Candidates associated with fraudulent recruitment processes are ineligible for service repatriation. Protections for previously employed individuals do not apply to those whose appointments were voided due to manipulated selection records. Furthermore, the principle of res judicata bars the re-litigation of issues that have achieved finality.

JUDGMENT :

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.

1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by a group of candidates who claimed to be untainted. Hence they seek repatriation to their old post in which they were serving.

2. The short conspectus of facts in this case is as under:

i. The petitioners have participated in the State Level Selection Test, 2016 (hereinafter SLST 2016) for selection of Assistant Teachers of Classes 9, 10, 11 and 12. They were successful candidates and had been given employment.

ii. The SLST 2016 was challenged and was quashed and/or annulled by successive decisions of a Single Judge of this High Court, the Division Bench dated April 22, 2024, and then the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment and order dated April 3, 2025.

iii. The petitioners pursuant to such direction had made representations for re-joining their previous posting including formal requests which were, however, not acceded to.

iv. The petitioners had thereafter participated in the State Level Selection Test, 2025 (hereinafter second SLST 2025), conducted in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated April 30, 2025 issued by the Commission.

v. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated August 28, 2025, whereby the Commission had been directed to publish a list of all tainted candidates, the same was published on August 30, 2025, wherein the names of these petitioners were included.

vi. As a result thereof, the petitioners’ admit cards stood revoked and they were unable to participate in the second SLST 2025.

vii. The petitioners had thereafter filed Writ Petitions praying for directions to the respondent authorities to process their applications and resume their duties in their respective postings made pursuant to the first SLST 2016.

viii. Needless to say, the said Writ Petitions were dismissed on November 24, 2025 as the petitioners were included in the list of tainted candidates.

ix. The list of tainted candidates was published in a more comprehensive manner on January 28, 2026 wherefrom the petitioners’ names appeared as tainted candidates on account of “OMR Mis-Match”.

3. It is in this aforesaid conspectus of facts that the petitioners have now approached this Court by way of these Writ Petitions limiting their prayers to repatriation to their respective posts.

4. Mr. Kallol Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has made the following submissions:

a. The grounds of taint as specified in the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated April 22, 2024 are limited to three grounds. The said three grounds are as under:

i. persons who have been tainted outside the panel;

ii. persons tainted after the expiry of the panel;and

iii. persons who have submitted blank OMR sheets to obtain appointments.

b. The petitioners not falling within the fold of any of the aforesaid three grounds cannot be construed as tainted candidates and are hence entitled to be repatriated to their original postings in terms of SLST 2016.

c. The rights of the petitioners have been protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated May 3, 2025, which provides as follows: “Some of the appointed candidates who do not fall within the category of tainted candidates may have previously worked in different departments of the State Government or with autonomous bodies, etc. In such cases, although their appointments are cancelled, these candidates will have the right to apply to their previous departments o