[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjoy Kumar Doloi & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 July, 2025
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya
W.P.A. 12505 of 2025
Sanjoy Kumar Doloi & Anr.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 12512 of 2025
Arunima Paul & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 12541 of 2025
Gopal Manna & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 12643 of 2025
Uttam Majumdar & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 12713 of 2025
2
Ujjwal Kumar Majhi & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 12730 of 2025
Bharat Saren & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 13160 of 2025
Paban Kumar Mishra & Anr.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. 13457 of 2025
Bibek Paria & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners in WPA 13457/25: Mr. Anindya Mitra,
Mr. Sounak Ghosh,
Mr. Sakhawat Khandakar,
Ms. Swati Jha
For the Petitioners in WPA 12505/25: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta,
Mr. Bikram Banerjee,
Mr. Sondwip Sutradhar
For the Petitioners in WPA 12512/25
& WPA 12541/25 : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Firdous Samim,
Ms. Gopa Biswas,
Ms. Payel Shome,
Mr. Rishabh Ahmad Khan,
Mr. Hasanuz Zaman Molla,
Mr. Moinak Ghosal
Ms. Ankita Dey
3
For the Petitioners in WPA 13160/25: Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir
Ms. Rabia Khatoon,
Ms. Soma Mal
For the Petitioners in WPA 12713/25: Mr. Pratik Dhar,
Mr. Sounak Ghosh,
Mr. Sakhawat Khandakar,
Ms. Swati Jha
For the Petitioners in WPA 12730/25: Mr. Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Pradip Saren,
Mr. Soumik Ghosh,
Ms. Saheli Hembram
For the Petitioners in WPA 12643/25: Mr. Shuvro P. Lahiri,
Mr. R. Naskar,
Mr. A. Mondal
For the State in : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Biswabrta Basu Mallick,
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay,
` Mr. Vivekananda Bose,
Mr. Debanjan Mandal,
Mr. Sandip Dasgupta,
Mr. Debayan Sen,
Ms. Mahima Cholera,
Mr. Niket Ojha
Mr. Akash Dutta,
Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharyya,
Ms. Tapati Samanta,
Mr. Soumen Chatterjee,
Mr. K. M. Hossasin,
Ms. Iti Dutta
For the WBCSSC : Mr. Kalyan Kumar Banerjee,
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya,
Mr. Rahul Singh
For the WBBSE : Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Bibek Dutta
Hearing concluded on : 07.07.2025
Judgment on: 07.07.2025
4
Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.:
1) Affidavits-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners
are taken on record.
2) All the writ petitions are taken up for consideration
since common issue is involved excluding writ petition being
WPA 12602 of 2025 (Malati Ghosh & Ors. Vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors.).
3) Documents filed in support of depositing Court Fees in
respect of writ petitions where number of writ petitioner is
more than one are taken on record.
4) In all the matters it has been argued on behalf of the
petitioners that they are untainted candidates of 1st State
Level Selection Test, 2016 (for short “1st SLST, 2016”) for
Classes IX & X and XI & XII.
5) Challenge has been thrown to 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 (hereinafter referred to
as “said Rules of 2025”) and recruitment notification dated
30th May, 2025 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Central
School Service Commission vide memo No.
1092/7016/CSSC/ESTT/2025.
5
6) Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned senior
advocate representing some of the petitioners submits that
in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench
dated 22nd April, 2024 and the subsequent judgment
delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3rd April, 2025
read with order passed on 17th April, 2025 on Miscellaneous
Application No.709 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4805 of 2025
which was taken out by the West Bengal Board of Secondary
Education vacancies earmarked for 1st SLST, 2016 are
required to be filled up in terms of previous Recruitment
Rules of 2016 which were applied for conducting 1st SLST,
2016 for Classes IX & X and XI & XII.
7) Attention of this Court has been drawn to paragraph
363(xi) of the judgment dated 22nd April, 2024 passed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench and according to the petitioners
West Bengal Central School Service Commission (for short
“WBCSSC”) needs to undertake a fresh selection process in
respect of declared vacancies of 1st SLST, 2016 for Classes
IX & X and XI & XII within a specified time.
8) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 3rd April, 2025 (paragraph 45
onwards) wherein it was observed that the judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench dated 22nd April, 2024 needs no
alteration and it is also contended in consideration of the
6
observations made in paragraph 49 of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd April, 2025 that only
untainted candidates and differently-abled candidates ought
to be permitted to participate in the selection process which
has been initiated by issuing recruitment notification dated
30th May, 2025.
