At the end of a long and tense hearing on Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench set aside the 2023 Single Judge order that had cancelled the appointment of nearly 32,000 primary teachers. The courtroom saw anxious faces-teachers, lawyers, and even a few observers from various districts-waiting for clarity on a controversy lingering for years.
Background
The matter arose from a writ petition filed in 2022 by 140 unsuccessful candidates of the 2016 primary teacher recruitment cycle. They alleged irregularities in the selection, especially regarding the participation of “untrained” candidates.
The Single Judge, relying on selective material and suo motu inquiries, cancelled all 32,000 appointments in May 2023 and directed a fresh recruitment limited to 2016 candidates. This triggered widespread panic among working teachers who had already completed their training as per Rule 6(3) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules.
Multiple appeals (MAT 873/2023 and connected matters) followed. The Supreme Court also intervened briefly, staying portions of interim directions and asking the High Court to decide the appeals promptly.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench went deep into the record-almost line by line-to examine whether cancellation of thousands of jobs was legally sustainable.
A key moment came when Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty remarked during the hearing, “Courts cannot rewrite the recruitment rules, nor can they grant reliefs never prayed for.”
The bench repeatedly highlighted:
- Absence of pleadings: The writ petition never sought cancellation of appointments; no specific allegation of fraud against any individual teacher existed.
- Violation of natural justice: The affected teachers were not made parties before their jobs were cancelled.
- Overreach by Single Judge: The Court noted that calling witnesses, questioning interviewers, and drawing broad conclusions without proper evidentiary basis could not justify mass cancellation.
- Lack of proof of fraud: “No material has been brought on record to reach any irresistible conclusion that fraud or corruption was practiced,” the bench observed.
- Media influence: The judgment even noted that excessive media coverage had created an atmosphere of suspicion, which may have indirectly influenced earlier judicial directions.
In a telling comment included in the order, the bench observed, “Fraud cannot be presumed. It must be proved by cogent evidence.”
The Court also emphasized that many teachers had already completed their training within the statutory period and had served without interruption for six to seven years.
Decision
After evaluating all submissions, precedents, and statutory rules, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order in its entirety.
The appeals were allowed, and the appointments of the 32,000 teachers were restored without any adverse condition. Directions for a fresh recruitment process were also quashed.
The matter concluded with the Court noting that judicial review cannot become an instrument to penalize thousands without clear evidence: a line that drew visible relief among the present teachers.
Case Title: The West Bengal Board of Primary Education vs. Priyanka Naskar & Others
Case Type: Appeals (Division Bench) arising out of writ petition challenging 2016 Primary Teacher Recruitment
Appeal Number: MAT 873 of 2023 (with connected appeals)
Original Writ Petition: WPA 996 of 2022
Decision Date: 2 December 2024
