“Appointments Declared Null and Void”: Supreme Court Cancels West Bengal School Recruitments Over Widespread Manipulations; Orders Salary Recovery and Fresh Selection
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court, Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Justice Sanjay Kumar, allowed the appeals and declared that all appointments made through the State Level Selection Test 2016 conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission were null and void. The Court directed the cancellation of the appointments and held that a fresh selection process must be initiated. It ordered tainted candidates to refund the amounts received with interest and directed the termination of services of all appointees under the invalidated process. It permitted eligible candidates to approach their previous employers for reinstatement. The Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to continue its investigation, and the matter concerning the creation of supernumerary posts will be listed separately on 08.04.2025.
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission had conducted the State Level Selection Test in 2016 for recruitment of assistant teachers and non-teaching staff in government-aided schools. The Commission recommended candidates for the posts of Assistant Teachers for Classes IX–X and XI–XII, Upper Primary Teachers, and Group C and D staff. Several writ petitions were filed before the Calcutta High Court alleging manipulations in the selection process.
A Single Judge of the High Court appointed a committee chaired by a former Judge. The committee submitted reports highlighting various illegalities, including tampering with OMR sheets, issuance of recommendation letters from expired panels, and discrepancies in appointment letters. A report submitted on 20.07.2023 identified manipulated appointments of 907 candidates through OMR tampering, 222 through expired panels, and 3,023 through unrecorded recommendation letters. The total number of tainted appointments was recorded as 3,846.
The Commission filed affidavits before the Supreme Court admitting that it was not possible to verify the authenticity of these appointments due to missing records. It stated that recommendation letters had been issued outside the online system, in batches, and without transparency. It also admitted that scanned OMR sheets were not uploaded despite court directions.
The Court noted that several appointment letters were issued by the Education Department instead of the Commission. The records lacked rank or merit position of appointees, and there was no order of appointment in several cases. The Commission failed to comply with repeated directions to publish details on its website.
The Central Bureau of Investigation, entrusted with the probe, submitted that tampering of OMR sheets, manipulation of data, and issuance of forged recommendation letters had occurred. It referred to deliberate creation of an alternative corridor to appoint ineligible candidates. The CBI also stated that some appointments were made post panel-expiry and without statutory authority.
Petitioners argued that the appointments should not be invalidated as candidates had no role in the irregularities. Some submitted that they were already in government service or with autonomous bodies prior to appointment. Others claimed that they were differently-abled and should be allowed to continue.
The State authorities contended that the entire selection process had been compromised and urged the Court to annul all appointments. It was also submitted that the candidates should not benefit from illegalities or fraud. The High Court had directed that tainted candidates must refund the amount received by them, and those who were not specifically identified as tainted could not continue in service.
The Commission supported the State’s stance and submitted that the appointments made through expired panels and those lacking proper recommendation records were not legally sustainable.
The Court considered the affidavits of the Commission and the findings of the CBI and held that the selection process stood vitiated due to systemic manipulations. The Commission’s inability to distinguish between legally and illegally appointed candidates further aggravated the issue. The legal principle that fraud vitiates everything was applied.
The Court observed that “there are egregious violations and illegalities in the selection process that vitiate the entire process and violate the principles of equal opportunity.” It held that no candidate could claim protection in appointments arising out of a void selection. It stated that “the selection process stands irredeemably tainted and cannot be salvaged.”
The Court noted that the Commission’s failure to upload scanned OMR sheets despite repeated orders demonstrated a lack of transparency. It held that “recommendations and appointments based on tampered OMR sheets, post-expiry panels, and forged recommendation letters are illegal and unenforceable.”
On the question of equity for untainted candidates, the Court stated that “where a process is tainted by fraud and illegality, no presumption of legality can arise, even for those who are not individually culpable.” The entire process, in such cases, must be treated as void.
The Court recorded that the appointees had failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right, as they had not been appointed based on a valid and transparent process. It stated that “public employment is governed by principles of law and not by sympathy or hardship.”
It held that appointments arising from a fraudulent selection process amount to unjust enrichment and that “refund of salaries is justified in cases where fraud is established.”
On the aspect of prior employment, the Court recorded that “candidates who were previously serving in government departments or autonomous bodies may apply for re-employment.” It directed that such applications be processed within three months, without treating the break as discontinuity, though no salary would be payable for the disputed period.
In relation to differently-abled candidates, the Court noted the specific case of Ms. Soma Das, whose continuation in service had been allowed by the High Court. The Court did not interfere with that direction but clarified that “other similarly placed candidates shall not be entitled to the same benefit.” However, they would be allowed to continue and receive wages until a fresh selection process is completed.
The Supreme Court declared that all 3,846 appointments made through the 2016 selection process were null and void and stood cancelled. It directed the Commission to initiate a fresh selection process after the conclusion of the Lok Sabha elections.
It ordered that “scanned OMR sheets and interview marks of all candidates shall be uploaded on the website of the Commission within six weeks.” The Commission was also directed to publish the merit list and recommendation details for public access.
It was directed that candidates found to have benefitted from fraudulent processes or manipulation must refund the entire amount received by them during their tenure. The refund shall include interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt and must be paid to the State within four months.
Candidates not found to be tainted, but whose appointments are nevertheless void, will not be required to make any refund. However, their services stand terminated with immediate effect.
The Court permitted previously employed candidates to apply for reinstatement to their former positions in government departments or autonomous institutions. It was directed that “such applications shall be processed within three months and no wages shall be paid for the intervening period.” Seniority and entitlements will be preserved, and supernumerary posts may be created if necessary.
In relation to differently-abled candidates, it was ordered that they “shall continue and receive wages until the fresh selection process is completed,” but no legal entitlement shall arise based on the impugned process.
The Court also clarified that the Central Bureau of Investigation may continue its inquiry and conduct custodial interrogation or arrests, if necessary. It was authorised to file supplementary charge sheets and proceed under law.
Finally, the Court recorded that it will “independently take up the issue raised in the appeal(s) filed by the State of West Bengal with regard to the direction of investigation by the CBI on the decision taken to create supernumerary posts.” It directed that “the Special Leave Petition(s) to this extent will be listed for hearing on 08.04.2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Kunal Mimani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Adeel Ahmed, Advocate; Kunal Chatterji, Advocate; Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Advocate; Shekhar Kumar, Advocate
For the Impleaders: Shekhar Kumar, Advocate; Sadhana Sandhu, Advocate; Jagrati Singh, Advocate; Amit Pawan, Advocate; Kunal Malik, Advocate; Subhasish Bhowmick, Advocate
For the Intervenors: Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate; Sunny Kadiyan, Advocate
Case Title: Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others v. West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 437
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9586 of 2024 and connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Dipankar Datta
[Read/Download order]
