KOLKATA: Arguing that the Calcutta high court order scrapping all 2016 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments would “paralyse” schools in Bengal, leading to a “complete collapse of the education system”, state govt filed a special leave petition (SLP) in Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging it. The state also urged an interim stay of the high court order.
Along with the state, School Service Commission and Bengal’s primary education board have also moved the SC.
Bengal govt submitted that the HC order “utterly disregarded” that unless a new selection process was completed by SSC, there would be a huge vacuum of staff in state schools that would adversely impact students. The state argued that “even though as per the CBI enquiry report and the affidavit by the SSC irregularity in appointments were only found for 4,327 teachers and non-teaching staff, the order in its own wisdom strikes at the legal and valid selections of 23,123 teachers, which was not found to be riddled with any anomaly as per the chargesheet filed by CBI concluding the investigation”.
Bengal said the HC had “mechanically directed” SSC to begin fresh selections a fortnight after the election process ended on June 4, but till then schools would be “seriously understaffed”. The state pointed out that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prescribed that govt was bound to maintain a 40:1 student to teacher ratio at the elementary level, and the same was practised at the secondary level.
Bengal submitted that the HC’s decision asking CBI to investigate the cabinet’s move to create supernumerary posts “overreached” SC verdicts. Bengal govt questioned how the HC could “transgress issues before it” and ask CBI to look into a “policy decision taken by the cabinet”. The state called it “strange” because the HC was not asked to adjudicate the matter and no appointments had been made to those posts. It said the cabinet decision was made “in public interest”, adding that it was not absolute but came with a rider that recruitments would be subject to the outcome of pending litigation.
The petition said the HC had not segregated the valid appointments, “which could not have formed part of the adjudication” and could not be equated with alleged illegal ones, but “erroneously” set aside the selection process in its entirety.
Echoing the HC’s words, Bengal argued that the court, “instead of separating the grain from the chaff”, painted the entire selection process with “the same colour of irregularity”, leaving state govt – the appointing authority and that responsible for maintaining the teacher-student ratio – in a precarious position.
Along with the state, School Service Commission and Bengal’s primary education board have also moved the SC.
Bengal govt submitted that the HC order “utterly disregarded” that unless a new selection process was completed by SSC, there would be a huge vacuum of staff in state schools that would adversely impact students. The state argued that “even though as per the CBI enquiry report and the affidavit by the SSC irregularity in appointments were only found for 4,327 teachers and non-teaching staff, the order in its own wisdom strikes at the legal and valid selections of 23,123 teachers, which was not found to be riddled with any anomaly as per the chargesheet filed by CBI concluding the investigation”.
Bengal said the HC had “mechanically directed” SSC to begin fresh selections a fortnight after the election process ended on June 4, but till then schools would be “seriously understaffed”. The state pointed out that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prescribed that govt was bound to maintain a 40:1 student to teacher ratio at the elementary level, and the same was practised at the secondary level.
Bengal submitted that the HC’s decision asking CBI to investigate the cabinet’s move to create supernumerary posts “overreached” SC verdicts. Bengal govt questioned how the HC could “transgress issues before it” and ask CBI to look into a “policy decision taken by the cabinet”. The state called it “strange” because the HC was not asked to adjudicate the matter and no appointments had been made to those posts. It said the cabinet decision was made “in public interest”, adding that it was not absolute but came with a rider that recruitments would be subject to the outcome of pending litigation.
The petition said the HC had not segregated the valid appointments, “which could not have formed part of the adjudication” and could not be equated with alleged illegal ones, but “erroneously” set aside the selection process in its entirety.
Echoing the HC’s words, Bengal argued that the court, “instead of separating the grain from the chaff”, painted the entire selection process with “the same colour of irregularity”, leaving state govt – the appointing authority and that responsible for maintaining the teacher-student ratio – in a precarious position.