The Calcutta High Court has clarified that the identification and categorisation of “tainted candidates” in the context of the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016, is not restricted solely to those defined by the High Court’s earlier judgment, but may include additional categories as considered by the Supreme Court and investigative reports. The decision upholds Supreme Court directions and refrains from interfering with administrative lists when the apex court is seized of the matter, thereby reaffirming the binding value of Supreme Court supervision in the domain of public employment litigation in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/20845/2025 of SAMPA GHOSH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0419872025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Calcutta High Court jurisdiction while Supreme Court is seized of the matter; persuasive elsewhere. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the ongoing supervisory authority of the Supreme Court on the selection test litigation and follows Supreme Court’s directions/orders |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law, Administrative law, Education/Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court may restrict the definition of “tainted candidates” to previously defined categories, or must defer to Supreme Court directions and include further categories as identified by CBI or the Commission |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that categorisation of “tainted candidates” is not strictly confined to the three categories earlier defined in paragraph 363(iv) of the Division Bench judgment dated 22nd April 2024. Other categories, such as those identified by the CBI or involving OMR mismatches and rank jumping, may justifiably be included, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s orders and consideration of egregious illegalities. Since the Supreme Court is currently seized of related matters and has issued explicit directions for public disclosure and exclusion of tainted candidates, the High Court must refrain from interference, leaving all present disputes over categorisation for adjudication by the apex court. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court placed emphasis on the Supreme Court’s continuing engagement with the entire selection process issue, the possibility of wider or additional categories of tainted candidates in light of systemic illegality and CBI reports, and the constitutional hierarchy limiting the High Court’s writ jurisdiction when the Supreme Court is seized of the matter. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners, whose names appeared in a list of “tainted candidates” published on 30th August 2025 by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission pursuant to Supreme Court orders, challenged their inclusion. They had participated in the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016, for school teacher appointments, but subsequently lost employment after the entire process was set aside as void by the Supreme Court. Their admit cards for the fresh process were cancelled, and they argued that they did not fall under the three categories of “tainted” defined in an earlier High Court judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within West Bengal, subject to further Supreme Court orders. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in similar large-scale selection process fraud investigations and challenge scenarios. |
| Overrules | None. |
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes the Division Bench judgment dated 22nd April 2024 (Baishakhi Bhattacharyya) by holding that its categorisation is not exhaustive in light of later Supreme Court orders and findings. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that the “tainted candidate” categorisation is not limited to the specific categories outlined previously by the Calcutta High Court, but may be expanded based on further findings (including CBI reports and new evidence of wrongdoing).
- Explicitly holds that the High Court will not adjudicate the correctness of such categorisation or interfere with published lists while the Supreme Court is actively seized of the matter.
- Places reliance on Supreme Court’s ongoing directions for public disclosure and exclusion of tainted candidates from future selection rounds.
- Confirms that judicial review of such lists, in the context of this mass-selection controversy, is presently subordinated to the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged that earlier, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (judgment dated 22nd April 2024) had set out three categories of tainted candidates (appointments outside the panel, after expiry of the panel, and on the basis of blank OMR sheets).
- Petitioners contended that, as per the Division Bench and Supreme Court observations, only these categories should apply.
- The Commission, supported by the State, submitted that broader categories (such as rank jumping and OMR mismatches as identified by the CBI) were now recognized as tainted, particularly given the Supreme Court’s findings of egregious fraud and illegality permeating the entire process. They cited paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 3rd April 2025.
- The Court accepted that the Supreme Court had not limited the definition of “tainted” to the original three categories, but allowed for expansion based on investigative findings and additional illegalities.
- The Court noted Supreme Court orders (28th and 29th August 2025) explicitly requiring public notification of tainted candidates and their exclusion from future selection processes, as well as ongoing apex court proceedings (Bejoy Biswas, Bibek Paria).
- In light of these continued Supreme Court directions and pending proceedings, the Court refused to intervene or limit the published list to the original categories, finding no fault in the Commission’s inclusion of broader categories based on CBI reports.
- The Court further noted that none of the petitioners were permitted to function as Assistant Teachers per the Supreme Court’s criteria for untainted candidates.
- The petitions were dismissed as not fit for High Court interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that the petitioners do not fall under the three categories of “tainted candidates” as defined in paragraph 363(iv) of the Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment dated 22nd April 2024.
- Raised that the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 3rd April 2025, did not disturb the Division Bench’s categorisation, so the present impugned list’s broader categories are unwarranted.
- Claimed that some similarly situated candidates, appointed after expiry of the panel, were allowed to continue in service.
Commission (WBCSSC)
- Asserted that in addition to the three categories, other forms of tainted candidates (e.g., those identified by CBI for OMR mismatches or involved in rank jumping) are now relevant following the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment.
- Emphasized reliance on reports from the CBI in preparing the impugned list.
- Noted compliance with Supreme Court’s interim and final orders, particularly regarding the exclusion of identified tainted candidates from ongoing and future selection processes, as well as public disclosure.
State
- Supported the Commission’s stance and Supreme Court supervision.
Factual Background
A number of candidates who had appeared for the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016, for Assistant Teacher posts in West Bengal, lost their jobs after the Supreme Court set aside the entire recruitment selection process due to widespread fraud and illegalities. Following the promulgation of new selection rules in May 2025, and the notification of a fresh selection process, the West Bengal Central School Service Commission published a list on 30th August 2025 declaring 1804 candidates as “tainted” (pursuant to various court and investigative findings), and cancelled their admit cards. The petitioners, included in this list, challenged their categorisation and exclusion.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Assistant Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Classes [except Work Education and Physical Education] Classes IX-X and Classes XI-XII) Rules, 2025, under which the new selection process was notified and admit cards issued.
- No specific provisions were narrowed or read down; rather, the Court reviewed the process for compliance with Supreme Court judgments and orders, and the statutory obligation to exclude tainted candidates.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded or available in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court notably abstained from adjudicating on the merits of candidate categorisation when the Supreme Court was actively seized of the same issue, effectively staying its own hand in a context of judicial comity and constitutional hierarchy.
- No new rules of maintainability, evidence, or procedure were set.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – High Court affirmed and strictly complied with Supreme Court precedent and interim orders.
Citations
- Supreme Court judgment dated 3rd April 2025 in Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2024 — State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Others.
- High Court Division Bench judgment dated 22nd April 2024 — WPA 30649 of 2016 (Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)
- Supreme Court order dated 17th April 2025 in Miscellaneous Application No.709 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4805/2025 — West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors.
- Supreme Court orders dated 28th August 2025 (Bejoy Biswas & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., SLP (C) No. 23784 of 2025) and 29th August 2025 (Bibek Paria & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., SLP (Civil) Diary No. 46049/25).