In a significant interim order, the Calcutta High Court has provided a 12-week reprieve to 313 primary teachers whose appointments under the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA) were earlier cancelled. A division bench stayed a single-judge order that had quashed their recruitment, observing that the unique political context of the Darjeeling hills at the time of their hiring was not adequately considered.
Bench Questions Single Judge's Oversight of Hill Context
The Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, comprising Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Biswaroop Chowdhury, passed the interim order on December 17, staying the ruling of Justice Biswajit Basu. The single bench had termed the appointments "illegal" and cancelled them. The division bench, however, pointed out a critical gap in the earlier judgment.
The bench specifically noted that "the context in which they were appointed was not considered" by the single judge. This context refers to the prolonged period of political unrest in the Darjeeling and Kalimpong hills, which, as argued by the GTA's counsel, made regular recruitment processes unfeasible.
GTA's Argument: A Policy Decision Amidst Turmoil
Advocate Avrotosh Majumdar, representing the GTA, presented a compelling case before the division bench. He submitted that the 313 individuals had initially served as temporary teachers for a period of 10 to 12 years. Their services were later regularized in March 2019 based on a notice issued by the state government's School Education Department.
Majumdar emphasized the practical crisis that would ensue from their immediate termination. "If their services are cancelled now, it will create serious problems in schools, especially with secondary examinations scheduled to begin in February," he argued. He maintained that the appointments were a qualified and trained workforce hired as a policy decision of the state, not an illegal act.
Legal Wrangling and Ongoing Probe
The counsel for the original petitioner, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, countered that appointments cannot bypass prescribed procedures. The division bench has directed all parties, including the petitioner, to file their detailed objections and submissions via affidavits within one month.
This case has a complex legal history. The single bench order on December 17 had not only quashed the recruitments but also directed the West Bengal Police's Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to continue its probe into alleged irregularities. Justice Basu had held that the School Education Department failed to justify the recruitment process, and the approvals could not withstand judicial scrutiny.
The controversy stems from a 2023 writ petition that challenged the legality of the 2019 regularizations, alleging corruption and violation of norms. In a related development in 2024, another division bench had upheld an order for a CBI probe into the recruitment, though the Supreme Court later stayed that order.
Background of the Appointment Controversy
The teachers were regularized through a letter from the then Principal Secretary of the School Education Department. This covered voluntary teachers working in secondary and higher secondary schools under the GTA in Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts.
However, the single bench had raised several red flags. It noted that several appointees lacked the mandatory BEd qualification. Furthermore, the appointments appeared to contravene a 2010 directive that barred the engagement of volunteer teachers without the written approval of the School Education Department.
The GTA had previously argued before the single bench that the volatile political situation in the hills in 2019 made a regular recruitment drive impossible—a contention the court at that time rejected. Earlier in April this year, the High Court had also ordered the suspension of the salaries of these 313 teachers.
The division bench's interim order now puts a temporary halt to the termination, directing a re-examination of the case with the crucial factor of regional political instability in mind. The next phase of hearings will depend on the affidavits submitted by the involved parties.
