Calcutta High Court Division Bench Sets Aside Order Cancelling Appointment of 32,000 Primary Teachers

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday set aside a single bench order that annulled appointments of 32,000 primary school teachers in West Bengal.

These teachers were recruited in 2016 through the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) panel of 2014 by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.

The bench, comprising justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetabrata Kumar Mitra, said it is not inclined to uphold the single bench order as irregularities have not been proven in all the recruitments.

The court maintained that the termination of employment after nine years would have a huge impact on the primary teachers and their families.

It said the CBI, which was directed to investigate the matter by the high court, had initially identified 264 appointments in which irregularities took place in the form of granting an additional one mark.

The court observed that the probe agency has so far found no evidence that the mark was granted under instructions of external entities.

Besides the identified candidates, the names of another 96 teachers came under the agency's scanner, whose jobs were subsequently reinstated under a Supreme Court order.

The court maintained that the above evidence does not constitute sufficient grounds to cancel the entire selection process.

A group of aggrieved candidates had moved the single bench, challenging the recruitment process over alleged irregularities. Their lawyers sought a stay on the operation of the division bench's judgment, but it was refused.

A single bench of then Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had terminated the appointments of these 32,000 primary teachers on May 12, 2023, after petitioners had alleged that the primary education board had committed fraud in the selection process and did not follow the rules for recruitment of primary teachers in state government-run and aided primary schools.

In its order, the single bench had pointed towards the possibility of recruitment of a section of teachers without holding their mandatory aptitude test, which, the division bench maintained, the probe agency is yet to back up with concrete evidence.