The high court is set to hear a petition on June 9 challenging new recruitment rules for appointing schoolteachers at secondary and higher secondary levels in government-aided schools.

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, who accepted the petition on June 3, was unable to hear the case during his vacation bench on Thursday due to several urgent matters. The full court resumes on June 9 after the summer recess.

“We will check the cause list on June 8,” said lawyer Firdaus Shamim, representing the petitioner. “If the case is assigned to a regular bench on June 9, we’re ready. Otherwise, we’ll request an immediate hearing the following day.”

The challenge

Petitioner Lubana Parvin passed the state-level selection test (SLST) conducted by the school service commission in 2016 but remained wait-listed for an assistant teacher position. She is now challenging the SSC’s May 30 recruitment notification for fresh teacher appointments.

Parvin argues that the state government’s decision to award up to 10 marks for “prior teaching experience” and another 10 marks for “lecture demonstration” unfairly advantages certain groups.

She alleges these rules were specifically designed to benefit teachers who were appointed through the 2016 recruitment process that the Supreme Court has quashed.

On April 3, the Supreme Court terminated the appointments of 25,753 teaching and non-teaching staff, ruling that the entire 2016 SSC recruitment process was “vitiated” by irregularities.

However, the apex court provided partial relief on April 17, identifying 15,403 teachers as “not specifically tainted” and allowing them to continue working until December. These teachers must participate in fresh selection tests, tentatively scheduled for early September, to retain their positions beyond December 31.

Parvin contends that the new recruitment concessions were crafted specifically to help these 15,403 teachers succeed in the upcoming selection process.

Official response

An SSC official rejected the allegations, stating that no particular group was targeted while drafting the rules.

Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, the state’s counsel, told Metro: “The state has filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s April 3 order. These recruitment rules were necessary because the apex court’s April 17 order mandated them. We question whether this case filed in the vacation bench is even maintainable.”