# State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 437
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-04-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-west-bengal-v-baishakhi-bhattacharyya-chatterjee-and-others-38397
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

The issues before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were:
I.
Whether the recruitment process conducted by West
Bengal School Service Commission in 2016 for appointment
of Assistant Teachers (Classes IX-X and XI-XII) and
non-teaching staff (Groups C and D) stood vitiated by systemic
irregularities and fraud.
II.
Whether the decision of the Hon'ble High Court to annul
the entire selection is justifiable or whether only tainted
appointments should be invalidated, preserving untainted
selections.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India, Arts.14 & 16 - Recruitment - Cancellation
of selection process - Scope of judicial review:
Held: The settled law on annulment of the entire process of
recruitment is that it can be justified only when the irregularities
are systemic and pervasive so as to undermine the sanctity of the
entire process and it is not possible to segregate the untainted
from the tainted - In Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021) 4 SCC 631;
which relied on Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra
Sinha (1970) 1 SCC 648; it was held that, when irregularities border
on or even constitute fraud, it severely damages the credibility
and legitimacy of the process - Where separation of tainted and
untainted candidates is feasible, the innocent should not suffer
for the wrongdoings of others - This principle flows from equality
of opportunity under Article 16(1) and the guarantee of fairness
under Article 14 - A constitution bench in Board of High School
and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das
* Author
2238
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110; held that if widespread fraud and
manipulation strike at the root of the process, and the system
itself is found to be corrupt or compromised, then annulment of
the entire recruitment becomes inevitable - In the present case,
findings of the High Court, the CBI and the Enquiry Committee
showed rank manipulation, illegal appointments, destruction of
records, and deliberate cover-up - These facts revealed fraud of
such magnitude that the process stood irreparably tainted - Hence,
cancellation of the entire selection process was the only viable
option. [Paras 7-19, 20-22]
Service Law - Recruitment to public posts - Natural justice -
Requirement of notice and hearing:
Held: The general rule is that individual candidates should be
afforded notice and opportunity of hearing before their appointments
are disturbed - However, exceptions arise in cases of mass fraud
or systemic irregularities where giving notice to thousands of
candidates would be impractical and unnecessary - Bihar School
Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648;
U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110; Anamica
Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, (1990)
Supp. SCC 692), recognise that in such situations, en masse
annulment is valid even without individual hearing - In the instant
case, destruction of OMR sheets, illegal grant of appointments
outside the panel, and manipulation of ranks were matters of
record, leaving no scope for individual defence - It was therefore
held that principles of natural justice did not require individual
hearing when the entire process was shown to be fraudulent.
[Paras 8-10, 19-20]
West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997; Rules,
2009 & 2016 - Irregularities in recruitment:
Held: Investigation and committee reports conclusively revealed
multiple violations of statutory provisions and recruitment rules -
Appointment of scanning agency through a closed-door process
contrary to Article 14 - Unauthorised sub-delegation of scanning
work to a third party without approval - Destruction of original OMR
sheets despite express prohibition under the 2009 Rules - Failure to
publish merit lists with marks - Rank manipulation by altering order
of candidates in the panel - Counselling and recommendations
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2239
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
beyond validity of panel - Appointments t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 95,385. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2237 : 2025 INSC 437
State of West Bengal
v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2025)
03 April 2025
[Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.]
Issue for Consideration
The issues before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were:
I.
Whether the recruitment process conducted by West
Bengal School Service Commission in 2016 for appointment
of Assistant Teachers (Classes IX-X and XI-XII) and
non-teaching staff (Groups C and D) stood vitiated by systemic
irregularities and fraud.
II.
