Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Sampa Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of writ petitions regarding tainted candidates. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding definition and identification of tainted candidates. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's consideration of supreme court findings on tainted candidates. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. final dismissal of writ petitions with no costs. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. All the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration since common issue is involved.
2. Affidavits of service filed on behalf of the petitioners are taken on record.
3. Writ petitions are filed questioning the list containing names of tainted candidates which was published vide memo dated 30th August, 2025 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Central School Service Commission (for short, “Commission”). List dated 30th August, 2025 features names of 1804 (one thousand eight hundred and four ) candidates who have been declared as tainted candidates in connection with their participation in 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 (for short, “1st SLST, 2016”) for Classes IX-X and XI-XII.
4. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that in terms of order of
The classification of candidates as tainted extends beyond previously defined categories, and judicial intervention is precluded by ongoing Supreme Court considerations.
The court upheld the designation of petitioners as tainted candidates based on previously established criteria, affirming dismissal of their writ petitions.
Tainted candidates are barred from participating in the recruitment process according to the Supreme Court's directives on fraudulent appointments and adherence to prior recruitment rules.
Tainted candidates from previous fraudulent selections cannot be allowed in fresh recruitment processes, as it breaches fundamental justice and undermines public trust in educational integrity.
Writ petitions are not maintainable if earlier judgments have merged with a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing compliance responsibility falls under higher authority.
Parity – When there is a declaration of law by court, Judgment can be treated as Judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by treating those similarly situated, similarly.
The court emphasized that the integrity of public employment selections must be maintained, ruling that the failure to publish the master answer key and deletion of original data rendered the selecti....
The court upheld the authority of educational bodies to institute eligibility criteria and adjust vacancies in recruitment, emphasizing judicial restraint and the absence of demonstrable individual h....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
