Supreme Court rejects plea on TET 2016 eligibility
Kolkata: The Supreme Court on Monday is learnt to have dismissed a petition filed by unsuccessful candidates of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 2016, who had challenged the West Bengal School Service Commission’s (WBSSC) revised eligibility criteria for the upcoming fresh examinations.
The petitioners had argued that the WBSSC arbitrarily raised the qualifying marks for candidates from 45 per cent to 50 pe rcent in degree examinations. They contended that since the September 7 and 14 tests were being held as a continuation of TET 2016—after the apex court had scrapped the entire panel and directed the Commission to conduct the exam afresh—the eligibility criteria could not be altered midway. Defending the change, the Commission submitted that the revised standard followed guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which mandated a 50 pert cent benchmark for teacher recruitment.
A division bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the WBSSC’s decision, observing that the court would not interfere with the Commission’s policy choices. The bench also expressed dismay over repeated petitions being filed on the same recruitment process despite the Supreme Court’s earlier orders.
During the proceedings, Justice Kumar reportedly inquired about the list of 1,804 “tainted” candidates published by the WBSSC on August 30. He sought clarification on whether the list covered only those who had secured appointments from the scrapped panel or also included those who were empanelled through irregular means but never appointed. The bench will examine this issue further on Tuesday, when it hears a contempt petition linked to the recruitment scam.
Meanwhile, in the Calcutta High Court, several candidates whose names appeared in the WBSSC’s “tainted” list sought relief. They argued before Justice Saugata Bhattacharya that despite being issued admit cards for the upcoming exams, they had been wrongly included among the ineligible candidates. Their counsels referred to earlier court orders which had classified as “tainted” only three categories of candidates—those appointed after expiry of the panel, those selected without SSC recommendation, and those submitting blank OMR sheets. Claiming they did not fall under these categories, the petitioners urged for urgent intervention. Justice Bhattacharya granted them leave to file petitions and scheduled the hearing for Tuesday.
