Supreme Court refuses to interfere with judgment on West Bengal SSC Jobs scam

The Supreme Court today refused a plea filed by the husband of a candidate whose selection was quashed due to the court's April 3rd decision upholding the Calcutta High Court's April 22, 2024 judgement quashing the appointment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff in the State made through the State Level Selection Test-2016 (SLST).

A CJI Surya Kant led bench heard a petition filed by one Shawon Aditya, who appeared in person before Court. The bench observed that some untainted candidates may have suffered on account of the entire selection process being quashed.  Court further observed that it was open for the petitioner to approach high court with his specific grievance.

Recently, Supreme Court disposed of a batch of special leave petitions arising from the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) appointments litigation, directing all petitioners to approach the Calcutta High Court, which is already examining the matter in a pending writ petition. Significantly, the Court directed the High Court to ensure that no “tainted candidates” are allowed to slip through in the fresh rounds of recruitment “on any pretext.” It further ordered that the complete list of such tainted candidates must be placed in the public domain with full details to prevent any irregularity.

The Bench of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe also clarified that candidates who were earlier found untainted and permitted to sit for the fresh recruitment examinations cannot be adversely affected by the application of the newly notified West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment) Rules, 2025.

Notably, on August 5, 2025 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. Court had 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.

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.

Case Title: SHAWON ADITYA Vs UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Date: December 1, 2025