MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT

Appeals in Calcutta High Court to halt job termination of Group D employees

A stay was sought on the order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay last Friday

Tapas Ghosh And Subhankar Chowdhury Kolkata Published 14.02.23, 09:15 AM
Calcutta High Court.

Calcutta High Court. File picture

A high court division bench of Justice Subrata Talukdar on Monday heard two separate appeals, one moved by 1,911 Group D staff of secondary schools who have lost their jobs and the other by 805 teachers also of secondary schools whose termination was recommended by a judge of the same court last week.

The Group D employees sought a stay on the order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of Calcutta High Court last Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

In another appeal, 800-odd Class-IX and Class-X teachers moved the same division bench seeking that the order passed by Justice Biswajit Basu of the same court, asking the SSC to start the process of terminating their services, be set aside.

The hearing on the appeal by Group D employees could not be concluded on Monday due to a shortage of time.

The other case moved by 805 teachers was heard by the division bench.

“My clients are yet to understand why it is being said that marks were not tallying with the OMR sheet,” the lawyer appearing for the teachers said.

WBSSC chairman Siddhartha Majumdar had told reporters last Friday they would brief the court this week about the steps the commission has taken for cancelling the recommendation of illegally appointed teachers.

The commission said it would act against 800-odd teachers because they got their jobs illegally.

The CBI report submitted in September stated that the board had appointed 11,425 candidates for the posts of teachers following recommendations from the WBSSC. Out of that, manipulation of marks were detected in 952 cases.

The WBSSC’s lawyer admitted that mistakes were done by some officials and said: “Since the recommendation of the court has already been implemented, it could not be changed further”.

The hearing was concluded but the division bench did not pass any order.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT