School Jobs Scam Case | Modify & republish ‘tainted’ candidates names: HC to SSC

The petitioners argued that publishing OMR sheets and other details was necessary to determine the eligibility of these candidates.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted, “Tainted candidates’ names have been published in the interview list (naming one — Nitish Ranjan Barman). Fourteen in the interview list, 958 in the ‘tainted’ list. Is this the same person? That is our query. These persons could not be allowed to appear. This can all be done if the OMR sheets and other details are published only then can this be determined.”

“To make it absolutely transparent the publishing of OMR sheets is needed, to see who has slipped in or the others who have been brought in. This is a deceptive way to mislead the court. Why will the SSC hide the information.?” the petitioner’s counsel further submitted.

The WBSSC’s counsel submitted that some ‘tainted’ candidates, including disabled individuals, had been protected by the Supreme Court and should be allowed to participate in the selection process. “Barman is physically handicapped and the Supreme Court has protected him. Narayan Chandra Pal is also physically handicapped protected by the SC. Secondly, the spelling is not correct and the Commission could not verify their identity. In consideration of their disability – the disabled candidates will be allowed to participate in the selection process,” the  SSC counsel submitted.

The single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha, observed, “Do you want to give concession to the tainted disabled candidates? The tainted candidates that are there will continue till the fresh selection process. That means you say you knew they were in the tainted list but they have been given consideration as they are disabled.”

After hearing all sides the court ordered, “It appears that the Supreme Court made it clear that other differently abled candidates will not be entitled to the same benefits as given in case of Soma Das as it would contradict legal principle and rule of law. However, considering their disability, candidates may continue and receive wages till the new recruitment process is completed.” The court also held that the disabled candidates will be permitted to participate in the fresh process with age relaxation and other concessions.

The bench observed, “In August, the SC recorded the SSC’s submission that no “tainted” candidates from the 2016 recruitment process would be allowed to participate in the 2025 selection test. However, if any such candidates managed to slip through, their eligibility would be scrutinized…” “Since the OMR sheets have not been published, the Commission needs to release the list of “tainted” candidates with additional details, including father’s name, subject, to facilitate identification and removal of ineligible candidates. Accordingly the commission shall take steps in regards to the tainted candidates in the selection test,” Justice Sinha said.

From the homepage

US clears Excalibur artillery shells, Javelin anti-tank systems for India

SC clarifies Governor’s powers: How it answered 14 questions referred by President

90% of selected students Muslim, Sangh outfits want admission for Vaishnodevi medical college scrapped