The Supreme Court on Thursday announced its intent to deliberate whether the entire 2016 state-level recruitment process in West Bengal should be annulled or if the review should be confined to specific cases of wrongful employment.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justice Sanjay Kumar, made the observation while dealing with 118 petitions, including one filed by the West Bengal government challenging the Calcutta High Court's decision to invalidate the appointments of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff.
The Court has scheduled the matter for December 19, narrowing the scope of the hearing to focus on whether it is feasible to identify tainted appointments and avoid cancelling the entire recruitment process.
"There is a very limited issue – this is with regards to whether the entire examination should have been cancelled or in case we were able to identify the candidates who got it wrongly," the Chief Justice remarked.
The Calcutta High Court had previously found irregularities in the recruitment conducted through the School Service Commission (SSC) for 24,640 posts.
It invalidated appointments exceeding official vacancies and ordered the state authorities to hold fresh examinations. Over 23 lakh candidates had appeared for the test.
In May, the Supreme Court provided interim relief by allowing affected appointees to retain their jobs but emphasised that salaries and benefits would need to be refunded with 12 per cent annual interest if their recruitment was deemed illegal.
The alleged fraud, labelled a “systemic failure” by the Court, was seen as damaging to public trust.
"Public job is so scarce... Nothing remains if the faith of the public goes. This is systemic fraud. Public jobs are extremely scarce today and are looked at for social mobility," the bench observed.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been investigating the matter and has been authorised to examine even members of the state cabinet, although the Court directed the agency to refrain from making arrests at this stage.
The controversy stems from irregularities such as the issuance of appointment letters for more positions than advertised and the acceptance of blank OMR answer sheets for recruitment.
The High Court mandated that those implicated must return all remuneration within four weeks.
The Supreme Court has tasked four advocates as nodal counsel to collate responses and assist in expediting the matter. The outcome of the case is expected to have significant implications for the ones involved in the fiasco.
Follow us
