Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of West Bengal School Service Commission Recruitment: State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 03, 2025

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar, J.

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the widespread irregularities in the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC). This case, State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya, examined allegations of manipulation and fraud in the recruitment of non-teaching staff (Groups C and D) and Assistant Teachers for Classes IX-X and XI-XII. The central issue was whether the High Court at Calcutta was justified in setting aside the entire selection process due to these irregularities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, citing extensive evidence of manipulation and a compromised selection process.

Case Background

In 2016, the WBSSC issued a notification for regional and state-level selection tests for various positions:

• ✓ 12,905 Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X
• ✓ 5,712 Assistant Teachers for Classes XI & XII
• ✓ 2,067 Non-teaching Staff under Group C
• ✓ 3,956 Non-teaching Staff under Group D

M/s. Nysa Communications Pvt. Ltd. was tasked with scanning and assessing the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets. The results were made available online:

• ✓ Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X: 02.05.2017
• ✓ Assistant Teachers for Classes XI & XII: 08.05.2017
• ✓ Non-teaching Staff Group ‘C’: 24.07.2017
• ✓ Non-teaching Staff Group ‘D’: 23.06.2017

However, a common list with the marks was not uploaded, and candidates could only check their status by logging into the WBSSC website. Interviews and personality tests were conducted, and final status rank lists were published:

• ✓ Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X: 28.08.2018
• ✓ Assistant Teachers for Classes XI & XII: 27.11.2017
• ✓ Non-teaching Staff Group ‘C’: 20.12.2017
• ✓ Non-teaching Staff Group ‘D’: 06.11.2017

The legal challenges began in December 2016 with WPA No. 30649 of 2016, filed by Baishakhi Bhattacharyya, alleging failure to grant age relaxation. Subsequently, other writ petitions were filed in 2021, alleging various illegalities in the 2016 recruitment process, such as:

• ✓ Candidates receiving appointment letters but not being allowed to join.
• ✓ Non-publication of the fourth phase of the counselling list.
• ✓ Rank jumping, where lower-ranked candidates were given appointments over higher-ranked ones.
• ✓ Ignoring candidates in the waiting list.
• ✓ Selective selection of candidates and flouting of recruitment rules.
• ✓ Appointment of candidates not in the merit or waiting lists.

The WBSSC filed affidavits, sometimes admitting to illegalities such as rank-jumping or issuing appointment letters to non-selected candidates. The WBSSC claimed it could not verify the number of illegal recommendations or provide details of such candidates.

A four-member committee, chaired by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bag (Retd.), was formed to scrutinize and verify the appointments of non-teaching staff in Groups ‘C’ and ‘D’. The WBSSC was unable to produce the original OMR sheets, initially submitting mirror/scanned copies, but later claiming they had been destroyed. The WBSSC cited Rule 21 of the Classes IX-X and Classes XI-XII Rules to justify the destruction of physical OMR sheets one year after the results were declared, despite this rule not applying to non-teaching staff.

Upon realizing illegalities, the WBSSC terminated the services of some candidates. The High Court directed the CBI to investigate the alleged illegalities, leading to the registration of four FIRs. The Supreme Court directed the CBI to complete the investigation and submit its report to the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The judgment details that several writ petitions were filed before the High Court at Calcutta, alleging various irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process. These petitions raised issues such as:

• ✓ Appointment letters were received, but candidates were not allowed to join.
• ✓ Non-publication of the fourth phase of the counselling list.
• ✓ Rank jumping, where candidates with lower ranks were appointed over those with higher ranks.
• ✓ Candidates in the waiting list were ignored.
• ✓ Selective selection of candidates and flouting of recruitment rules.
• ✓ Appointment of candidates not in the merit or waiting lists.

The WBSSC filed counter affidavits and reports, sometimes admitting to illegalities such as rank-jumping or issuing appointment letters to non-selected candidates. The WBSSC claimed it could not verify the number of illegal recommendations or provide details of such candidates.

A four-member committee, chaired by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bag (Retd.), was formed to scrutinize and verify the appointments of non-teaching staff in Groups ‘C’ and ‘D’. The WBSSC was unable to produce the original OMR sheets, initially submitting mirror/scanned copies, but later claiming they had been destroyed. The WBSSC cited Rule 21 of the Classes IX-X and Classes XI-XII Rules to justify the destruction of physical OMR sheets one year after the results were declared, despite this rule not applying to non-teaching staff.

Upon realizing illegalities, the WBSSC terminated the services of some candidates. The High Court directed the CBI to investigate the alleged illegalities, leading to the registration of four FIRs. The Supreme Court directed the CBI to complete the investigation and submit its report to the High Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several key legal provisions that govern the selection process and the responsibilities of the involved bodies:

• ✓ The West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997: This act governs the establishment of the School Service Commission, which is responsible for selecting individuals for teaching and non-teaching positions in State-funded schools in West Bengal.
• ✓ The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963: This act governs the establishment and functioning of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, which appoints teachers and non-teaching staff in the institutions as per the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997.
• ✓ The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the posts of Teachers for Classes IX and X in Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016: These rules govern the selection process for Assistant Teachers for Classes IX and X.
• ✓ The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the posts of Teachers for Classes XI and XII in Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016: These rules govern the selection process for Assistant Teachers for Classes XI and XII.
• ✓ The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009: These rules govern the selection process for Group C and Group D Non-Teaching posts.
• ✓ Rule 21 of the Classes IX-X and Classes XI-XII Rules: This rule pertains to the preservation of written examination answer scripts and states: “21. Preservation of written examination answer scripts. – The written answer scripts/OMRs of examinations shall be destroyed by the Commission after 1 year from the date of publication of the panel.”