Whether the decision of the Hon'ble High Court to annul
the entire selection is justifiable or whether only tainted
appointments should be invalidated, preserving untainted
selections.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India, Arts.14 & 16 - Recruitment - Cancellation
of selection process - Scope of judicial review:
Held: The settled law on annulment of the entire process of
recruitment is that it can be justified only when the irregularities
are systemic and pervasive so as to undermine the sanctity of the
entire process and it is not possible to segregate the untainted
from the tainted - In Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021) 4 SCC 631;
which relied on Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra
Sinha (1970) 1 SCC 648; it was held that, when irregularities border
on or even constitute fraud, it severely damages the credibility
and legitimacy of the process - Where separation of tainted and
untainted candidates is feasible, the innocent should not suffer
for the wrongdoings of others - This principle flows from equality
of opportunity under Article 16(1) and the guarantee of fairness
under Article 14 - A constitution bench in Board of High School
and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das
* Author
2238
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110; held that if widespread fraud and
manipulation strike at the root of the process, and the system
itself is found to be corrupt or compromised, then annulment of
the entire recruitment becomes inevitable - In the present case,
findings of the High Court, the CBI and the Enquiry Committee
showed rank manipulation, illegal appointments, destruction of
records, and deliberate cover-up - These facts revealed fraud of
such magnitude that the process stood irreparably tainted - Hence,
cancellation of the entire selection process was the only viable
option. [Paras 7-19, 20-22]
Service Law - Recruitment to public posts - Natural justice -
Requirement of notice and hearing:
Held: The general rule is that individual candidates should be
afforded notice and opportunity of hearing before their appointments
are disturbed - However, exceptions arise in cases of mass fraud
or systemic irregularities where giving notice to thousands of
candidates would be impractical and unnecessary - Bihar School
Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648;
U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110; Anamica
Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, (1990)
Supp. SCC 692), recognise that in such situations, en masse
annulment is valid even without individual hearing - In the instant
case, destruction of OMR sheets, illegal grant of appointments
outside the panel, and manipulation of ranks were matters of
record, leaving no scope for individual defence - It was therefore
held that principles of natural justice did not require individual
hearing when the entire process was shown to be fraudulent.
[Paras 8-10, 19-20]
West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997; Rules,
2009 & 2016 - Irregularities in recruitment:
Held: Investigation and committee reports conclusively revealed
multiple violations of statutory provisions and recruitment rules -
Appointment of scanning agency through a closed-door process
contrary to Article 14 - Unauthorised sub-delegation of scanning
work to a third party without approval - Destruction of original OMR
sheets despite express prohibition under the 2009 Rules - Failure to
publish merit lists with marks - Rank manipulation by altering order
of candidates in the panel - Counselling and recommendations
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2239
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
beyond validity of panel - Appointments to persons outside panel,
after expiry of panel, and even to candidates who had submitted
blank OMR sheets - Creation of supernumerary posts to regularise
illegal appointees - The cumulative effect of these irregularities
established fraud and malaise at the systemic level - The High
Court's conclusion that the entire recruitment stood vitiated was
upheld. [Paras 20-22]
Recruitment - Consequences of systemic fraud - Reliefs and
directions:
Held: Having regard to the scale and depth of irregularities, this
Court affirmed the finding that the recruitment process of 2016 for
Assistant Teachers (Classes IX-X and XI-XII) and non-teaching
staff (Groups C and D) was irretrievably tainted - Entire selection
set aside - Appointees outside the panel or otherwise illegally
appointed directed to refund all remuneration with interest at
12% per annum - District Magistrates authorised to recover dues
as arrears of land revenue - CBI directed to conduct further
investigation, including custodial interrogation if necessary, into
officials and private parties involved - West Bengal School Service
Commission directed to undertake a fresh recruitment exercise
strictly in accordance with the governing Rules and by transparent
process including open tender for evaluation and scanning of OMR
sheets. [Paras 6, 19-22]
Recruitment - Segregation of tainted / feasibility - Scope of
proof and admissibility:
Held: WBSSC itself, in its affidavit and written submissions,
has admitted rank-jumping, out-of-panel appointments,
recommendations without panel inclusion, and OMR score
manipulation - Statistical tables placed by WBSSC before the High
Court and this Court demonstrated thousands of such irregular
appointments across categories - Discrepancy accepted between
'actual/genuine OMR marks' found in three seized hard disks and
'marks recorded in WBSSC computer/server' - Destruction / nonretention of mirror OMR images and inconsistency in answers given
by WBSSC under RTI demonstrate deliberate attempt to coverup and make ascertainment impossible - Therefore contention
that untainted candidates can now be segregated rejected.
