One only hopes the matter comes for review in the Supreme Court and the needful correction is done, if not for the unfortunate non-tainted meritorious candidates whose services has been terminated for no fault of theirs; but for its own self to be proudly reckoned as the highest court of justice in the largest democracy of the world.
By Prof. Anuj Kumar Vaksha
It is frightening as much as it is appalling to write this piece of note on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 3 April terminating en-bloc appointments of around 25,735 school assistant teachers and non-teaching staff in Groups C and D appointed by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (WBSSC) in its selection process initiated in 2016. Most of these appointees were such who had already joined their services and had rendered it for around seven years when this decision of the Supreme Court came in 2025.
In its judgment the Supreme Court found that the entire selection process has been vitiated and tainted beyond resolution. It further found that manipulations and fraud on a large scale, coupled with the attempted cover-up, have dented the selection process beyond repair and partial redemption. The selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission was indeed vitiated and tainted with manipulations and frauds on a large scale; but this did not necessarily mean every single selection or appointment made there in was tainted.
The High Court of Calcutta in its order dated 25.04.2024 has enlisted sixteen kinds of established irregularities in almost every stage of the selection process by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission. The High Court of Calcutta further found that the total beneficiaries of such illegalities were yet to be identified and rendered improbable and so, inter alia, set aside en-bloc appointments of all appointees irrespective of whether one’s appointment was actually tainted or not tainted.
6,276 Appointments Illegal: WBSSC
The Supreme Court has recorded the factual findings of the High Court, however, for the sake of clarity and objectivity, it independently examined the facts of the case. The Supreme Court inter alia, notes the report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), wherein it is found that there was manipulation in 952 candidates of IX-X; 907 candidates of XI-XII; 3481 Group C candidates; and, 2823 Group D candidates. The Report of the CBI revealed that appointments of total 8,183 candidates were tainted by manipulation, fraud or other kinds of irregularities.
Without contesting the factual findings of CBI, West Bengal Staff Selection Commission (WBSSC) acknowledged that as per its enquiry total 6,276 appointments were illegal and thus tainted by one or other kind of irregularities.
It is matter of record that even if the selection process as conducted by WBSSC was vitiated with manipulations and frauds, there were at the most only 8183 candidates whose appointments were tainted and there were other appointees totalling around 17,552 against whom no taint of any kind was found in their appointment. This data of tainted and non-tainted appointees was available with the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, yet given the stand of the State of West Bengal and WBSSC and others, it was found that total beneficiaries of the illegalities were yet to be identified and rendered improbable.
However, at the level of the Supreme Court this segregation of meritorious candidates from those illegally appointed was found adequately actionable and it did act on them, though partially. In its judgment of 3 April 2025, the Supreme Court treats these sets of tainted and non-tainted appointees separately and gives different set of directions for each of them. The services of the tainted candidates were directed to be terminated and further they were required to refund their salaries/ payments received during the course of their tainted employment.
In respect of the candidates whose appointment was not specifically found to be tainted; though their appointments / services were also declared null and void – however, they were exempted from refunding the payments made to them.
Punitive Recovery
The cancellation of the appointments/ services of the tainted candidates is absolutely appreciable. Even recovery of salaries/ payments made to them for the period of their tainted employment may be appreciated as a punitive measure for the fraud and cheating assumingly perpetrated by them in their appointments; although imposition of such punitive measures at the level of the Supreme Court against the accused without trial is quite unusual. This direction for recovery further seems to have been done without due consideration to the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the reported case of State of Punjab and Others Etc. v. Rafiq Masih Etc. [2014]13 S.C.R. 1343.
Nonetheless, to maintain the honour and the grace of the Supreme Court, this punitive recovery and impermissible recovery of salaries / payments made to the tainted appointees may be said to be a harsh reaction to a disturbing level of fraud and irregularities in the selection process conducted by WBSSC. The harshness of the Supreme Court does not stop to recovery of salaries and payments made to tainted employees belonging to a class of subordinate staff from whom no recoveries can be made without undue hardship and inequity – the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also terminated the appointments of around 17,552 candidates against whom no material, evidence or record of their appointment being afflicted with one or other kind of irregularities or fraud was specifically found.
Appointments of Non-Tainted Bulldozed
This is truly egregious, akin to what is called the bulldozer justice. In anguish against the wrong done by a person, the justice doer bulldozes the complete building in which the alleged wrong doer is found, unmindful of other innocent souls innocuously living and breathing or even struggling for peaceful life in the same building.
The young people put the best part of their lives and resources to get whatever bit of livelihood they could get on the basis of merit in the cut-throat competition that prevails in the society. The 17,552 candidates, against whom no taint of fraud or irregularities were found were also in the class of those youths who would have put the best part of life and resources to get a job on merit in the cut-throat competition. Alas, their appointments have been bulldozed, not for the wrong done by them but for the wrongs done by others.
Still more strange is the reason stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for which the services of these 17,552 unfortunate candidates have been cancelled even when no material tainting their appointment have been specifically found either by the CBI or other enquiry agencies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterates the observations of the Calcutta High Court that “the entire selection process has been rightly declared null and void due to the egregious violations and illegalities, which violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As such, the appointments of these candidates are cancelled.”
The Supreme Court fails to take note that when the High court was declaring the entire selection process as null and void, it did not have the actionable data of tainted and non-tainted candidates. From the facts as it was available before the High Court, it was evident that the entire selection process was vitiated by large scale irregularities and frauds and the total beneficiaries of such illegalities were yet to be identified and rendered improbable to be identified and so in the circumstances, the entire selection process was declared null and void.
Complete Justice or Complete Injustice?
However, when the matter was considered at the level of the Supreme Court, it had the actionable data and details of 8,183 candidates who were beneficiaries of the irregularities and hence their appointment was tainted and other 17,552 candidates against whom no irregularity or fraud was specifically found. Despite having such actionable data of tainted and non-tainted candidates, in which for every one tainted candidate there were two non-tainted meritorious candidates; it is bizarre that the Supreme Court bulldozed all the appointments, almost akin to the method of bulldozer justice.
While cancelling the appointments of these 17,552 non-tainted candidates, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically notes that the selection process violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; however, nowhere in its forty-one pages judgment the Court explains how the appointment of these 17,552 non-tainted candidates violated either Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
Violation of Articles 14 and 16 was established in the hiring of the data handling agency in the recruitment process; but this per se does not make appointments of 17,552 non-tainted candidates contrary to Articles 14 or 16, as it has been construed by the Supreme Court. This is strange, unusual and unheard in the entire jurisprudence of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Has it been done under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution?
Please note: Article 142(1) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice. It is to do complete justice; not to do complete injustice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India should have used its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to salvage the appointments of these 17,552 non-tainted, meritorious candidates. Further, it should have exercised this power to bring to justice and punitive accountability all the culprits of the egregious violations and illegalities in the selection process in a time bound and emphatic manner.
None of these has been done – and what has been done, at least in the case of 17,552 non tainted appointees is akin to bulldozer justice. One only hopes the matter comes for review in the Supreme Court and the needful correction is done, if not for the unfortunate non-tainted meritorious candidates whose services has been terminated for no fault of theirs; but for its own self to be proudly reckoned as the highest court of justice in the largest democracy of the world.
The writer is a Professor of Law and the views are his personal.
Image: Supreme Court of India and Wikimedia