Arguments

The implicated selectees challenged the judgment on the following grounds:

• ✓ The evidence against them is weak, unproven, and inadmissible.
• ✓ They were punished without an inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice.
• ✓ They were chargesheeted but not convicted and should be treated as innocent.

The other selectees, the State of West Bengal, and WBSSC argued that:

• ✓ The High Court erred by annulling the entire selection process based on the CBI report.
• ✓ The High Court should have only cancelled the appointments of those found guilty, leaving the other appointments intact.

The WBSSC argued that the data which has now come to light allows segregation of meritorious candidates from those appointed illegally and therefore, the entire selection process should not be annulled.

The arguments presented by each party relied on different interpretations of the facts and the applicable legal provisions. The selectees argued that the evidence against them was insufficient to justify the cancellation of their appointments, while the WBSSC argued that the irregularities were not widespread enough to warrant the annulment of the entire selection process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the entire selection process due to irregularities in the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC).
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were adequately considered in the decision to cancel the appointments.
3. Whether the plea of failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice can be validated to validate the fraud that has occurred.
4. Whether the directions issued by the High Court require any modification.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases to support its reasoning:

• ✓ Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited for the principle that determining when the examination process is vitiated by irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry and that the decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation.
• ✓ Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 648 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited for the principle that when the conduct of all examinees, or at least the vast majority, at a particular examination centre reveals the use of unfair means, it may not be necessary for the board to give individual opportunities of hearing to the candidates if the entire examination is being cancelled.
• ✓ Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited for the principle that when there is a discovery of widespread unfair practices, such as the leakage of question papers or destruction of answer books, it may not be necessary to give each examinee an opportunity to be heard.
• ✓ Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, (1990) Supp SCC 692 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to highlight that the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was not justified as there was no systemic flaw in the entire recruitment process, and the issue was only with regard to calling the candidates for interview.
• ✓ Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 236 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to show an instance where the entire examination was cancelled in view of the report of mass copying and leakage of the question paper.
• ✓ Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 285 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to show an instance where the Court struck down the decision of the competent authority to cancel the entire recruitment process, deeming it extreme, unreasonable, and unnecessary given the circumstances.
• ✓ Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited for the three principles which must be adhered to when cancelling appointments: satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the material collected, a reasoned and thorough investigation, and sufficient material to support the conclusion that the majority of the appointments were part of the fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt.
• ✓ Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 644 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited for the observation that every effort should be made to separate tainted from untainted candidates, and if it is found that segregating the tainted from untainted is possible, cancellation of the entire selection process would be incompatible with law.
• ✓ Chairman, All India Railways Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 614 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to show an instance where the Court upheld the order of the Board to cancel the examination and conduct retest due to widespread irregularities and malpractice.
• ✓ State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 217 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited for the allegations of large-scale malpractices involving tampering with OMR sheets and the authority of the State to maintain the purity of the examination process.
• ✓ Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 621 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to take note of the settled dictum that the cancellation of the examination is necessary and required in cases where large-scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process are alleged.
• ✓ Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 743 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited for the observation that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones.
• ✓ Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and Others v. T.T Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 (Supreme Court of India): This case was relied on for the pleas of estoppel, delay, and laches in filing the writ petitions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment cancelling the entire selection process but made certain modifications in the directions issued by the High Court. The Court found no valid ground or reason to interfere with the direction of the High Court that the services of tainted candidates, where appointed, must be terminated, and they should be required to refund any salaries/payments received.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631: The Court applied the principles from this case to determine whether the irregularities were systemic enough to undermine the sanctity of the selection process.
• ✓ Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 648: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the principles of natural justice could not be invoked to validate the fraud that had occurred.
• ✓ Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356: The Court applied the three-pronged test outlined in this case to determine whether the illegalities committed went to the root of the matter and vitiated the entire selection process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the cancellation of the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) recruitment process was heavily influenced by several factors that indicated a systemic failure and a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the selection process. The Court’s reasoning emphasized the following key points:

• ✓ Large-Scale Manipulations and Frauds: The Court found that the selection process was tainted by manipulations and frauds on a large scale, which had denuded the credibility and legitimacy of the selection.
• ✓ Attempted Cover-Up: The Court noted that there was an attempted cover-up by the WBSSC, which made the verification and ascertainment of the irregularities more difficult, if not impossible.
• ✓ Destruction of OMR Sheets: The Court highlighted the destruction of the original OMR sheets and the failure to maintain scanned/mirror images of the OMR sheets as significant factors that indicated an attempt to conceal the illegalities.
• ✓ Discrepancies in Data: The Court emphasized the significant discrepancies between the marks in WBSSC’s computer software and the data found on the three hard disks recovered from Pankaj Bansal’s office in Noida.
• ✓ Violation of Constitutional Principles: The Court concluded that the egregious violations and illegalities in the selection process violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the evidence of large-scale manipulations and the attempted cover-up by the WBSSC. While legal principles were considered, the Court’s emphasis on the factual findings played a crucial role in its decision to uphold the cancellation of the selection process.

Outcome

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to cancel the entire 2016 WBSSC recruitment process, citing extensive evidence of manipulation and a compromised selection process. The Court directed the termination of services of tainted candidates and the refund of salaries/payments received.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the selection process in public employment. The Court’s decision serves as a stern warning against corruption and manipulation in recruitment processes and emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in public institutions. The case also highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the constitutional rights of citizens and ensuring that public appointments are made based on merit and fairness.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on any specific legal issues.