The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions filed by West Bengal challenging the cancellation of nearly 24,000 WBSSC appointments in 2016. The Court stressed that protecting the integrity of the selection process is paramount, despite hardships to candidates.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a set of review petitions filed by the State of West Bengal and others, challenging the top court’s April 3 judgment which had upheld the cancellation of nearly 24,000 appointments made in 2016 by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC).
A Bench of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the review petitions were essentially
“nothing more than a plea for re-hearing on merits.”
The Court stated,
“These review petitions which, in effect, seek a re-hearing of the entire matter on merits, therefore, do not deserve to be entertained as all relevant aspects have already been examined and considered comprehensively. The applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are, accordingly, rejected,”
The Bench highlighted that the April 3 judgment was delivered after hearing extensive and exhaustive arguments, taking into account all factual and legal aspects.
A critical factor, the order noted, was the WBSSC’s inability to preserve the original records.
The Bench said,
“The failure on the part of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission to retain the original physical OMR sheets or at least the mirror copies thereof was a significant factor which weighed with the High Court and with this Court,”
The Court added that attempts by authorities to cover up lapses and illegalities made verification and assessment much harder, ultimately showing that “the entire selection process was compromised owing to such illegalities.”
Regarding the impact of the April ruling, the Court acknowledged that it caused difficulties for candidates.
The order noted,
“No doubt, invalidation of such untainted appointments would lead to heartburn and anguish, which the Court was fully conscious of, but protecting the purity of the selection process is paramount and necessarily has to be given the highest priority,”
The Bench also stated that the adverse remarks against State authorities were justified.
“The adverse remarks made against the authorities concerned, who were wholly and solely responsible for this entire imbroglio, adversely affecting the lives of thousands of candidates, untainted and tainted, were fully warranted and justified,”
the Court remarked while rejecting the review petitions.
The April 3 judgment, delivered by a Bench of then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, had upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to cancel the 2016 recruitment for assistant teachers in classes IX to XII and non-teaching staff in government and aided schools. The recruitment process had resulted in the appointment of nearly 24,000 candidates.
The Supreme Court had earlier held that the selection process was
“vitiated and riddled with manipulations and fraud”
and observed that attempts at cover-up had
“only further denuded its credibility.”
The judgment, authored by the Chief Justice, declared the entire recruitment exercise unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment.
While striking down all appointments, the Court had allowed limited relief to candidates. It clarified that those whose services were terminated would not be required to refund salaries and benefits already received.
It also directed that disabled candidates could continue in service until a fresh selection was completed and would receive age relaxation when appearing again.
The judgment recognized the situation of candidates who had resigned from other government positions to join the tainted 2016 appointments.
It provided that such candidates could approach their previous departments for reinstatement, and the State was instructed to process their applications, ensuring protection of their seniority and other service benefits, though back wages for the intervening period would not be given. The exercise was to be completed within three months.
Importantly, the April 3 ruling also made it clear that
“no further recruitment could be made on the basis of the tainted process.”
Case Title:
State of West Bengal vs Baisakhi Bhattacharya
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Teachers Recruitment
