Today, On 16th October, The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, approved the withdrawal of a contempt petition against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee regarding her remarks on the SSC recruitment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff.
The Supreme Court of India has permitted the withdrawal of a contempt petition against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee concerning her remarks on a recent Supreme Court ruling about the appointment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff in the state via the State Level Selection Test-2016 (SLST).
During today’s proceedings, a bench led by Chief Justice Gavai was informed by the counsel that instructions had been given to withdraw the contempt petition.
In July, the bench, consisting of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod K Chandran, expressed concern over the politicization of the matter when Senior Advocate Maninder Singh stated that the petitioner sought the Attorney General’s consent to initiate contempt proceedings.
The bench cautioned,
“Are you sure you will get consent? We should dismiss it right now… don’t politicize such issues.”
In August, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its April 3, 2025, judgment, which invalidated the contentious West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment process, citing that the entire selection exercise was fundamentally compromised by fraud and cover-ups.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, noted that the review petitions were essentially attempts to reargue the matter, despite all factual and legal considerations having been thoroughly examined in the prior judgment.
The Court emphasized that the April ruling followed “extensive and exhaustive” hearings and took into account reports from the Justice (Retd.) R.K. Bag Committee, findings from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and admissions from both the SSC and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in their affidavits.
An important factor for both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court was the Commission’s failure to retain the original physical OMR sheets or their mirror copies.
The bench stated that this, along with attempts by authorities to hide lapses, made any verification of the recruitment process impossible.
The Court concluded that the entire selection process had been compromised due to such illegalities.
While acknowledging that cancelling appointments could lead to “heartburn and anguish” for untainted candidates, the Court maintained that preserving the integrity of public recruitment was essential.
The Bench reiterated,
“The purity of the selection process is of the highest priority and must remain pristine and free of infirmities.”
The judgment also upheld critical remarks against the involved authorities, holding them “wholly and solely responsible” for the scandal that has negatively affected the lives of many candidates, both tainted and untainted.
The Court dismissed applications to hear the review petitions in open court, stating that “such requests do not deserve to be entertained as the issue had already been comprehensively reviewed.“
In addition to dismissing the review petitions, all pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
The April 3 judgment had annulled the entire recruitment process while attempting to protect the interests of untainted candidates.
However, the Court was clear that systemic integrity could not be sacrificed for individual hardships.
Addressing untainted candidates, the Apex Court stated,
“Some candidates who do not fall within the ‘tainted’ category and may have previously worked in departments of the State Government or autonomous bodies will have the right to apply to their previous departments. Although their appointments stand cancelled, such applications must be processed within three months, and the candidates will be allowed to resume their positions.”
It directed that a new recruitment exercise should be conducted within three months.
The West Bengal government had filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of the Calcutta High Court’s order.
It also contested the direction for candidates who submitted blank OMR sheets but received appointments to return all remuneration and benefits to the State exchequer, along with interest calculated at 12% per annum from the date of receipt until deposit, within four weeks.
The petitioner additionally sought an interim stay on the high court’s judgment.
The high court’s ruling, delivered by Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi, noted that “the entire selection process was shrouded in such mystery and in such layers that it was difficult to fathom the quantum of illegalities performed.”
Consequently, the court concluded that it had no choice but to cancel all appointments in the four categories involved in the selection process.
The High Court’s decision to invalidate the SLST-2016 selection process was driven by numerous discrepancies uncovered throughout the proceedings, including procedural violations and instances of nepotism and favoritism, which raised doubts about the legitimacy of the appointments made through that process.
Case Title: Aatmadeep vs. Mamata Banerjee