Candidate challenge to inclusion in the “tainted candidates” list under the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016, is not maintainable where the issue has been conclusively decided by a prior judgment, affirmed by the Division Bench and Supreme Court. This judgment upholds prior precedent, providing binding authority for all similar cases in West Bengal education sector recruitments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/21776/2025 of DIBYENDU MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0434972025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Court No. 18) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court on similar facts; strong persuasive authority elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior single-judge judgment and its affirmation by Division Bench and Supreme Court |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Education Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether an individual’s name can be excluded from the list of “tainted candidates” after prior binding judicial precedent in similar recruitment disputes |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the inclusion of names in the list of tainted candidates prepared by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission for the State Level Selection Test, 2016, was already adjudicated in a prior writ petition (WPA 20845 of 2025 – Sampa Ghosh). That judgment was affirmed by the High Court’s Division Bench and Special Leave Petition therefrom was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the matter is no longer open to challenge, and individual petitions challenging such inclusion must fail. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | WPA 20845 of 2025 (Sampa Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors.); Division Bench affirmation; Supreme Court order dated 12-09-2025 (SLP (C) No. 26212/2025: Bikash Patra) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that legal issues decided by coordinate or superior courts in earlier cases become binding precedent and are not open for re-litigation in subsequent identical cases |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner challenged the publication of a list on 30-08-2025 containing 1804 “tainted” candidates affecting recruitment under the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016, contending he should not be categorized as such. The issue was previously adjudicated in Sampa Ghosh, affirmed by appellate courts. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All single-judge benches and subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court in related state educational recruitment litigation |
| Overrules | None indicated; instead, affirms and applies prior precedent |
| Distinguishes | None specified |
| Follows | WPA 20845 of 2025 (Sampa Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors); Supreme Court SLP (C) 26212/2025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates conclusive binding effect of prior High Court and affirmed Supreme Court judgments in recruitment-related writs.
- Individuals whose names appear on educational recruitment exclusion lists (e.g., “tainted candidates”) cannot re-litigate the same issue if earlier judgments cover identical circumstances.
- Inclusion on such lists stands judicially endorsed where challenge under same factual and legal matrix has already failed at all appellate fora.
- Counsel should carefully check the existence of prior precedents before advising clients to institute writs on similar grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified that the core issue—exclusion of the petitioner from the “tainted candidates” list in the School Service Commission’s 2016 recruitment—had already been squarely determined in the judgment dated 2nd September 2025 in WPA 20845 of 2025 (Sampa Ghosh).
- That precedent was tested before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which declined to interfere.
- Further, the Supreme Court, upon Special Leave Petition in Bikash Patra v. West Bengal Central School Service Commission (SLP (C) 26212/2025), dismissed the challenge, thereby allowing the single-judge High Court decision to stand.
- The judge emphasized the doctrine of res judicata and judicial discipline: issues conclusively decided by higher or coordinate benches are not open to being reopened in new writ petitions involving identical questions.
- The petition was dismissed, as no merit could be found in view of the binding precedents.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Objected to inclusion in the list of “tainted candidates” published on 30-08-2025 pertaining to the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016.
- Asserted that he should not be treated as a tainted candidate in that connection.
Respondent (West Bengal Central School Service Commission / State)
- Relied on the prior single-judge bench’s decision in Sampa Ghosh (WPA 20845/2025).
- Pointed to Division Bench affirmation and Supreme Court’s dismissal of the subsequent Special Leave Petition as evidence the issue cannot be re-agitated.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s name appeared among 1804 persons listed as “tainted candidates” by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission in a notification dated 30th August 2025 regarding appointments through the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016, for teaching posts in Classes IX-X and XI-XII. Challenging his categorization, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The legal ground for challenge—whether such designation could be contested—had already been addressed in earlier writ petitions (notably that of Sampa Ghosh), with affirmation at appellate levels.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provisions are discussed or interpreted in detail in the judgment. The reasoning is based on application of judicial precedent and finality of prior determinations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations have been introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.