The school service commission (SSC) chief on Friday said they would tell the Supreme Court that it was possible to make a distinction between the deserving and the undeserving candidates among the 25,000-odd teachers and other employees at government-aided schools whose services were terminated by Calcutta High Court.

“The commission will definitely stand by those who got their jobs through fair means. We will try to assure the Supreme Court, where a case is being heard, that it is possible to make a distinction between those who are deserving and those who are not from this list (of the 25,700 candidates),” SSC chairperson Siddhartha Majumdar told a news conference.

The briefing was convened hours after a section of the 25,700-odd teaching and non-teaching employees who stand to lose their jobs following a Calcutta High Court order on April 22 held a protest outside the SSC office in Salt Lake.

“We had submitted a list of the undeserving candidates to the division bench of Calcutta High Court. Similarly, we can hand over the list of the disputed candidates to the Supreme Court. The commission will definitely stand by those who are not guilty or those who cannot be identified as tainted. This is the stand of the commission,” Majumdar said

On April 25, Majumdar had said at a news conference that the commission had informed the high court through three affidavits that 5,300 teaching and non-teaching employees had got their jobs allegedly through unfair means.

The SSC chairman had made the comment while countering the court’s
statement that the commission did not cooperate in tracing the candidates who had got their jobs allegedly through unfair means.

On April 29, the Bengal government, SSC and the state secondary education board had submitted before the Supreme Court that the high court’s April 22 order scrapping the jobs of all 25,700 candidates who had been appointed based on their performance in the 2016 selection tests, because of possible irregularities in some appointments, violated the principles of natural justice.

Chief Justice Chandrachud then observed: “You have to demonstrate that… on the basis of material available, it is possible to segregate who all are validly and invalidly appointed; who are the beneficiaries of the frauds.”

The apex court will again hear the case on May 6.

The SSC chairperson on Friday said it was in this context that he said that they would try to assure the Supreme Court that it was possible to make a distinction between the deserving and the undeserving candidates.

“A section of those who stand to lose jobs following the Calcutta High Court order was staging a protest outside the SSC office. I told the media persons who came to the office that it was possible to make a distinction between those who are deserving and those who are not,” Majumdar told Metro later.

When this newspaper sought to know how the commission would make a distinction, an official said: “We could give the apex court a list of the candidates against whom there are no allegations so far.”

The counsel for the Bengal government had submitted in the Supreme Court on Monday that the high court judgment violated the Supreme Court ruling in the Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others vs State of Punjab in 2006, which said the entire selection process cannot be cancelled because of irregularities in some appointments.