SSC Recruitment Case: Supreme Court Reprimands SSC, Raises Questions About Transparency Again

SSC Recruitment Case: The Supreme Court of the country has once again taken a firm stand on the transparency of the School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment process. Along with dismissing a review petition, the Supreme Court has also questioned the intentions of the state government, sparking intense discussion in political circles.

Lack of Transparency and Court’s Admonition

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the lack of transparency even in the new recruitment process that began after the cancellation of the 2016 panel. The court questioned why the SSC is making the same mistakes repeatedly. In particular, it expressed strong dissatisfaction with allowing “tainted” or ineligible candidates to apply in the new recruitment process. According to the court, this is extremely unfortunate and goes against the principles of transparency.

Key Issues

Several important issues have emerged regarding the recruitment process:

• Minimum Cut-off Marks:
  • In the 2016 rules, the minimum cut-off for graduation was 45%.
  • However, in the current recruitment process, the SSC increased that limit to 50%.
  • The Supreme Court has directed that candidates who scored between 45% and 50% must be allowed to apply within a week, meaning the 45% cut-off must be maintained.
• Application by Ineligible Candidates:
  • The biggest cause for concern is that “tainted” or ineligible candidates are also applying for the new recruitment process.
  • The Supreme Court had clearly stated that the entire 2016 panel was canceled due to a lack of transparency. The court has questioned the SSC’s role in allowing the same candidates to apply again.
• Examination Schedule:
  • Qualified candidates had requested for the exam to be held after the Puja holidays, as they are currently employed as teachers and need time to prepare.
  • However, the Supreme Court did not intervene in this matter and stated that the SSC would make the decision based on its convenience.
• Transparency and Accountability:
  • The court noted that the SSC and the state government have repeatedly failed to publish lists of “tainted” and “clean” candidates. Publishing this list would have made it easier to recover money from the ineligible individuals.
  • The court warned the SSC that if ineligible candidates have indeed applied, the situation would be “very unfortunate.”

In this situation, uncertainty has once again arisen regarding the future of the SSC recruitment process. This strong observation from the highest court has undoubtedly put significant pressure on the state government and the SSC. It remains to be seen what steps they will take to bring transparency to the recruitment process in the coming days.