The Supreme Court of India is hearing 124 petitions challenging a Calcutta High Court ruling that annulled the appointments of 25,753 teachers in West Bengal over alleged irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process. Advocates argue for the protection of innocent candidates’ rights amid concerns about the mass cancellation’s fairness and potential negative impacts on their lives and careers.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (Jan 15th) began hearing 124 petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court’s 2024 ruling that nullified the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in government and aided schools across West Bengal. The verdict had sent shockwaves, particularly among untainted appointees, as it overturned recruitment stemming from the 2016 State Level Selection Test (SLST), citing widespread irregularities.
A panel of senior advocates, including Dushyant Dave, Mukul Rohatgi, Kapil Sibal, Vikas Singh, and Menaka Guruswamy, presented arguments on behalf of the affected candidates.
Dushyant Dave initiated the arguments, criticizing the High Court’s decision to expand a limited inquiry into a CBI probe and invalidate all appointments. He said:
Read Also: Delhi High Court Asks Election Commission To Consider Adopting Technological Tools To Eliminate Duplicate Names In Voters List
“To order a limited inquiry and to then take that into a full-scale inquiry by the CBI and to say that everything is bad and to say all should go out—this is not correct.”
Dave emphasized the “adverse impact on appointees’ lives and livelihoods” and urged the Court to safeguard the rights of innocent candidates.
The Calcutta High Court, in April 2024, had annulled the appointments after uncovering irregularities like OMR sheet tampering and rank-jumping. It identified over 1,000 excess appointments beyond the 24,640 sanctioned posts and flagged cases where blank OMR sheets were submitted yet appointments were made.
The High Court also directed the refund of salaries and emoluments paid to those illegally recruited, with 12% annual interest. However, it allowed the CBI to continue its probe but halted coercive actions against appointees.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna acknowledged the arguments, emphasizing the importance of “balancing justice and fairness.” He remarked:
“When there were so many irregularities, it became impossible to know who were genuinely appointed and who manipulated the process.”
The bench suggested exploring the segregation of cases to protect innocent candidates and noted that setting aside the entire recruitment process might be unfair if the tainted cases could be isolated.
Read Also: Mathura Shahi Idgah Row | Supreme Court Defers Hearing on Mosque Panel’s Plea to March
Key Issues Raised by Petitioners
- Protection of Unaffected Candidates:
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that appointees selected from the main panel should not be penalized, as no allegations of wrongdoing were made against them. - Premature Decision:
Rohatgi also pointed out that the High Court ruled prematurely, even before receiving forensic reports from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Kolkata. - Proportionality of Action:
Kapil Sibal criticized the “disproportionate nature” of the High Court’s mass cancellation and called for a balanced response that does not punish untainted candidates for the actions of a few. - Technical Evidence Reliability:
Vikas Singh raised concerns over discrepancies in the evidence, especially data derived from hard disks, which revealed inconsistent figures of tampered OMR sheets. - Candidates’ Age Limit:
Several advocates highlighted that most candidates affected by the cancellation have now crossed the age limit for competitive exams, compounding their loss.
The case revolves around alleged corruption in the 2016 SLST recruitment process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC). Over 23 lakh candidates appeared for 24,640 posts, but 25,753 appointment letters were issued, raising suspicions of fraud.
The Supreme Court previously termed the recruitment process a “systemic fraud” and directed the state authorities to maintain digitized records for further analysis.
In May 2024, the apex court stayed the High Court’s decision, allowing the CBI to continue its investigation without taking coercive actions. It also called for clarity on whether tainted and untainted appointments could be separated.
The Supreme Court will continue the hearing on January 27, 2025, to decide whether segregation of cases is feasible and how justice can be served without disproportionately harming untainted candidates.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
