Board’s Mega Reply in 32,000 Teacher Recruitment Case! Storm in Court Over S. Basu Ray & Company and Rank Jumping

32000 Case Update: The hearing for the much-discussed 32,000 primary teacher recruitment case in West Bengal has reached its final stages. In today’s session, Advocate General (AG) Kishore Datta, representing the state, clarified the board’s stance on several critical issues. The judge primarily focused on two main points: the role of the S. Basu Ray & Company in the recruitment process and the response to the chargesheet submitted by Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya.

What was the role of S. Basu Ray & Company?

The Advocate General informed the court that through a board resolution dated October 4, 2016, S. Basu Ray & Company was assigned certain administrative responsibilities. This process was highly confidential and included tasks like sorting approximately 1.25 lakh candidate applications, preparing district-wise lists, and creating interview lists and attendance sheets. The AG emphasized that this company was not given any responsibility for candidate assessment or evaluation. Their role was purely administrative and supportive.

CBI Chargesheet and Scrutiny Responsibility

In response to the CBI chargesheet, the AG stated that the tender was given to S. Basu Ray & Company only for printing and formatting tasks. When the judge brought up Rule 7 during the hearing, the AG, although initially a bit confused, later submitted evidence showing that sub-committees comprising DI, SI, and AI officers were formed for the scrutiny of applications. S. Basu Ray & Company was not responsible for this. Based on this information, the judge concluded that the company was only involved in preparatory work, not evaluation.

Citing an example from Balurghat, the AG explained that the interview process was conducted by these sub-committees. Notices were issued to local school authorities, the police, and the DM/DI, which proves that S. Basu Ray & Company was not involved in the assessment.

Counter-Reply to Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya’s Submissions

The AG labelled various pieces of information submitted by Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya as “wrong submissions.” He presented a few examples:

• Para 10: The four candidates mentioned were trained and got their jobs based on a 2018 court order.
• Para 11: Some candidates, who were terminated by the board, later got their jobs back through court orders.
• Other Candidates: The AG also mentioned that 94 candidates (from other states or not TET-passed) and most of the 84 candidates (mentioned in para 17) are currently employed based on court orders.

Rank Jumping and Panel Controversy

Regarding the issue of rank jumping, the lawyer explained that it occurred mainly due to district code numbers. For instance, Purulia’s code is 17. A candidate named Sabir Ahmed applied to another district (Alipurduar) for more vacancies. Since their TET roll numbers were the same, it appeared to be rank jumping, but it was actually a result of different cut-offs in different districts.

In response to the controversy over panel publication, the AG argued that the petitioners themselves had annexed the panel in their writ petition. However, the petitioners’ lawyer, Tarunjyoti Tiwari, claimed it was a merit list, not the state-wise panel. The AG countered that the board had published the panel through the DPSCs and displayed it on walls. At the end of the hearing, a comment from Honarable Justice Ritabrata Kumar Mitra and Tarunjyoti Tiwari’s plea for jobs for 5000+ candidates have added a new dimension to the case. All eyes are now on the next hearing.