New Twist in SSC 26,000 Jobs Case: Contempt of Court Notice Issued to Commission and Board

A new chapter has unfolded in the saga of the 26,000 cancelled SSC jobs. A legal notice for contempt of court has been issued against the School Service Commission (SSC) and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for allegedly disobeying the Supreme Court’s orders. The original petitioners have sent this notice, causing a fresh stir in the state’s political landscape.

What’s in the Notice?

The petitioners allege that the Supreme Court’s verdict has not been properly implemented. The Supreme court had ordered the cancellation of 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff posts from the 2016 recruitment panel and mandated a fresh recruitment process. However, the SSC and the Board are accused of delaying the execution of this directive. The notice serves as a warning: if the orders are not duly complied with within the next seven days, a contempt of court case will be filed in the Supreme Court.

Key Allegations

The notice highlights several serious allegations of non-compliance:

• Failure to Publish List of Illegal Appointees: The Supreme Court directed the publication of a list of candidates who secured jobs illegally. This list has not yet been released, creating ambiguity about who is eligible to appear in the new recruitment process.
• Non-Disclosure of OMR Sheets: Despite orders from both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court, approximately 2.2 million OMR sheets have not been made public, raising questions about the transparency of the recruitment process.
• No Progress on Salary Refund: The process of recovering salaries from illegally appointed individuals has not yet begun. This is stalled because the list of ineligible candidates has not been published.
• Delay in Group C & D Notification: As per the Supreme Court’s directive, the recruitment notification for Group C and Group D posts was supposed to be published by May 31, which has not happened.
• Lack of Clarity in New Recruitment Rules: The new recruitment notification for classes IX-X and XI-XII does not clearly specify the eligibility criteria for candidates, leading to fears that even ineligible candidates might be able to apply.
• Discrepancy in Vacancy Count: The recruitment process is allegedly being conducted by adding new vacancies to the ones declared in 2016, which the petitioners claim is contrary to the Supreme Court’s order.
• Unfair Advantage for Experience: The new rules propose awarding extra marks for experience, which petitioners believe is a tactic to give an undue advantage to the candidates whose appointments were cancelled.

What’s Next?

The petitioners have stated that if the School Service Commission and the Board of Secondary Education do not take appropriate action on these allegations within the next seven days, they will be compelled to file a contempt case in the Supreme Court. If this happens, legal action could be taken against the officials of the recruiting bodies, with speculation that it could even lead to imprisonment. The focus now shifts to the response of the state government and the SSC to this legal notice. With the entire matter under the Supreme Court’s observation, further developments are expected in this high-stakes case.