SSC Case Hearing: Strong Arguments in SSC Case! What is the Update on 10 Marks and Panel Future?
SSC Case Hearing: Significant developments and compelling arguments have once again emerged in the hearing of the much-discussed West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment corruption case. As the case proceeds in the Supreme Court, anxiety is growing regarding the future of thousands of job aspirants. Recently, the courtroom atmosphere heated up with the arguments presented by Senior Advocate Anindya Kumar Mitra and Senior Advocate Pratik Dhar. The discussion primarily revolved around the expiry of the panel and the justification of the 10 marks allotted for experience.
Legal Interpretation of 10 Marks by Anindya Mitra
The issue of 10 marks allotted for experienced teachers has become a crucial point in this case. Senior Advocate Anindya Kumar Mitra presented strong arguments in favor of these 10 marks before the court. According to him, there should be no conflict between the laws made by the legislature and the rules framed by the appropriate authority. Instead, there is a direct connection between the two. He claimed that the current interpretation of the law is often being presented incorrectly or in a misleading manner.
Importance of Teaching Experience
Mr. Mitra argued that teaching experience should not be viewed merely as a measure of time. It is, in fact, a specific skill. Compared to a fresher candidate, an experienced teacher will naturally demonstrate much greater proficiency in the classroom. Therefore, keeping separate marks for experienced candidates or prioritizing them in the recruitment process is entirely logical. He cited examples from multiple states to support his argument.
He informed the court that this practice is not unique to West Bengal; states like Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Chandigarh, Haryana, and Punjab also have provisions for awarding separate marks for experience. Even prestigious central government institutions like Navodaya Vidyalayas follow this rule. Furthermore, he mentioned that the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Arunima Pal case and previous orders also support the logic of awarding these 10 marks.
Panel Expiry and Deprivation of Deserving Candidates
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Pratik Dhar primarily argued on behalf of the deserving or ‘untainted’ candidates. He highlighted the discrepancies between the CBI report and the data on the SSC server before the judge. He claimed that there is a vast difference between the data recovered from Pankaj Bansal’s hard disk by the CBI and the data on the SSC server. according to his statement, while the information with Pankaj Bansal is genuine, the data on the SSC server has been tampered with or manipulated.
Key Points of Pratik Dhar’s Argument:
- Mixture of Data: He explained that the data on the SSC server contains a mix of information for both genuine and ineligible or tainted candidates. As a result, those who took the exam honestly are also suffering today.
- Rights of Waiting List Candidates: A candidate on the waiting list always hopes to get a job. However, if the counseling process is delayed due to the Commission’s legal complications or procrastination, the burden should not fall on the candidate.
- Mathematical Logic of 10 Marks: Towards the end of the hearing, he also spoke in favor of the 10 marks. He used mathematical calculations to explain that these marks allotted for experience indicate a candidate’s skill, which should also be desired by the Commission.
The judge listened to all these arguments with great attention and understood the depth of the matters. It has been reported that the next hearing of this case will be held on Monday and Tuesday of the coming week, i.e., the 8th and 9th, where several other lawyers will present their statements. Lakhs of job aspirants are now looking forward to those dates.