9) It is submitted that there is no express bar in the
recruitment notification dated 30th May, 2025 for the
candidates who were termed as “tainted” by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court from participating in the ensuing selection
process for which recruitment notification has been issued
on 30th May, 2025. In other words, it is also submitted that
notification dated 30th May, 2025 also invited tainted
candidates to offer their candidature which is in the teeth of
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 and subsequent order dated
17th April, 2025.
10) Another limb of submission made by Mr.
Bhattacharyya is against some of the provisions contained
in said Rules of 2025. It is submitted that Recruiting
Authority ought not to have altered the provisions relating to
fixation of 50% marks instead of 45% which was in earlier
recruitment rules in graduation/post graduation level which
would enable the candidates to be adjudged as eligible.
7
According to the petitioners, distribution of marks i.e. 10 for
prior teaching experience, 10 for interview and 10 for lecture
demonstration ought not to have been provided which would
grant the Recruiting Authority and the Interview Board
unbridled power to allot marks indiscriminately. It is
submitted that without clamping embargo on tainted
candidates if candidature of those candidates are appraised
on the anvil of the rules relating to allotment of marks as
contained in said Rules of 2025 that would lead to a
situation where untainted candidates will be allotted marks
for past experience for which 10 marks is earmarked.
Placing reliance on the order dated 17th April, 2025 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is also submitted that scope is
not extended to the tainted candidates to participate in the
selection process.
11) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 106 (Ms.
Mayawati Vs. Union of India & Ors.). According to the
petitioners, in paragraph 44 of Ms. Mayawati (supra) Court
observed that CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR
since there was no specific direction made by the Court in
particular order. The ratio in Ms. Mayawati (supra),
according to the petitioners, is applicable in the present case
in view of the observations made in the judgment dated 3rd
8
April, 2025 read with order dated 17th April, 2025 both
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where selection
process which was required to be conducted, was directed
not for tainted candidates but WBCSSC has exceeded its
jurisdiction by permitting tainted candidates to offer
candidature in terms of recruitment notification dated 30th
May, 2025 which is without jurisdiction.
12) Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned senior advocate
representing other group of petitioners at the threshold has
submitted that prayer (b) of the writ petition being WPA
13457 of 2025 is not pressed wherein declaration is sought
for to the extent of declaring said Rules of 2025 and
recruitment notification dated 30th May, 2025 ultra vires.
Placing reliance on paragraph 49 of the judgment dated 3rd
April, 2025, it is argued only two categories of candidates
were permitted to participate by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
which are differently- abled and untainted candidates. It is
also submitted that door is closed for tainted candidates as
there is no observation which can lead to an inference that
tainted candidates were permitted to participate in the
selection process in question. It is argued that vacant posts
which were earmarked for 1st SLST, 2016 for Classes IX & X
and XI XII may not be reduced. Candidates who are not
tainted but did not participate in 1st SLST, 2016 should not
9
be considered against the posts which were earmarked for
1st SLST, 2016 for Classes IX & X and XI and XII as those
posts are only to be considered against untainted candidates
based on notification dated 30th May, 2025. It is submitted
that age relaxation has not been provided in said Rules of
2025 properly and fixed the minimum marks i.e. 50% in
graduation/post graduation level which is contrary to the
judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd
April, 2025.
13) Another limb of submission advanced by Mr. Mitra is
order passed in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
ultra vires and in this regard reliance is placed on the
judgment dated 3rd May, 2010 passed on intra-court appeal
being MAT 169 of 2010 (Nilmadhab Das & Ors. Vs. State of
West Bengal & Ors.).
14) Mr. Dhar, learned Senior Advocate representing some
of the petitioners has restricted his submission to the extent
of extending the time beyond 14th July, 2025 fixed for
submission of applications in terms of recruitment
notification dated 30th May, 2025. It is submitted that order
dated 17th April, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed
the cut-off date for issuance of recruitment notification and
completion of selection process. Those are 31st May, 2025
and 31st December, 2025 respectively. According to the
10
petitioners, in the absence of cut-off date fixed for submitting
applications there is no impediment in extending the time to
submit applications beyond 14th July, 2025 as fixed under
notification dated 30th May, 2025. Reliance is placed on
paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 (J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat
Duggar & Ors.) to contend that when an order passed by the
Government on the basis of the directions issued by the
Court there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in
an appropriate forum. Therefore, petitioners are eligible in
terms of principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to approach this Court questioning the steps
taken by respondent authorities in terms of judgment dated
3rd April, 2025 read with order dated 17th April, 2025 and
petitioners need not approach directly before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
15) Mr. Sanyal, learned senior advocate representing
another batch of petitioners has relied upon order passed by
this Court on a batch of writ petitions first one being WPA
6695 of 2024 (Pampa Dutta Dhar & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors.) dated 13th June, 2025 in order to submit that
in Pampa Dutta Dhar (supra) this Court extended the time
to scrutinize training qualification of the petitioners beyond
the time fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in
11
the present case also petitioners have rightly approached
before this Court questioning said Rules of 2025 and
subsequent recruitment notification dated 30 th April, 2025.
