SSC Case Hearing: High Court Turmoil Over SSC Case: Major Twist on Panel and List, Verdict in January?
SSC Case Hearing: Unprecedented tension erupted in the Calcutta High Court today regarding the School Service Commission (SSC) case. The heated debate primarily revolved around the expiry of recruitment panels for Classes IX-X and XI-XII, and specifically, the publication of a list containing candidates categorized as “Not Specially Found to be Tainted.” The atmosphere in the courtroom was intense, marked by fierce arguments between the lawyers representing the petitioners and the commission.
The Core of the Dispute
The focal point of today’s hearing centered on Item Numbers 7 and 9. While the commission has already separated the lists of qualified and unqualified candidates for Classes IX-X as per the Supreme Court’s directive, the complication arose regarding the Class XI-XII recruitment. The petitioners demanded the immediate publication of the list of candidates against whom no specific evidence of corruption has been found.
Arguments and Counter Arguments
A long and sharp exchange of arguments took place between the petitioners and the commission’s counsels. The key arguments presented by both sides are summarized in the table below:
| Party | Advocate | Key Arguments & Claims |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner | Bikram Banerjee | Demanded immediate publication of the list per the Supreme Court’s order dated November 26. Argued that the 2016 rules do not allow for panel extension in XI-XII, making post-expiry appointments illegal. |
| Commission & Board | Kalyan Banerjee & Menaka Guruswamy | Argued that the Supreme Court protected qualified candidates. Highlighted the immense pressure to complete the recruitment process by December 31. Objected to unilateral orders without hearing all parties. |
The Turning Point: Before and After Recess
The most dramatic moment of today’s hearing occurred around the lunch break. Before the recess, the Judge maintained a strict stance regarding the panel expiry and list publication, initially contemplating an order to publish the list within four weeks.
Get Instant News Updates!
Join on TelegramHowever, the situation shifted completely after the break. Facing strong objections from Commission counsels Menaka Guruswamy and Kalyan Banerjee, the Judge reconsidered the decision. The court acknowledged that separating “tainted” candidates from the vast pool and publishing an error free list is a highly complex process. Rushing a directive could lead to further legal complications.
Next Hearing in January
Ultimately, after the lengthy arguments, the court did not pass a final verdict today. Instead of ordering an immediate list publication, the Judge directed all parties to submit affidavits. The matter has been adjourned until January, meaning the fate of current aspirants and the 2025 recruitment process remains in the balance for a little longer.
While this adjournment has caused disappointment among a section of job seekers, legal experts believe this step is crucial for maintaining the transparency of the judicial process.
