The Calcutta High Court has declined to interfere with the cancellation of admit cards issued to a group of candidates identified as “tainted” in the ongoing School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment scam. These candidates had approached the Court challenging their exclusion from the re-examination process ordered by the Supreme Court, but their plea was rejected on the ground that the cancellations were in line with the apex court’s directions.

 

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya delivered the ruling in W.P.A. No. 20845 of 2025 (Sampa Ghosh vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), observing that none of the petitioners before the Court were permitted to continue as Assistant Teachers under the Supreme Court’s order dated 17th April 2025. Only those who were expressly categorized as untainted teachers were allowed to continue in service until 31st December 2025 in order to safeguard students’ academic interests amidst a shortage of teachers.

 

Background: SSC Scam and “Tainted” Candidates

 

The litigation stems from the 1st State Level Selection Test (SLST), 2016 conducted for recruitment of Assistant Teachers for Classes IX–X and XI–XII. Inquiries by the CBI revealed large-scale irregularities, including:

• Appointments made outside the official merit panel,

• Appointments after the expiry of the panel,

• Candidates submitting blank OMR sheets,

• Rank-jumping through manipulation, and

• Discrepancies in OMR answer scripts.

 

On 22nd April 2024, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court laid down categories of “tainted candidates” (para 363 of the judgment). This was followed by the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 3rd April 2025, which upheld the cancellation of irregular appointments and ordered a fresh selection process, permitting only untainted teachers to remain temporarily in service.

 

Pursuant to these directions, the Commission published a list of 1804 tainted candidates on 30th August 2025. Based on this list, admit cards issued earlier to these candidates for the re-examination were cancelled, prompting the present writ petitions.

 

 

Senior Advocates appearing for the petitioners contended that:

• Their names were wrongly included in the tainted list since they did not fall within the three categories of tainted candidates identified in paragraph 363(iv) of the 22nd April 2024 High Court judgment.

• The Supreme Court did not disturb those specific categories when it decided the matter on 3rd April 2025. Hence, any expansion of the “tainted” definition by including additional categories such as OMR mismatch or CBI-identified irregularities was not legally sustainable.

• Some petitioners were allowed to continue service earlier despite being appointed after the expiry of the panel, suggesting inconsistency in categorization.

 

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for the Commission, opposed the petitions and argued that:

• The Supreme Court widened the scope of tainted candidates beyond the three categories specified in the 2024 High Court judgment, by considering issues of rank-jumping and OMR mismatches flagged by the CBI.

• The list dated 30th August 2025 was prepared not only on the basis of judicial directions but also on the findings of the CBI, which revealed systematic irregularities and fraudulent manipulation.

• Since none of the present petitioners were permitted to function as Assistant Teachers under the Supreme Court’s order dated 17th April 2025, they cannot now claim to be “untainted” or entitled to sit for the re-examination.

 

The High Court accepted the Commission’s submissions, noting that the petitioners had not objected when untainted teachers were allowed to continue in service till 31st December 2025, as per the Supreme Court’s order.

 

Justice Bhattacharya further observed:

 

 

The Court also recorded that two connected Special Leave Petitions—SLP (C) No. 23784/2025 (Bejoy Biswas) and SLP (C) Diary No. 46049/2025 (Bibek Paria)—are pending before the Supreme Court regarding the same tainted list.

 

Holding that the cancellation of admit cards was a natural consequence of the Supreme Court’s orders and the CBI’s findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, reiterating that petitioners cannot claim parity with untainted candidates.