It is submitted that it is open to the respondents to approach
the Hon’ble Supreme Court for extension of time to complete
the steps which are required to be taken to conclude the
selection process.
16) On the contrary, Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior
advocate representing WBSSC made submissions based on
the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgment dated 3rd April, 2025. In reference to observations
made in paragraph 49 of the judgment dated 3rd April, 2025,
it is submitted that recruitment notification dated 30th May,
2025 has been issued in consonance with the directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and according to Mr.
Bandyopadhyay observations made in paragraph 49 reveals
a situation where tainted candidates will not get benefit of
age relaxation whereas differently-abled and untainted
candidates will get same benefit.
17) There is an alternative submission made on behalf of
WBCSSC that on interpretation of paragraph 49 of the
judgment dated 3th April, 2025 if it is derived that only
untainted candidates will get chance, in that event tainted
and unsuccessful candidates in 1st SLST, 2016 for classes IX
12
& X and XI & XII will be excluded from the recruitment
process which has been initiated vide recruitment
notification dated 30th May, 2025. In reference to the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 in paragraphs 45 and 46, it is
submitted that since some candidates were found to be
tainted based on fraud which amounts to cheating those
candidates lost their jobs and they were compelled to refund
their salary. After imposition of aforesaid punishment those
candidates should not be punished again by debarring them
to participate in the selection process initiated vide
recruitment notification dated 30th May, 2025. In this
regard, reliance is placed on provisions as contained in
Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
18) Lastly, Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Advocate General
representing State respondents submits that this Court may
not interpret the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it
is not within the domain of this Court to attribute its own
interpretation to the observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 read
with order dated 17th April, 2025. Mr. Dutta in different
manner has attempted to interpret the observations made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 49 of the judgment
dated 3rd April, 2025. It is contended right of participation of
13
a candidate cannot be taken away permanently if such
candidate is found to be tainted after losing job and
refunding salary. According to Mr. Datta, if such right of
participation is taken away that would lead to a situation
where candidates will be punished twice and that will be
against the principle of law as provided in part III of the
Constitution. It is also submitted that Hon’ble Supreme
Court has never barred tainted candidates from participating
in the future selection process, therefore, observations made
in the judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 needs appropriate
interpretation.
19) While considering rival submissions made on behalf of
the parties, the issue which needs consideration is whether
in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division
Bench dated 22nd April, 2024 which merged with the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd April, 2025
read with subsequent order dated 17th April, 2025 passed
also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court tainted candidates can
participate in the selection process which has been initiated
vide recruitment notification dated 30th May, 2025 or not.
20) In order to find answer to this issue, this Court first
needs to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division
Bench dated 22nd April, 2024 wherein paragraph 363(xi) it
was observed that WBCSSC to undertake a fresh selection
14
process in respect of the declared vacancies involved in
particular selection processes within a particular time. Said
judgment dated 22nd April, 2024 travelled before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and while disposing of the appeals judgment
dated 3rd April, 2025 was delivered. This Court finds it apt
to quote that part of the judgment which comes under the
heading “Conclusion”:-
“Conclusion
45. The last question relates to the relief and
whether it requires any modification. We find no valid
ground or reason to interfere with the direction of the
High Court that the services of tainted candidates, where
appointed, must be terminated, and they should be
required to refund any salaries/payments received.
Since their appointments were the result of fraud, this
amounts to cheating. Therefore, we see no justification
to alter this direction.
46. For candidates not specifically found to be
tainted, the entire selection process has been rightly
declared null and void due to the egregious violations
and illegalities, which violated Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. As such, the appointments of these
candidates are cancelled. However, candidates who are
already employed need not be asked to refund or
15restitute any payments made to them. However, their
services will be terminated. Furthermore, no candidate
can be appointed once the entire examination process
and results have been declared void.
