SSC 10 Marks Case: SSC 10 Marks Case Hearing Update: High Court Observation on Validity and Job Losers

SSC 10 Marks Case: The Calcutta High Court today witnessed significant proceedings regarding multiple cases related to the School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment. The spotlight was firmly on the “10 Marks” case (listed under items 46 to 52), which concerns the validity of awarding extra marks to “Job Loser” candidates based on their service experience. The hearing brought forth crucial arguments regarding legal validity, administrative policy, and statistical data that could shape the future of these appointments.

Validity Takes Precedence Over Eligibility

During the hearing, the Honorable Justice made a critical observation that sets the tone for the upcoming sessions. The Court clarified that before determining who is eligible to receive the extra 10 marks, it is imperative to first establish whether the provision of awarding these marks is legally valid in the first place. The priority is to judge the “Validity” of the policy itself. Only if the policy stands the legal test will the court proceed to examine individual eligibility. This stance on prioritizing validity applies similarly to the cases involving Para-teachers and Vocational teachers seeking similar benefits.

The Value of Experience and Separate Selection

Senior advocates representing the petitioners, including Subir Sanyal and Aniruddha Chatterjee, presented robust arguments favoring the in-service teachers. They argued that the experience of teachers who have served for nearly a decade holds significant value. Key points raised included:

• Need for Separate Processes: Citing the Ujjwal Chatterjee case and Supreme Court observations, the lawyers argued that the confusion stems from the Commission’s failure to conduct separate selection processes for “Freshers” and “In-service” (Untainted) teachers. If they had been evaluated separately—similar to the Primary 2009-10 recruitment model—this legal entanglement could have been avoided.
• Comparison with Para-Teachers: The counsel pointed out that in primary recruitment, Para-teachers automatically receive 5 marks for their experience without an aptitude test. Therefore, arguing against awarding 10 marks to teachers with ten years of service seems inconsistent and unfair.

Policy Decisions: Rules of the Game

A significant portion of the argument revolved around the concept of “Policy Decision.” Advocate Aniruddha Chatterjee referred to the ‘Tej Prakash’ judgment, emphasizing the legal principle that “Rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game.” The argument posits that the decision to award marks was a pre-determined policy by the authority, and courts generally exercise restraint in interfering with such administrative policy decisions. The history of the Arunima Pal case was also cited to show that the issue of 10 marks had reached the Supreme Court earlier without negative intervention.

Are Freshers Really Being Deprived?

To counter the narrative that awarding 10 marks to in-service teachers deprives fresh candidates, the lawyers presented data sourced from the Commission’s website:

• 9th-10th Level: About 68% of candidates called for verification and interviews were freshers, compared to only 12% in-service teachers.
• 11th-12th Level: Approximately 50% of the opportunities went to fresh candidates.

Based on these statistics, it was argued that the inclusion of the 10-mark benefit for experienced teachers does not disproportionately harm the prospects of fresh applicants. The next hearing for this crucial matter has been scheduled for February 3rd, where the validity of the 10 marks policy will likely be the primary focus.