SSC OMR Sheet: Justice Amrita Sinha Slams SSC Over OMR Sheet Publication and Fee Logic
SSC OMR Sheet: The hearing of the SSC recruitment case at the Calcutta High Court witnessed a heated exchange today in Justice Amrita Sinha’s courtroom. The primary point of contention was the publication of OMR sheets (answer scripts) for candidates. Justice Sinha severely reprimanded the School Service Commission (SSC) regarding their stance on charging fees for showing OMR sheets and prioritizing statutory rules over transparency in a corruption-tainted case. Below is a detailed breakdown of today’s significant developments.
Commission’s Argument vs. Judicial Wrath
The core issue of today’s hearing revolved around the transparency of the recruitment process. Despite a previous court order dated November 27 directing the publication of OMR sheets, the Commission’s counsel, Biswaroop Bhattacharya, argued that they had applied for a modification of that order. The Commission stated that under their statutory rules, OMR sheets are only revealed to candidates who apply for them by paying a specific fee.
This argument did not sit well with Justice Amrita Sinha. Visibly displeased, she questioned the Commission’s intent, asking, “Is this a business place? Is the Commission running a business here?” The Judge emphasized that in a case where massive corruption allegations have surfaced, demanding fees for transparency is unacceptable. She firmly stated that the Commission cannot hide behind fee structures when the integrity of the entire recruitment process is in question.
The Privacy vs. Transparency Debate
During the hearing, another significant legal point was raised by Advocate Subir Sanyal, appearing for candidates categorized as ‘not tainted’. He questioned the legality and propriety of releasing personal OMR sheets into the public domain, arguing it might infringe upon individual privacy.
Justice Sinha, however, dismissed this concern in the context of the current situation. She clarified that given the scale of the alleged scam, the argument for privacy is no longer relevant. Transparency takes precedence over individual confidentiality to restore faith in the system. The Court reminded the counsel that there is no stay order from the Supreme Court preventing the publication of these documents, and thus, the order stands.
Procedural Delays and Affidavit Timeline
Apart from the OMR controversy, the hearing (listed as items 55 and 56) addressed procedural delays. It was noted that numerous new Civil Applications (CAN) were being filed, which Petitioner’s counsel Sudipta Dasgupta flagged as a tactic causing unnecessary delays in the final judgment.
While Justice Sinha expressed some annoyance at the slow pace caused by these daily new applications, she allowed the legal process to continue. Advocate Pratik Dhar, representing a section of job seekers, requested an extension to file their affidavits. Acceding to this request, the Court granted a two-week extension for the submission of affidavits.
Conclusion and Implications
The outcome of today’s hearing sends a strong message: the Calcutta High Court is unwilling to tolerate any further delays or excuses regarding the transparency of the recruitment process. The rejection of the Commission’s “fee logic” and the refusal to prioritize privacy over public accountability suggests that the publication of OMR sheets is imminent. The Commission’s attempt to modify the order or seek more time for this specific task was effectively overruled.
