WBSSC recruitment: State moves HC div bench against bar on tainted candidates

Kolkata: A day after a single bench of the Calcutta High Court barred tainted candidates from participating in the new recruitment process initiated by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC), the state government on Tuesday challenged the order before a division bench.

Separately, petitioners seeking changes to the new recruitment rules also moved the division bench against the same order. The matter was placed before the division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De on Tuesday. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

On Monday, the single bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharya observed that the Supreme Court had unequivocally prohibited tainted candidates from participating in the fresh recruitment process. He had rejected the state’s contention that the apex court merely denied relaxations to tainted candidates and did not expressly bar their participation. This ruling has now been challenged by both the state and the WBSSC.

Before the single bench, the state and the WBSSC had also contended that barring the tainted candidates—after their services had already been terminated—would violate their constitutional protections under Article 20(2), which prohibits double jeopardy.

Meanwhile, although the single bench barred tainted candidates from the fresh recruitment process, it declined to grant other reliefs sought by the petitioners. These included pleas for altering the recruitment rules by removing the upper age limit of 40 years and modifying other eligibility conditions. Dissatisfied with this, the petitioners approached the division bench challenging that portion of the order.

In the revised recruitment rules, the weight of the written examination has increased from 55 to 60 marks, while the weight of academic qualifications has been reduced from 35 to 10. Ten marks each are now allocated for teaching experience and for a “lecture demonstration,” while the interview continues to carry 10 marks.

Petitioners, particularly candidates from the 2016 waiting list, argue that these changes—especially the 10-mark criterion for teaching experience—unfairly disadvantage them. They contend that deprived candidates will now be assessed out of 90 marks instead of 100, placing them at a continued disadvantage.