WB SSC Recruitment Hearing: AG Defends 10 Marks for Experience Citing Constitutional Validity

SSC Case Update: Significant arguments were presented in the courtroom of Justice Amrita Sinha at the Calcutta High Court regarding the ongoing School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment case. The hearing primarily focused on the validity of awarding 10 marks based on 19-24 teaching experience categories. State Advocate General (AG) Kishore Dutta put forward a robust defense supporting the Commission’s rules.

The Value of Experience and Judicial Scope

During the proceedings, the Advocate General used a relatable analogy to drive home his point. He argued that just as an experienced cook is often preferred over a novice for culinary duties, prioritizing experience in teacher recruitment is entirely logical. He emphasized that when a Selection Committee frames specific rules, the Court generally acts with restraint and does not interfere in policy decisions unless there is a blatant constitutional violation.

Constitutional Validity and Equality Arguments

Petitioners had raised concerns that granting extra marks to experienced candidates might violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution. Countering this, the AG presented the following points:

• Distinct Classes: Experienced and inexperienced candidates represent two completely different classes of applicants. Treating them identically would be inappropriate.
• Recognition of Skill: Providing weightage to those who have already acquired skills through service does not amount to discrimination.
• Precedent: The AG cited a judgment from the Telangana High Court, where a reservation of 45% of vacancies for experienced candidates was legally upheld against the remaining 55%.

Delegation of Legislative Power

A key technical question raised was whether the SSC (as a subordinate legislature) had the authority to frame such rules independently. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment on the ‘Electricity Act,’ the AG explained that a Parent Legislature can delegate rule-making powers to a subordinate body. Therefore, the Commission’s actions, backed by gazette notifications, cannot be termed ‘arbitrary’ as they followed the prescribed legislative framework.

Uncertainties and Future Hearings

While questions regarding the eligibility of Vocational, Part-time, and Central teachers for these 10 marks were raised, the AG stated he would address these specifics in the next hearing. He has sought time to present 10-12 additional judgments to support the state’s stance.

The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, February 10. However, with imminent roster changes and the fact that recruitment panels have already been published, concerns are growing among aspirants about potential delays and legal entanglements in the hiring process.