47. 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 or autonomous bodies to continue in
service with those entities. These applications must be
processed by the respective government departments or
bodies within three months, and the candidates will be
allowed to resume their positions. Further, the period
between the termination of their previous appointment
and their rejoining will not be considered a break in
service. Their seniority and other entitlements will be
preserved, and they will be eligible for increments.
However, for the period they were employed under the
disputed appointment, no wages will be paid by the
State Government o0r autonomous bodies. Further, if
required and necessary, supernumerary posts may be
created for persons appointed in the interregnum.
16
48. Lastly, we address the case of disabled
candidates. Our attention has been drawn to one such
case where the impugned judgment held that the
appointee, Ms. Soma Das, shall be allowed to continue on
humanitarian grounds. While we will not interfere with
this finding, we make it clear that other differently abled
candidates will not be entitled to the same benefit, as it
would contradict legal principles and the rule of law.
However, in consideration of their disability, these
candidates will be permitted to continue and will receive
wages until the fresh selection process and
appointments are completed.
49. The disabled candidates mentioned in the
previous paragraph will be allowed to participate in the
fresh selection process, if required, will age relaxation
and other concessions. Similarly, other candidates who
are not specifically tainted will also be eligible to
participate, with appropriate age relaxation. In our
opinion, such a direction would be fair and just, as it
would allow these candidates to take part in the fresh
selection process, which should now be initiated to fill
the vacancies.
50. Our observations and findings would not
influence the criminal proceedings.
17
51. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned
judgment cancelling en block/ entire selection process
but have made certain modifications in the directions
issued by the High Court. The appeals are disposed of in
aforesaid terms.
52. We, however, will independently take up the
issue raised in the appeals(s) filed by the State of West
Bengal with regard to the direction of investigation by
the CBI on the decision taken to create supernumerary
posts. The Special Leave Petition(s) to this extent will be
listed for hearing on 08th April, 2025.
53. All pending applications, including
impleadment applications, also stand disposed of. No
order as to costs.”
Subsequently West Bengal Board of Secondary Education
took out a Miscellaneous Application being Miscellaneous
Application No. 709 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4805 of 2025
[West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Vs. Baishakhi
Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee)]. This order dated 17 th April, 2025
is quoted below:-
“O R D E R
We are inclined to accept the prayer made in the
present application insofar as it relates to Assistant
18Teachers for Classes IX and X and Classes XI and XII not
found to be tainted, subject to the following conditions:-
1. An advertisement for fresh recruitment to the aforesaid
post(s) shall be published before 31.05.2025.
2. The examination and the entire recruitment process
shall be completed by 31.12.2025.
3. The State Government, applicant/appellant, West Bengal
Board of Secondary Education, and the West Bengal
Central School Service Commission shall file their
respective affidavits by 31.05.2025, enclosing therewith
a copy of the advertisement for the fresh recruitment as
well as the schedule therefore, so as to ensure
completion of the recruitment process by 31.12.2025.
4. In case the advertisement is not published by
31.05.2025 and the affidavits are not filed by that date,
appropriate orders will be passed by this Court,
including imposition of costs and vacating of the present
order.
We clarify that this order shall not be read as conferring
any special right or advantage on the aforesaid teachers,
insofar as the fresh recruitment process is concerned.
We are not inclined to accept the prayer in the present
application insofar as non-teaching posts in Groups C
and D are concerned, as the number of appointees
19
specifically found to be tainted, in the said groups, is
substantively high and secondly, what has prompted us
to pass this order in respect of Assistant Teachers not
found be tainted is that students undergoing study
presently should not suffer on account of the lack of
teachers and the lapses and failures, which have
resulted in the order passed by this Court.
The Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.”
21) On bare perusal of the concluding part of the judgment
dated 3rd April, 2025, it is crystal clear that on finding
egregious irregularities offending Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India entire selection process was set at
naught resulting in cancellation of engagement of two
categories of candidates, one category was termed as
“tainted” and another was “untainted”. While dealing with
appointment of tainted candidates in paragraph 45 of the
judgment dated 3rd April, 2025, it was categorically observed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that their appointment was
result of fraud, which amounts to cheating, based on which
judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 22nd April,
2024 was not interfered with so far as tainted candidates are
concerned. At the same time, while dealing with case of
20
untainted candidates, it was observed in paragraph 46 of the
judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 that entire selection process
was declared null and void due to irregularities which
violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore,
Hon’ble Supreme Court found it fit to cancel the
appointment of untainted candidates too. Untainted
candidates were not required to refund their salary which
they received after their appointment but such relief was not
granted to the tainted candidates. Only common feature in
between tainted and untainted candidates which was found
by the Hohn’ble Supreme Court is appointment of both
categories of candidates was required to be declared null and
void. Therefore in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Judgment
dated 3rd April, 2025 there is no grey area in differentiating
tainted and untainted candidates and same stands fortified if
one considers observation made in paragraph 49 of the
judgment dated 3rd April, 2025.
