Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10581

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. SANJAY KUMAR, MR. ALOK ARADHE, JJ
BIBEK PARIA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. – Respondent
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 46049/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv., Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, AOR, Mr. Jayprakash Bansilal Somani, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar Chowdhary, Adv., Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Jeevan Patil, Adv., Ms. Shruti Kirti, Adv., Ms. Ekta Verma, Adv., Ms. Pooja Agarwal, AOR, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv., Mr. Sai Shashank V., Adv., Ms. Prasanthi@Bharathi, Adv., Ms. Sathyapriya, Adv., Mrs. Neha Pathak, Adv., Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR, Dr. Maneka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR, Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv., Mrs. Jyoti Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Shekhawat, Adv., Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv., Mr. Md. Imran Siddiqui, Adv., Ms. Sanjivani Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar Goyal, Adv., Mr. Mohd Shahzad Ansari, Adv., Mr. Heera Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Pratap, Adv., Mr. Mohd Tauheed, Adv., Mr. Mohd Faiz, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv., Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Kamil, Adv., Mr. Sundeep Pandhi, Adv., Dr. P.B. Reddy, Adv., Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv., Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Adv., Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv., Ms. Patnam Shyla, Adv., Ms. Sreepriya K, Adv., Mr. Keshav Dev, Adv., Ms. C.S. Hema, Adv., Ms. Runjhun Garg, Adv., Mr. M.Tajdar Siddiqui, Adv., Ms. Snehasree Lakkamaneni, Adv., Mr. Arkapra Dassva, Adv., Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Adv., Mrs. Deepti Singh, Adv., Mr. Nalini Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Mrigendra Kumar Singh, Adv., M/s. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR, Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. (N/P), Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR, Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv., Ms. Shivangi Singh Rawat, Adv., Ms. Aastha Shrestha, Adv., Mr. Suchit Singh Rawat, Adv., Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Sumedha Halder, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR, Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Adv., Mr. Asif Iqbal, Adv., Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aditya Samaddar, AOR, Mr. Arijit Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Saiful Haque, Adv., Mr. Nadeem Ahmed, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv., Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR, Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv., Ms. Mahima Cholera, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv., Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR, Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv., Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv., Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv., Mr. Anupam, Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Vikram Hegde, Adv., Ms. Hima Lawrence, AOR, Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Koyeli Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Chinmayi Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Chinmayi Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv., Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv., Mr. Sudipto Das Gupta, Adv., Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Gopa Biswas, Adv., Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv., Mr. Baibhay Roy, Adv., Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv., Ms. Tania Tamanna, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR, Miss Geetanjali Mohan, AOR, Ms. Upma Shrivastava, AOR, Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv., Ms. Anindita Mitra, Adv./AOR, Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv., Mr. Mohd. Naved, Adv., Mr. Vijay P., Adv., Mr. Deepankar, Adv., Mr. Umang Tripathi, Adv.

The Supreme Court emphasized the High Court's duty to ensure the integrity of selection processes and safeguard against tainted candidates.

Headnote:(A) Special Leave Petitions - Withdrawal of special leave petitions with liberty to approach the High Court for redressal of grievances discussed. Court emphasizes that concerns regarding candidate selection and integrity must be addressed strictly. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Court's expectation from the High Court - Ensuring scrutiny of tainted candidates and public disclosure of results reiterated. (Paras 6-7)

(C) Rights of untainted candidates - Not to be adversely affected by new regulations for selection process clarified. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners seek withdrawal of special leave petitions reserving the right to approach the High Court regarding grievances concerning candidate selections.

Findings of Court:
The Court permits petitioners to withdraw their petitions while expressing that the High Court must proceed to address issues raised appropriately.

Issues: The necessity of safeguarding the selection process, maintaining its integrity by disallowing tainted candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court conveyed that it is the responsibility of the High Court to ensure a fair selection process free from corruption and to disclose necessary details of candidates openly.

Result: Special leave petitions/application dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for redressal.

ORDER

Diary Nos. 29509/2025, 29521/2025, 29529/2025, 29536/2025, 29547/2025, 29557/2025, 29568/2025, 29576/2025, 34880/2025, 34860/2025, 34869/2025, 34870/2025, 34873/2025, 34875/2025, 34876/2025, 34878/2025, 34881/2025, 34882/2025, 34884/2025, 34885/2025, 34887/2025, 34888/2025, 34891/2025, 59314/2025 and SLP(C) 24418/2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)/applicant(s) seek permission to withdraw these special leave petitions/application(s) reserving liberty to approach the High Court for seeking redressal of their lawful grievances in accordance with law.

Permission granted.

The special leave petitions/application are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforestated.

Diary No. 46049/2025, 35039/2025, 45848/2025, 46454/2025, 47322/2025, Diary No(s). 47511/2025, 47618/2025, 47622/2025 , 47630/2025, 47752/2025, 61805/2025, SLP(C) Nos. 24311/2025 and 26868/2025 and M.A. Diary No. 1554/2025 in C.A. No. 4894/2025, SLP (C) No. 24357/2025.

Permission to file the special leave petitions is granted.

Delay condoned.

We are informed that a writ petition, being W.P.A. 26288/2025, has been entertained by a learned Judge of the High Court at Calcutta and various issues were flagged by the learned Judge in her orders dated 07.11.2025, 11.11.2025, 12.11.2025 and 19.11.2025 passed therein.

The matters on the file of this Court as on date were kept pending only for the purpose of verifying whether the directions of this Court in The State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Ors., 2025 INSC 437 were implemented scrupulously. As a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court has now taken up that issue also, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the High Court, being the Court of the first instance, undertakes the exercise instead of this Court.

It would be open to the all petitioners/applicants before this Court to approach the High Court for redressal of their lawful grievances in accordance with law.

The High Court shall, however, ensure that none of the tainted candidates are permitted to slip through in the fresh selections, be it on any pretext. The High Court shall also ensure that the list of tainted candidates is placed in the public domain with full details so as to ensure that this does not happen.

Learned counsel in some of the cases seek relief in terms of certain paragraphs of the decision in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra). They are at liberty to raise such hermeneutic exercises before the High Court.

The special leave petitions/applications are disposed of in the aforestated terms.

The High Court shall examine the matters uninfluenced by any of the observations on merits made by this Court in the orders passed after the decisions in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra).

The High Court shall also be mindful of the fact that the untainted candidates in the past selection were allowed to sit for the selection tests to be held afresh and their candidature cannot be adversely affected by application of the new Rules, that is, the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Assistant Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Classes [except work Education and Physical Education], (Classes IX-X and Classes XI-XII) Rules, 2025.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10581

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMR. SANJAY KUMAR, MR. ALOK ARADHE, JJBIBEK PARIA & ORS. – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. – RespondentSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 46049/2025

The Supreme Court emphasized the High Court's duty to ensure the integrity of selection processes and safeguard against tainted candidates.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. SANJAY KUMAR, MR. ALOK ARADHE, JJ
BIBEK PARIA & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. – Respondent
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 46049/2025