Calcutta High Court Upholds 'Tainted' Teachers List in SLST Scam, Defers to Supreme Court's Ongoing Scrutiny - 2025-09-03

Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea Against 'Tainted' Teachers List, Cites Supreme Court Oversight

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates challenging their inclusion in a "tainted candidates" list published by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (Commission). The list, which led to the cancellation of their admit cards for a new selection test, was part of the fallout from the infamous 1st State Level Selection Test (SLST) of 2016.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, presiding over the case, ruled that the High Court would not interfere with the Commission's list, as the matter is currently under the active supervision (seisin) of the Supreme Court of India.

Background of the Case

The petitioners were candidates who had participated in the 1st SLST, 2016, for teaching posts in Classes IX-X and XI-XII. They subsequently lost their jobs after the entire selection process was declared null and void by the Supreme Court on April 3, 2025, due to "egregious illegalities."

Following a new recruitment notification, the petitioners were issued admit cards. However, on August 30, 2025, the Commission published a list of 1,804 "tainted candidates" as directed by the Supreme Court. The petitioners, finding their names on this list, had their admit cards cancelled, prompting them to approach the High Court.

Arguments of the Petitioners

Represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Anindya Lahiri and Mr. Sakya Sen, the petitioners argued that the Commission had wrongly classified them as "tainted." They contended that the definition of a "tainted candidate" was established by a Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated April 22, 2024. This definition included only three specific categories: 1. Those appointed outside the panel. 2. Those appointed after the panel had expired. 3. Those who submitted blank OMR sheets.

The petitioners asserted they did not fall into any of these categories and that the Supreme Court had not interfered with this specific definition. They argued that their inclusion in the new list was therefore arbitrary and their admit cards should be reinstated.

The Commission's Counter-Arguments

Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Senior Advocate for the Commission, countered that the definition of "tainted candidates" was not exhaustive. He argued that the Supreme Court's judgment of April 3, 2025, had considered other irregularities, such as "rank jumping" and findings from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report, including cases of OMR mismatches.

The Commission maintained that its list was prepared based on these broader considerations, which went beyond the three categories defined by the Division Bench. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the list was published in direct compliance with orders from the Supreme Court dated August 28 and 29, 2025, in related pending matters. The Commission also assured the Supreme Court that no tainted candidate would be permitted to appear in the new selection tests.

Court's Rationale and Judgment

Justice Bhattacharyya found merit in the Commission's arguments, noting that the "egregious illegalities and fraud" identified by the Supreme Court allowed for a broader interpretation of what constitutes a "tainted" candidate. The Court observed:

"In consideration of gamut of illegalities and irregularities found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Division Bench, it is permissible to infer that there are different categories of tainted candidates beyond the stipulations contained in paragraph 363 (iv) of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench..."

The Court also gave significant weight to a Supreme Court order from April 17, 2025, which permitted only "untainted" teachers from the 2016 batch to continue working until December 31, 2025, to protect students' academic interests. Since the current petitioners were not among those allowed to continue, the Court inferred they were not considered "untainted."

Crucially, the judgment emphasized that the very list being challenged was published under the direction of the Supreme Court, which is actively hearing the related matters. Justice Bhattacharyya stated:

"Therefore, this Court finds these are not fit cases where Court should interfere with the list dated 30th August, 2025 containing names of tainted candidates when the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in seisin of the matters as aforesaid."

Final Decision and Implications

The writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs. The decision reaffirms the principle of judicial propriety, where a High Court refrains from intervening in issues actively being adjudicated by the apex court. For the petitioners, this means their exclusion from the current recruitment process stands, and any further remedy lies with the Supreme Court, which is overseeing the entire cleanup of the 2016 teacher recruitment scam.