22) Though argument has been advanced on behalf of
WBCSSC and State respondents that difference made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in between tainted and untainted
candidates is only to the extent of granting or non-granting
benefit of age relaxation but on plain reading of the relevant
part of the judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 different situation
emanates.
21
23) It appears to this Court that there is substance in the
submission made on behalf of the petitioners that by no
stretch of imagination on reading paragraphs 45, 46 and 49
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd
April, 2025, it can be construed that tainted candidates were
permitted to participate in the selection process which was
required to be initiated in terms of the said judgment without
benefit of age relaxation.
24) This Court needs to advert to another issue as it is
found from Schedule II of the said Rules of 2025 that ten
marks are allotted for prior teaching experience out of total
100 marks. If Court accepts the submissions made on
behalf of State respondents as well as WBCSSC that tainted
candidates were not barred by the judgment dated 3rd April,
2025 from participating in the selection process in that event
while appraising their candidature during interview those
tainted candidates would be permitted to be awarded marks
against their prior teaching experience which is found to be
in teeth of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in paragraphs 45 and 49 of the Judgment dated 3rd
April, 2025. It was observed in paragraph 45 of the
judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 that appointments of tainted
candidates were result of fraud which amounts to cheating.
22
25) This Court has refused to interfere with the challenge
thrown to the said Rules of 2025 that enhanced minimum
qualifying marks in graduation/ post-graduation level from
45% to 50%, which according to the petitioners, is contrary
to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench.
26) It is also contended that vacancies for 1 st SLST, 2016
for Classes IX & X and XI & XII are to be earmarked
separately and appointments on such vacancies are to be
confined to the untainted candidates who participated in the
previous selection process that is 1st SLST, 2016 for Classes
IX & X and XI & XII.
27) Based on observations made by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in the judgment dated 22nd April, 2024 it is further
contended on behalf of the petitioners that previous
recruitment rules is required to be pressed into service while
accommodating untainted candidates against the posts
earmarked for 2016 selection process.
28) On reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division
Bench dated 22nd April, 2024 which merged with the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd April,
2025, it does not appear that recruiting authority cannot
enhance the number of vacancies meant for 1st SLST, 2016
for Classes IX & X and XI & XII by clubbing subsequent
vacancies. What is required is inclusion of vacancies which
23
were meant for 1st SLST, 2016 for Classes IX & X and XI &
XII. Similarly, nowhere any embargo has been imposed
thereby preventing State authorities including WBCSSC from
framing separate rules for filling up those vacancies.
29) Fixation of minimum marks in a selection process
which in the present case has been fixed as 50% instead of
45% which was prevalent in graduation and post graduation
level is policy decision of the recruiting authority which
ought not to be interfered with.
30) In view of aforesaid discussion, respondent authorities
including WBCSSC are directed to proceed with the selection
process which started vide recruitment notification dated
30th May, 2025 but in the said selection process tainted
candidates shall not be permitted to participate. If any
tainted candidate has submitted application in order to offer
his or her candidature pursuant to said recruitment
notification dated 30th May, 2025 same stands cancelled.
31) It is also directed that time schedule which was fixed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17th April,
2025 passed on Miscellaneous Application No. 709 of 2025
shall be strictly adhered to by the respondent authorities to
bring the selection process into logical conclusion.
32) All the writ petitions stand disposed of.
24
33) Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
Later
1. After order is dictated on behalf of WBCSCC prayer is
made for stay of operation of this order to the extent of
debarring tainted candidates from participating in the
selection process based on notification dated 30th May,
2025. Such prayer is considered and refused.
2. To the extent of not entertaining the prayer of the
petitioners whereby case has been made out against
certain provisions of said Rules of 2025 relating to fixation
of minimum marks in graduation /post graduation level
to adjudge eligible candidates to participate in the
selection process and changing pattern of allotment of
marks, prayer is made for stay of operation of same.
Such prayer is also considered and refused.
( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
Ct.18
(Suvendu)
[ad_2]
Source link