• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the CBI to continue its investigation into the West Bengal teacher recruitment case. However, it has been added that no coercive steps should be taken against any official or candidate. Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had ordered the termination of 25,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in state-run and state-aided schools in West Bengal.

The decision by the top court comes as a relief to the thousands of individuals whose jobs were at stake following the ruling of the high court on April 22, which invalidated the appointment of over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff.

According to news agency PTI, the apex court termed the alleged recruitment scam "systemic fraud" and added that the authorities were duty-bound to maintain the digitised records pertaining to the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court's April 22 decision that invalidated the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in state-run and state-aided schools in West Bengal.

"The public job is so scarce.... Nothing remains if the faith of the public goes. This is systemic fraud. Public jobs are extremely scarce today and are looked at for social mobility. What remains in the system if their appointments are also maligned? People will lose faith, how do you countenance this?" the CJI asked the lawyers representing the state government.

ALSO READ: Excise Policy Case: Delhi Court Extends Judicial Custody Of BRS Leader Kavitha Till May 14

The bench said that the state government has nothing to show that the data was maintained by its authorities and asked about its availability.

"Either you have the data or you do not have it.... You were duty-bound to maintain the documents in digitised form. Now, it is obvious that there is no data. You are unaware of the fact that your service provider has engaged another agency. You had to maintain supervisory control," the bench told the state government's lawyers.

Earlier, the state had challenged the order by the high court, saying that it cancelled the appointment "arbitrarily".