THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
Ranchi, Sept 1: The Jharkhand High Court on Monday delivered a significant verdict in the TGT (Trained Graduate Teacher) recruitment case.
A single bench of Justice Deepak Roshan, while hearing the case of Meena Kumari and Others vs. Jharkhand Government [W.P.(S) No. 582/2023], pointed out several irregularities in the appointment process.
One-Man Committee to Lead Investigation
Taking cognisance of the matter, the court ordered the formation of a one-man fact-finding committee to investigate the entire recruitment process. At the same time, the state government and JSSC were directed to promptly fill the remaining 2,034 vacant posts.
The one-man committee will be headed by Jharkhand High Court Judge Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak. The court made it clear that the committee must thoroughly examine the entire process based on the reference points given.
Also Read- Over 500 dead as powerful earthquake devastates Afghanistan
Petitioners Cite Lack of Transparency
Senior advocates Ajit Kumar, Indrajit Sinha, and Aparajita Bhardwaj represented the petitioners and argued that the recruitment process was marred by serious irregularities and a lack of transparency.
This order is being seen as major relief for TGT candidates and a historic step towards ensuring transparency in the appointment process.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar informed the court that despite the Supreme Court’s directive, a revised merit list was neither issued nor produced before the bench.
Discrepancies in Candidate Lists
A list of 13,700 candidates was submitted to the court, but it contained several discrepancies. The affidavit filed by JSSC contradicted the state government’s resolution.
It was unclear how, if 8,172 appointments had already been made by 2024 as per the resolution, 8,820 appointments had been carried out in 2022.
Also Read- Modi, Putin, Xi join leaders at SCO’s 25th Summit to shape bloc’s future
Further, in the list of candidates provided by the government and JSSC, around 1,000 individuals were shown who had not taken up service. This raised the possibility that ineligible candidates were appointed against those posts.
The court observed that the matter involved grave irregularities, and directed that those whose appointments were found to be invalid should be removed through due process.
