New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has granted a temporary reprieve to certain West Bengal teachers whose appointments were annulled over recruitment irregularities in 2016, allowing only those deemed ‘untainted’ to continue teaching until a fresh recruitment drive concludes. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna has mandated that the Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) must initiate the advertisement for this new recruitment by May 31 and complete the entire selection process by December 31 to prevent disruption in students’ education.
This relief specifically covers assistant teachers of Classes 9, 10, 11, and 12, whose names are not implicated in the irregularities uncovered during investigations. The court emphasized that students’ academic progress must not be hampered due to the ongoing legal and administrative processes. However, this extension does not apply to non-teaching staff in Groups C and D, whose appointments were also canceled but whose cases exhibited a higher incidence of taint.
To enforce the timeline, the Supreme Court has required the West Bengal government and SSC to submit an affidavit by May 31, attaching the advertisement for the fresh recruitment along with a detailed schedule ensuring completion by year-end. Failure to meet these deadlines may prompt the court to impose penalties, including costs.
The backdrop to this decision is a major crisis triggered by the earlier Supreme Court order on April 7, which declared the entire 2016 recruitment process “vitiated” due to extensive fraud and manipulations. The court found the West Bengal School Service Commission’s handling of examination material and the recruitment process severely compromised, describing attempts to cover up irregularities that undermined the selection’s legitimacy.
While the court upheld the termination of services of affected candidates, it ruled that those not linked to wrongdoing are not required to refund their salaries but will still have their appointments terminated. Conversely, candidates found guilty of malpractices must repay the salaries they received.
The state government had sought to differentiate between tainted and untainted candidates, but the Supreme Court noted that the scale of concealment made definitive segregation difficult. Thus, it mandated a fresh, credible recruitment effort under strict timelines to restore order and fairness while safeguarding students’ interests.
