69000 case: why was the bench changed at the settlement stage?
The advertisement for the 69000 teacher recruitment came out in 2018. In 2026 the case is still undecided. In the middle of 2026 it looked as if a one-time settlement could end the dispute. Then the bench changed, and the case is now being heard afresh on merits.
This article records a question. It does not answer it, because we do not know the answer. The facts are as of 6 October 2026. The full sequence of events is in the timeline article.
How close the settlement was
| Date | What the record shows | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 4 February 2026 | "We have indicated our mind to learned counsel appearing for the State." | Written order |
| 4 February 2026 | Justice Datta asked whether 6,800 could be accommodated, "even more than 6,800" | Aaj Tak report |
| 18 February 2026 | The State was "actively considering the matter, as per the observations made by this Court" | Written order |
| 19 May 2026 | The State was "ready and willing" to appoint candidates who come into the revised list. Conditions: vacancies, minimum qualification, and not to be treated as a precedent. Six weeks' time | Written order |
| 20 July 2026 | The State's affidavit, with a list of 8,270 names | Circulated annexure |
| 28 July 2026 | Parties to send suggestions. The Court would decide whether to use Article 142 to end the dispute or hear the case on merits | Written order |
The change
- Until 28 July 2026 the bench was headed by Justice Dipankar Datta.
- Since 4 August 2026 the case has been before the bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
- No order or official statement gives a reason for this.
Two things must be said together. First: the order of 19 May 2026 itself recorded that the matter was "not part-heard" and should be listed before "the regular Bench". Second: deciding which case goes to which bench is the Chief Justice's administrative power. So this change may also be a routine roster change.
What changed after that
- On 9 September 2026 the new bench divided the matters into eight categories and is hearing each category on merits.
- Hearing dates: 8 and 9, 16, 22 to 24, 29 and 30 September, and 6 October 2026. Since August there have been more hearings than before.
- By 30 September the reserved-category respondents and the State had not finished their arguments.
- Two remarks on Article 142 have been reported. Both appear only in blogs, not in any written order, and they point in different directions:
- 8 September: "Article 142 can't be used in deviation of law" (according to one commentator)
- 29 September: "we have the power under 142, we can think about it" (according to one blog)
- No source says how many days of hearing remain.
The questions
- Why did the bench change after the State's offer and the Court's reference to Article 142?
- What was the reason, and why was it not made public?
- If the case had stayed with the same bench, would the dispute have ended sooner?
- Who pays the price of each additional month?
To be plain: no official reason has been published, and this article does not know the answers to these questions. We are not questioning the intent of any judge.
What candidates are asking for
- That the reason for the change be made public.
- That a time-bound schedule be fixed for the remaining arguments.
- That a judgment be delivered, whichever side it favours.
Sources
- Supreme Court orders: 19 May 2026, 9 September 2026, 30 September 2026
- Aaj Tak, 4 February 2026
- Blogs (read these as claims): hearing of 8 September, hearing of 29 September, hearing of 6 October