Calcutta High Court Questions West Bengal's Allowance for Dismissed Non-Teaching Staff

Judicial Scrutiny of State Allowance Policy

On Monday, the Calcutta High Court raised concerns regarding the West Bengal government's decision to grant a monthly allowance to non-teaching staff who lost their positions following a Supreme Court ruling in April that identified irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process.

Justice Amrita Sinha has reserved her judgment but expressed skepticism about the state's use of public funds for this allowance, questioning the rationale behind it.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by a waitlisted candidate who was not appointed despite being on the merit list, allegedly due to the aforementioned irregularities.

Earlier, on April 3, the Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court's decision to terminate the appointments of approximately 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff by the West Bengal School Service Commission, citing manipulation and fraud in the recruitment process.

On April 17, the Supreme Court allowed 'untainted' teachers to remain in their positions until the academic year concludes or until new appointments are made, whichever comes first. However, this ruling did not extend to Group C and Group D employees, whose appointments were also annulled.

In response to the Supreme Court's decisions, the state government announced in April that the dismissed non-teaching staff would receive a monthly allowance until the Supreme Court resolved the review petitions.

During the recent hearing, the High Court questioned the justification for providing a monthly allowance ranging from Rs 20,000 to Rs 25,000 to these dismissed employees.

Justice Sinha remarked, 'Thousands of aspirants remain unemployed, yet those whose appointments were cancelled are being compensated for idleness?'

Advocate General Kishore Dutta, representing the state, defended the allowance, stating it was in accordance with a government policy that must be adhered to.

The High Court emphasized that the disbursement of funds could not be expedited without following necessary protocols.

Justice Sinha also inquired whether there was any support for candidates who were denied jobs due to the recruitment irregularities.

Dutta explained that the allowance was provided on humanitarian grounds due to the abrupt loss of income faced by the dismissed staff, asserting that the scheme was temporary and would cease once the Supreme Court made its ruling.

In April 2024, the High Court had issued a directive to terminate the appointments based on findings from a re-evaluation of Optical Mark Recognition sheets from the 2016 recruitment examination, which revealed that selected teachers had been appointed based on incomplete sheets.