Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a major relief to untainted teachers, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday, April 17, allowed Assistant Teachers in West Bengal, whose appointments had been cancelled due to irregularities found in the 2016 recruitment process, to continue until fresh appointments are made.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar clarified that the decision was taken keeping in view the fact that students undergoing studies should not suffer due to the cancellation of appointments following the irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process.

However, the court refused to extend said relief to the teaching staff falling under the Groups C and D categories, noting that the number of “tainted” candidates was significantly higher. 

Court, accordingly, asked the West Bengal government and the West Bengal Staff Selection Commission to advertise fresh Assistant Teacher posts by May 31, 2025, and to complete the recruitment process by December 31.

On April 3, the top court upheld 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 bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had observed that the entire selection process was vitiated by "manipulation and fraud." 

“We uphold the impugned judgment cancelling the entire selection process,” the court had said.

Court had accordingly cancelled the appointment of tainted candidates while directing them to refund salaries or payments received.

While addressing the untainted candidates, the court 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."

Court had further directed that a fresh recruitment exercise be conducted within three months.

On 12 February, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on pleas filed against Calcutta High Court's April 22, 2024 judgement quashing the appointment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff in the state.

The West Bengal government 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 also sought an interim stay on the operation of the high court's judgment in the matter.

In May 2024, the Supreme Court had stayed the high court's impugned order while adding that the ad interim protection would continue but any person found to have been appointed illegally shall undertake to refund the salary drawn by them if the case is eventually decided against them.

The apex court's special bench comprising CJI and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan began hearing this case on December 19, 2024, with the state and untainted candidates making submissions.

In what is called as cash-for-job scam, the CBI arrested former state education minister Partha Chatterjee and other bigwigs and recovered huge caches of cash during the investigation.

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.

Cast Title: The State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya