SSC Recruitment Scam: Supreme court allows withdrawal of contempt plea against Mamata Banerjee

The Supreme Court of India today allowed the withdrawal of a contempt petition filed against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over her comments on a recent supreme court decision concerning the appointment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff in the State made through the State Level Selection Test-2016 (SLST).

A CJI Gavai led bench was told today by the counsel before it that instructions were given to withdraw the contempt petition.

In July, a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice Vinod K Chandran had expressed its concern over the politicization of the issue when Senior Advocate Maninder Singh informed the bench that the petitioner has sought the consent of the Attorney General for initiating contempt proceedings. "Are you sure you will get consent..we should dismiss it right now..dont politicize such issues..", the bench had told the senior counsel.

It is to be noted that in August the Supreme Court had dismissed review petitions challenging its April 3, 2025 judgment that had quashed the controversial West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment process, holding that the entire selection exercise was irretrievably compromised by fraud and cover-ups.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had observed that the review pleas were, in essence, an attempt to seek a re-hearing on merits, despite the fact that all factual and legal aspects had already been considered at length in the earlier judgment.

The Court noted that the April verdict was passed after “extensive and exhaustive” hearings and upon considering reports of the Justice (Retd.) R.K. Bag Committee, findings of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and admissions made by both the SSC and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in their affidavits.

One of the critical factors that weighed with both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court was the Commission’s failure to preserve the original physical OMR sheets or even their mirror copies. The Bench said that this, coupled with attempts by authorities to conceal lapses, rendered any verification of the recruitment process impossible. “The inevitable conclusion was that the entire selection process stood compromised owing to such illegalities,” the Court said.

Acknowledging that cancellation of appointments would cause “heartburn and anguish” to untainted candidates, the Court nevertheless stressed that protecting the sanctity of public recruitment was paramount. “The purity of the selection process is of the highest priority and must remain pristine and free of infirmities,” the Bench reiterated.

The judgment also upheld adverse remarks against the concerned authorities, observing that they were “wholly and solely responsible” for the scandal, which has adversely impacted the lives of thousands of candidates, both tainted and untainted.

Rejecting applications to have the review petitions heard in open court, the Bench said such pleas “do not deserve to be entertained” as the matter had already been examined comprehensively. Along with dismissing the review petitions, the Court also disposed of all pending interlocutory applications.

The April 3 judgment had invalidated the entire recruitment process while attempting to safeguard the interests of those found to be untainted, but the Court had made clear that systemic integrity could not be sacrificed to individual hardship.

While addressing the untainted candidates, the Apex Court in its April Judgment had ordered, "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 had further directed that a fresh recruitment exercise be conducted within three months.

The West Bengal government had filed a plea in the Supreme Court questioning the correctness of the Calcutta High Court's order. It also challenged the direction to the candidates who submitted blank OMR sheets but obtained appointments, to return all remunerations and benefits received by them to the State exchequer along with interest calculated at 12 % per annum, from the date of receipt thereof till deposit, within a period of four weeks. The petitioner had also sought an interim stay on the operation of the high court's judgment in the matter.

In its judgment, the high court's bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi had observed 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.” As a consequence, the court had held that “it was left with the only option of cancelling all appointments in the four categories of the selection process involved.”

The High Court's decision to nullify the SLST-2016 selection process was motivated by a multitude of discrepancies uncovered during the proceedings. These irregularities ranged from procedural violations to instances of nepotism and favouritism, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the appointments made through the said process.

Case Title: Aatmadeep vs. Mamata Banerjee

Hearing Date: October 16, 2025

Bench: CJI and Justice Vinod Chandran