Calcutta High Court bars all tainted candidates from the 2016 SSC panel from reapplying in fresh school job recruitment. The court upheld SC’s ruling on widespread fraud in the scam-tainted selection process.
Kolkata: On July 7, the Calcutta High Court, passed a major order in connection with the ongoing SSC recruitment scam in West Bengal. The court directed the School Service Commission (SSC) to carry out a fresh recruitment process for both teaching and non-teaching positions.
However, the court made it clear that candidates who were earlier found to be “undeserving” and “tainted” during the investigation into the infamous cash-for-jobs scam will not be allowed to apply again.
ALSO READ: SSC Job Scam| “CBI Must Show the Information About Job Sales”: Calcutta HC
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya rejected the arguments presented by SSC’s counsel and Trinamool Congress MP, Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, who said that the Supreme Court had not specifically mentioned that tainted candidates should be excluded from the new recruitment.
The judge firmly ruled that any applicant from the controversial 2016 panel who was found to have secured a job using illegal methods would not be allowed to participate in the new recruitment drive.
The High Court clarified that anyone who used unfair means to get jobs in government-run and government-aided schools during the 2016 recruitment process would not be considered eligible this time. These candidates, already identified as tainted, have lost their right to apply.
Earlier in April, the Supreme Court of India had upheld a decision of the Calcutta High Court which cancelled the jobs of 25,753 teaching and non-teaching staff members who were appointed through the 2016 recruitment process.
The apex court described the entire process as completely invalid. The two-judge bench consisting of then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and Justice Sanjay Kumar, said:
“In our opinion, this case is where the entire selection process has been vitiated. Manipulation and fraud on a large scale, coupled with the intention to cover up have tainted the selection process beyond repair.”
The bench added that the entire recruitment was filled with serious wrongdoing, and there was no reason to stop the High Court’s verdict from being enforced.
“The legibility and credibility of the selection procedure are denuded. We find no reason to interfere in the HC verdict, since the appointments are by fraud and we see no reason to interfere.”
In strong words regarding the tainted candidates, the Supreme Court had said:
“For candidates who have been specifically found to be tainted, their entire selection process has been rightly declared null and void due to egregious violations and illegalities which violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As such the appointment of these candidates is cancelled.”
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had earlier announced that a total of 44,203 vacant posts would be filled up through a fresh recruitment process.
The Supreme Court had directed that this new recruitment be completed by December 31, 2025.
After this announcement, the SSC released new advertisements for recruitment, following which many cases were filed in the Calcutta High Court challenging various aspects of the process.
During the hearing, advocate Bikash Bhattacharya, who is also a Rajya Sabha MP from the CPM, and advocate Anindya Mitra, representing deserving candidates, pointed out that the Supreme Court had clearly stated tainted candidates must not be allowed in the recruitment process.
They argued that the SSC failed to explain properly who is eligible to take part in the exams, which they said goes against the SC’s instructions.
“The SSC did not clarify who are qualified to appear for the exams, which was in violation of the SC’s order. If SSC wants to award those who bought their jobs they can do so,” Mitra said in court.
In a key part of his earlier ruling, then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, also stated:
“The number of established tainted candidates is substantially high in number.”
He also made it clear that the dismissed Group-C and Group-D staff could not be allowed to continue in their current positions.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to the 2016 State Level Selection Test (SLST) conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in government-run and government-aided schools.
After the recruitment process was completed, several complaints began surfacing, alleging large-scale irregularities, bribery, and favoritism in the appointment of thousands of candidates.
Whistleblowers and aggrieved candidates alleged that jobs were sold in exchange for money and that many “undeserving” individuals were appointed by manipulating marks, answer sheets, and merit lists.
These allegations led to multiple public interest litigations being filed in the Calcutta High Court demanding an investigation.
The court later ordered a probe, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was brought in. During the investigation, it was discovered that widespread corruption had taken place in the recruitment process, involving senior officials, politicians, and middlemen.
Several high-profile arrests were made, including that of former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee.
In response, the Calcutta High Court cancelled the appointments of 25,753 candidates, stating that the entire process had been compromised.
The order affected both Group-C and Group-D staff, as well as assistant teachers appointed through the tainted panel.
The matter reached the Supreme Court of India, which, in April 2024, upheld the Calcutta High Court’s ruling. The apex court confirmed that the recruitment was fraudulent and violated constitutional principles of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16.
It held that the entire recruitment process was “vitiated” due to “manipulation and fraud on a large scale”.
Following this, the West Bengal government announced a fresh recruitment drive to fill 44,203 vacancies, which the Supreme Court ordered must be completed before December 31, 2025.
However, fresh legal challenges were filed, especially concerning whether the dismissed (tainted) candidates could reapply.
Case Title:
Sujoy Kumar Doloi & Anr v The State of West Bengal & Ors
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On SSC
