School Jobs: Calcutta HC Reserves Judgment On Plea Over Monetary Support To Non-Teaching Staff

School Jobs

The Calcutta High Court on Monday reserved its judgment on a petition challenging the West Bengal government’s recently introduced scheme aimed at providing monetary relief to sacked non-teaching staff, who lost their jobs due to a Supreme Court ruling.

Justice Amrita Sinha reserved the verdict after hearing arguments in a petition filed by waitlisted candidates from the 2016 West Bengal School Service Commission recruitment process, which the apex court had found to be compromised.

Background

Following the Supreme Court’s annulment of appointments made through the 2016 WBSSC recruitment drive, nearly 26,000 teachers and non-teaching employees in government-aided and -sponsored schools were dismissed. In response, the West Bengal government rolled out a temporary financial support scheme to assist impacted Group C & Group D non-teaching staff.

Under the scheme, the government promised to provide ₹25,000 to Group C and ₹20,000 to Group D personnel, offering what it called “limited livelihood support and social security on humanitarian grounds”, subject to future court rulings.

Petitioners Argue Scheme Violates Court Order

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Bikash Bhattacharya argued that the state has no authority under Article 162 of the Constitution to enact a scheme that undermines or unsettles a binding Supreme Court judgment.

“Article 162 is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and does not empower the state to introduce a scheme to frustrate the judgment of the Supreme Court,” Bhattacharya asserted.

He requested the court to intervene and stay the scheme, alleging that the initiative essentially attempts to bypass judicial scrutiny and reinstate benefits to those whose appointments had already been declared void.

State Defends Scheme

Opposing the petition, Advocate General Kishore Dutta argued that the scheme was already operational, with the first instalment of payments disbursed.

Dutta challenged the petitioners’ standing, stating, “The waitlisted candidates who are petitioners have no grievance with this scheme. If they believe the scheme violates the Supreme Court’s ruling, they should approach the apex court itself.”

In a verbal observation, Justice Sinha asked the state to pause further disbursals under the scheme until the court delivers its judgment.

As the court deliberates its verdict, the case raises key questions about the scope of state executive powers and the limits of post-judgment remedial measures, especially in light of orders passed by the Supreme Court.

The judgment, once delivered, is expected to set a significant precedent on state discretion in offering humanitarian support versus the inviolability of apex court rulings.