The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply criticized the West Bengal government for creating supernumerary posts to address alleged irregularities in teacher and non-teaching staff appointments rather than removing those appointed illegally. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar questioned the rationale behind this decision, asking why the state had chosen to absorb candidates through such posts instead of addressing the core issue.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the West Bengal government, referred to a committee’s report investigating the selection process. While the committee acknowledged irregularities, it did not find them as extensive as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report. The bench, however, pointedly asked whether it was appropriate to retain tainted individuals in the system, observing, “If you find irregularities committed, will you not throw them out first?” The Chief Justice remarked that the creation of these posts appeared to stem from a reluctance to dismiss those involved in questionable appointments.
The court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Calcutta High Court’s April 2022 decision to invalidate the appointments of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff in state-run and state-aided schools. On May 7, the Supreme Court stayed the high court’s order but permitted the CBI to continue its investigation. The apex court noted that on May 19, 2022, the state government had issued an order creating 6,861 supernumerary posts to accommodate wait-listed candidates, directing that appointment letters be issued subject to the outcome of ongoing litigation.
The bench raised concerns about the lack of original OMR sheets used in the recruitment process, emphasizing their importance as primary evidence in identifying manipulations. It noted that the absence of these sheets made it impossible to verify whether scanned copies matched the originals. The court also asked the CBI if it had determined when the OMR data was captured, pointing to the gravity of the situation where unqualified individuals were issued appointment letters.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and others presented arguments during the hearing. The state government maintained that segregation of tainted and untainted candidates was possible, opposing the high court’s blanket direction for a comprehensive CBI probe and custodial interrogations. The bench expressed its dissatisfaction with the handling of the issue and underlined the seriousness of the allegations.
The court reiterated that those found to have been illegally recruited must refund their salaries and benefits. The case will continue in January 2025 as the Supreme Court seeks further clarity on the matter.
