Primary Recruitment: Primary ‘Unabsorbed’ Controversy: Recruitment to be Based Solely on Merit! New Turn with Division Bench’s Strict Order

Primary Recruitment: A hearing in the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench regarding the 2022 primary teacher recruitment process has created a significant stir. The observations and directives from the Division Bench in a case filed by job aspirants tagged as ‘Unabsorbed’ have added a new dimension to the recruitment controversy. According to the petitioners’ advocate, Ali Ahasan Alamgir, the court has made it clear that merit should be the sole criterion for public employment.

What is this ‘Unabsorbed’ Controversy?

In 2022, the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE) issued a notification for 11,765 vacancies. Subsequently, in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court regarding a case involving the 20-22 D.El.Ed batch, the board stated that it had found only 9,533 eligible candidates. The remaining candidates were placed in a new category called ‘Unabsorbed’.

According to Advocate Alamgir, the term ‘Unabsorbed’ is likely a first in recruitment history. It doesn’t mean these candidates are completely out of the race. The score difference between them and the last empanelled candidate is marginal, almost fractional. The petitioners allege that the board deliberately selected 9,533 candidates out of 11,765 vacancies and is now claiming that there are no eligible candidates for the remaining posts.

What is the Petitioners’ Core Demand?

The petitioners’ argument is very clear. They demand that nothing other than merit should be considered in the recruitment process. The case is built on a few fundamental points:

• Primacy of Merit: According to the petitioners, if any candidate with a lower score, including those from the 20-22 D.El.Ed batch, gets appointed, it would be a violation of the principle of merit.
• Misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s Order: The board is accused of using a Supreme Court order as a “shield”. The petitioners clarify that the Supreme Court only affirmed the eligibility of the 20-22 batch to participate in the recruitment process; it did not earmark the remaining vacancies exclusively for them.
• The Board’s Arbitrary Stance: The petitioners fear that the board is trying to favour a specific category of candidates, which they argue is illegal, whimsical, and arbitrary.

The Division Bench’s Strict Directive

After a hearing that lasted for about an hour, the Division Bench issued a crucial directive. The board has been asked to submit a written instruction, supported by an affidavit, stating that appointments for the remaining vacancies will be made solely on the basis of merit. Furthermore, the court has clarified that no candidate with a score lower than the petitioners’ can be appointed.

According to the advocate, this directive puts the board in a tough spot. If candidates with lower scores cannot be appointed, the board will have no option but to consider the ‘Unabsorbed’ candidates to fill the vacancies. The petitioners have also stated that if the board intentionally keeps the posts vacant despite the availability of eligible candidates, they will approach the court again. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for the 13th of the month, and the petitioners are hopeful for a fair resolution.
“`