SSC 2016 Case: Big Turn at Calcutta High Court! Justice Sinha Revokes Own Order on SSC 2016 Panel

SSC 2016 Case: The Calcutta High Court witnessed an unprecedented turn of events on Tuesday regarding the SSC 2016 recruitment case. Justice Amrita Sinha, who initially directed the School Service Commission (SSC) to publish a list of ‘valid’ or ‘untainted’ candidates, eventually recalled her own order after a heated exchange of arguments in the courtroom. This decision came after significant opposition from the Commission’s lawyers, marking a dramatic shift in the legal proceedings.

What Exactly Happened in the Courtroom?

At the very beginning of the hearing, the lawyer for the petitioners, Bikram Banerjee, made a specific appeal to the court. He demanded the publication of a list containing the names of teachers in the 9th-10th and 11th-12th categories who had secured their jobs honestly in the 2016 recruitment process without any fraud. The petitioners’ logic was clear: to ensure that no ‘tainted’ or ineligible candidates participate in the upcoming 2025 recruitment process, as per Supreme Court directives, it is essential to segregate and identify the valid candidates publicly.

The Commission’s Defense and Supreme Court Reference

Representing the SSC, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee strongly opposed the demand for a new list. The Commission clarified that they had already published the details of ‘tainted’ candidates in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order.

The key arguments presented by the Commission’s lawyer included:

• All candidates currently working in schools (until December 31) are being treated as valid or ‘untainted’ by the Commission.
• The demand to publish a fresh list of ‘valid’ candidates is unnecessary and amounts to a ‘Roving Inquiry’.
• Constant demands for new lists are merely delaying the recruitment process, which has a deadline set by the Supreme Court.

The Judge’s Observation and Final Outcome

During the hearing, Justice Amrita Sinha observed that appointments made after the expiry of the panel were technically invalid according to service rules. Based on this, she initially started dictating an order for the Commission to publish a separate list of valid candidates and those appointed after the panel’s expiry. However, this sparked immediate chaos and strong objections from the lawyers in the courtroom.

SSC’s counsel, Kalyan Banerjee, questioned why such a direct order was being passed without giving the Commission an opportunity to file an affidavit. Lawyers representing the teachers (such as Menaka Guruswamy and Pratik Dhar) also demanded to be heard. Accepting the logic that publishing a list hurriedly could lead to further legal complications—where valid candidates might claim exclusion—Justice Sinha decided to recall or ‘delete’ her previous instruction.

The summary of the hearing is presented below:

Final Update: The next hearing for this case has been scheduled for January 13. Until then, the SSC is under no obligation to publish any new list of valid or expiry panel candidates.