The Calcutta High Court has recently raised concerns regarding the West Bengal government's decision to allow candidates accused of wrongdoing in an alleged cash-for-jobs recruitment scam to reapply for positions. This inquiry comes despite a Supreme Court order that was expected to prevent such candidates from participating in fresh recruitment processes.
The issue arose from a recruitment notification issued by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) on May 30, 2025, concerning the fresh appointment of assistant teachers in government-run and government-aided schools. The notification, however, did not explicitly bar "tainted" candidates – those ousted from their jobs due to the scam – from applying.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharya of the Calcutta High Court voiced his concerns, questioning the absence of any explicit prohibition in the notification against candidates who had been removed from their positions by the Supreme Court. He noted that the Supreme Court had clearly stated that tainted candidates should not be permitted. Justice Bhattacharya further inquired, "Why are tainted candidates being permitted in spite of the directions by the Supreme Court?". He suggested that the issue be clarified by filing a petition before the Supreme Court.
The Calcutta High Court's observations came while hearing a petition challenging the new recruitment notification. The court highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously cancelled the appointments of 25,753 teaching and non-teaching staff in state-run schools, deeming the selection process fraudulent and amounting to cheating. The Supreme Court's decision was based on findings of irregularities, including manipulation of OMR sheets. While the Supreme Court allowed "untainted" teachers to remain in their posts until the end of the academic year or until new appointments were made, this relief was not extended to Group C and Group D employees, or non-teaching staff.
The state government's counsel urged the court not to record any remarks, asserting that the new appointments were being conducted in accordance with the Supreme Court's directives. The government has sought time to provide clarification on the matter, and the court has adjourned the case to a later date.
In addition to the issue of "tainted" candidates, Justice Bhattacharya also raised concerns about new "weightage criteria" introduced in the recruitment notification. He questioned why these criteria differed from those used in the 2016 recruitment process, especially since the Supreme Court had mandated that the rules for the new process should align with those of 2016. As per the new notification, the written examination will carry 60 marks, compared to 55 in 2016, and the weightage for educational qualification has been reduced to 10 from 35 in the previous process.
The Calcutta High Court has sought explanations from the West Bengal government and the WBSSC regarding both the inclusion of potentially tainted candidates and the changes in the weightage criteria. These observations underscore the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and transparent recruitment process, adhering to the Supreme Court's directives and preventing individuals implicated in the prior scam from benefiting from the new appointments.
