Jobs Sold Like A Commodity: Calcutta HC Cancels Appointment Of 36,000 Untrained Primary School Teachers Recruited...
🔹 Context and Background
In some recruitment drives, especially in public service sectors like education, there have been allegations and instances where:
Appointments are given without following due process.
Candidates appointed lack mandatory qualifications or training.
Appointments may be influenced by corruption, favoritism, or even direct sale of jobs.
This leads to compromised service quality, loss of public trust, and undermines meritocracy.
When courts intervene, they seek to restore legality and fairness by canceling appointments obtained irregularly, especially when recruitment rules or statutory conditions are flouted.
🔹 Key Issues in the Case
Mass recruitment of 36,000 primary school teachers without mandatory training.
Allegations that jobs were treated as commodities, implying appointments were bought or sold rather than earned by merit.
Failure of the recruiting authority to ensure candidates met the eligibility criteria.
The adverse impact on the education system due to untrained teachers.
The need to maintain public confidence in the recruitment process.
🔹 Legal Principles Involved
1. Legality and Validity of Appointments
Appointment must comply with recruitment rules and eligibility criteria.
No one can claim a right to appointment if they do not fulfill mandatory qualifications.
2. Doctrine of Public Trust
Public employment in education affects fundamental rights (right to education).
The State is under a duty to ensure qualified and trained teachers are appointed.
3. Jobs are not Commodities
Jobs are a public trust and not marketable goods.
Sale or purchase of jobs amounts to corruption and abuse of power.
Courts have consistently condemned such practices.
🔹 Landmark Case Law & Reasoning
✅ Calcutta High Court’s Decision (2023) on 36,000 Teachers
The High Court struck down appointments of untrained teachers.
Held that appointment without prescribed training is illegal.
Emphasized that treating jobs like commodities violates constitutional principles.
Cancelled appointments to uphold merit, public interest, and rule of law.
✅ State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 142
Supreme Court held that appointments must follow fair procedure.
No appointment can be sustained if based on fraud, misrepresentation, or non-compliance with rules.
✅ Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398
The Supreme Court reiterated that appointments made in violation of eligibility norms and rules are illegal.
Courts have the power to quash such appointments even if made long ago.
✅ Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1
The Court held that temporary or permanent appointments must comply with recruitment rules.
Illegally appointed candidates cannot claim legitimate expectation or continuity.
🔹 Why Courts Cancel Such Appointments?
To maintain integrity and transparency in public service recruitment.
To protect public interest by ensuring only qualified personnel serve.
To deter corrupt practices where jobs are sold or traded.
To uphold rule of law and equal opportunity principles.
🔹 Impact of Such Judgments
Sends a strong message against commercialization of jobs.
Ensures future recruitments adhere strictly to rules and merit.
Protects the quality of public services (education, health, etc.).
Helps restore public confidence in government institutions.
🔹 Summary Table
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Irregular Appointments | Appointing untrained, ineligible candidates |
| Jobs as Commodities | Jobs treated as bought/sold, corrupt practice |
| Court’s Role | Cancel appointments violating recruitment rules |
| Legal Basis | Compliance with eligibility, merit, public trust doctrine |
| Result | Appointment cancellations; emphasis on lawful hiring |
🔚 Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s cancellation of 36,000 untrained primary school teachers highlights the judiciary’s proactive role in combating irregularities and corruption in public employment. It reaffirms that jobs in the public sector are not mere commodities to be bought or sold, but a public trust to be safeguarded through merit, fairness, and legality.
This judgment aligns with long-standing judicial principles emphasizing fair recruitment, strict adherence to qualifications, and protection of public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments