32000 Teacher: The hearing of the case regarding the cancellation of 32,000 teachers’ jobs continues in the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The hearing took place in the Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty. In this hearing, which lasted for more than two hours, the lawyers of the affected parties, i.e., para-teachers and other dismissed teachers, presented their arguments.
Arguments of Para-Teachers
In the hearing of the case, the lawyers of the para-teachers made strong arguments. Their main arguments are:
- Not part of the original case: The lawyers for the para-teachers, Mr. Joyanta Mitra and Mr. Subir Sanal, told the court that the para-teachers were not a party to the original writ petition on the basis of which the order to cancel the jobs was given. Therefore, their jobs should not have been cancelled.
- Different recruitment rules: The recruitment rules and qualifications for para-teachers, especially in the case of the aptitude test, were different from those of general teachers. In their case, teaching experience was considered as an alternative to the aptitude test.
- Allegation of corruption is baseless: The lawyers for the para-teachers claimed that the mention of ‘huge corruption’ in the single bench’s verdict was mainly based on media reports and was not correct.
- Current Identity: The para-teachers are no longer para-teachers; they are now appointed as primary teachers. Therefore, they should not be judged on the basis of their old identity.
Arguments of Exempted Categories
The lawyers of the exempted categories, such as those who got jobs in exchange for land and the family members of freedom fighters, also presented their arguments in court.
- No connection with corruption: Their appointment process was done by submitting certificates and they have no connection with the allegations of corruption or irregularities in the recruitment process.
- Number of vacancies: Even if they got zero in the aptitude test, their jobs would not have been lost, because the number of candidates was much less than the number of vacancies. So there is no question of a cut-off.
Arguments of Other Affected Parties
Mr. Ashok Banerjee, the lawyer for 237 petitioners, questioned how jobs can be cancelled after five years of appointment, especially when the petitioners knew nothing about the details of the selection process.
Mr. Pratik Dhar, the lawyer for 635 teachers, said that the single bench’s verdict was flawed because they were called ‘untrained’ even though they had completed their D.El.Ed. course by April 2019, long before the writ petition was filed.
Court’s Observation
During the hearing, the judge asked questions to clarify various issues. He wanted to know about the difference between para-teachers and primary teachers, the applicability of aptitude tests for different categories, etc.
The next hearing of this case has been scheduled for July 14, 2025.