[Paras 23-33, 36-42]
2240
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Delay / Laches - Fraud concealed - When time-bar principles
do not apply:
Held: Plea that writ petitions were belated and ought to be rejected
on delay/ laches/ acquiescence rejected - Distinction reiterated
between acquiescence, delay and laches - The foundational
principle in all of them is prejudice and equity - But these defences
presuppose knowledge of the wrong and conscious inaction
thereafter - Concealed systemic fraud and illegalities came to light
only in 2021-2022 during the CBI probe - Therefore petitioners
could not have challenged earlier - Applying laches where fraud
was covered-up would itself defeat equity - Delay is always factspecific - Where fraud has been suppressed and masked by
deliberate cover-up, limitation / laches cannot operate to protect
illegal appointments or bar judicial review - Reliance placed on
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T.
Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108. [Para 43]
Service Law - Consequence of annulment - Candidates who
were previously employed in Govt / autonomous bodies -
Right to revert / continuity:
Held: Candidates not specifically found to be tainted, who had
previously been in service with State Government departments
or autonomous bodies, shall be permitted to apply to resume
service in their earlier post / department - The applications
shall be processed within three months - The period between
termination under the disputed selection and rejoining will not be
treated as break in service - Seniority and entitlements including
increments to be protected - However, no wages shall be paid
for the period worked under the invalid / cancelled appointment -
Supernumerary posts may be created if required - All nonspecifically tainted candidates also allowed to participate with
relaxation. [Paras 46-47]
Reliefs - Disabled candidates - Limited exception - No wages
for disputed period - Fresh recruitment:
Held: Finding of the High Court permitting one individual disabled
appointee to continue on humanitarian grounds not interfered
with - Other differently abled candidates will be permitted to
continue and will receive wages until the fresh selection process
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2241
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
and appointments are completed - Participation in fresh selection
allowed with age relaxation - Criminal proceedings unaffected.
[Paras 47-48]
Case Law Cited
Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
(DSSSB) [2021] 2 SCR 1073 : (2021) 4 SCC 631; Bihar School
Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha [1970] 3 SCR
963 : (1970) 1 SCC 648; Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta [1962] Supp. 3
SCR 36 : AIR 1962 SC 1110; State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani
(2021) 16 SCC 217; Chairman, All India Railways Recruitment
Board v. K. Shyam Kumar [2010] 6 SCR 291 : (2010) 6 SCC 614;
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India [2024] 8 SCR 45 : (2024) 9 SCC
743 - relied on.
Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad
[1989] Supp. 2 SCR 124 : (1990) Supp. SCC 692; Madhyamic
Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti (1998) 9
SCC 236; Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu [2003]
Supp. 1 SCR 883 : (2003) 7 SCC 285; Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v.
State of Punjab [2006] Supp. 1 SCR 772 : (2006) 11 SCC 356;
Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab [2014] 6 SCR 383 : (2014) 6 SCC
644; Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat [2017] 3 SCR
401 : (2017) 13 SCC 621 - discussed.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; West Bengal School Service Commission
Act, 1997; West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection
of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff)
Rules, 2009; West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection
for Appointment of Teachers for Classes IX-X) Rules, 2016; West
Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment of
Teachers for Classes XI-XII) Rules, 2016.
List of Keywords
Recruitment scam; Systemic irregularities; En masse cancellation;
Segregation of tainted and untainted; Natural justice; OMR
destruction; Rank manipulation; Fraud in selection; WBSSC; Article
14; Article 16; Public employment integrity.
