal of the petitioners is indeed their jobs, why did the lawyer hesitate to state it directly in court? This issue has further complicated the case.
Allegations of Corruption and the Demand for Jobs
The lawyer attempted to present letters of recommendation from some political figures as evidence of corruption in the recruitment process. However, the judge questioned the direct link between the marks allotted for para-teachers and corruption. The video analysis suggests that merely proving corruption will not secure jobs for the petitioners; they must explicitly demand employment.
The Path Forward
At this stage of the hearing, it is crucial for the petitioners and their lawyers to be clear about their demands. If they genuinely want their jobs, that demand must be unequivocally presented to the court. Otherwise, they might return empty-handed at the end of this long battle. It remains to be seen whether the petitioners will change their strategy in the upcoming hearings and which direction their fate will take.