2242
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4800
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2024 of the High Court
at Calcutta in WPA No. 30649 of 2016
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 9614, 11883, 9637, 10617,
12148, 11752, 10552, 10603-10607, 11765, 11867, 11759, 11761,
12144, 11880, 11746, 10485, 10599, 10545, 11769, 12766, 11721,
11878, 10669-10670, 11857, 11756, 11846-11848, 15233, 15232,
16109, 12134, 13358, 14070-14072, 16110, 18501, 17041, 17022,
16911-16915, 15234, 11313, 15839, 15842, 14116-14117, 15231,
15843, 15844, 13337-13339, 14331, 15845, 15101, 13989,
16088-16091, 15846, 15391-15392, 15835, 15833, 15838, 15836,
16160, 16111, 15298, 15077, 16113, 16114, 16118, 15987, 16115,
18621, 16249, 16116, 16117, 16643-16645, 16887, 15294, 16093,
19768, 12770, 18366, 16933, 20455, 22110, 20462-20464, 19179,
22112, 22158-22159, 22111, 26465, 22109 and 25078 of 2024,
Diary No(s). 20709, 21000, 21281, 23851, 25090, 25093, 25096,
27432, 27690, 27815, 28146, 28314, 28508, 30235, 30857, 32112,
32157, 33587, 25086, 27647, 27934, 28790, 29406, 30458, 30460,
30645, 31169, 33463, 27969, 41922, 20467, 30364, 30457, 30498,
34059, 20930 and 31175 of 2024, and Diary No. 2104 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Prateek Dhar, Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, Dr. Abhishek Manu
Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Siddharth Bhatnagar, C.S. Vaidyanthan,
M.R. Shamshad, Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Uday Gupta, Ashok Bhan,
Shailesh Madiyal, R. BalaSubramanian, Vinay Navare, Mahabir
Singh, Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Haripriya Padmanabhan, Vikas
Singh, Dr. Maneka Guruswamy, Rahul Kaushik, Mrs. Rachana
Shrivastava, Ms. Karuna Nundy, Dr. S. Muralidhar, Ms. N.S.
Nappinai, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Milon Mukherjee, Dinesh Dwivedi,
Ramkrishnan Virraghavan, Devadatt Kamat, Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
Rajiv Shakdher, Mrs. Kaveeta Wadia, R. Anand Padmanabhan,
S. Guru Krishnakumar, P.S. Patwalia, Dushyant A. Dave, Kalyan
Bandhopadhyay, Anindya Lahiri, Ritzu Ghoshal, Sanjay Hegde,
Sanjoy Ghose, Ranjit Kumar, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Astha
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2243
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
Sharma, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Dibya Dyuti Banerjee, Mrs.
Sumedha Halder, Abhijit Sengupta, Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Asif Iqbal,
Mrs. Rabia Khatoon, Mrs. Soma Mal, Govind Manoharan, Ms.
Samiksha Godiyal, Ms. Devahuti Pathak, A. Karthik, Ms. Smrithi
Suresh, B.D. Rao Kundan, Yash Johri, Anshula Laroiya, Tenzing
Namgyal Bhutia, Joydeep Mazumdar, P. Sil, D. Bhattacharya, Ms.
Upma Shrivastava, Shashank Singh, Arijit Sarkar, Ms. Zeb Hasan,
Adil Sharfuddin, Ms. Sarah, Ms. Shivani Lal, Hiren Dasan, Suman
Sengupta, Rahul Kumar Singh, Ms. Sanam Singh, Rajeev Kumar
Gupta, Ms. Sundri, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Jayprakash Bansilal
Somani, Rajnish Kumar, Manoj Kumar Chowdhary, Ms. Shisba
Chawla, Gururaj S., Devesh Kumar Mishra, Jayprakash B. Somani,
Nishant Verma, Rajnish Kumar, Manoj Kumar Chowdhary, Gururaj
S., Amitabh Ranjan, Ms. Samiksha Sharma, Prashant Bhusan,
Shamim Ahmmed, Supratik Sarkar, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,
Subhasish Bhowmick, Vishak Bhattacharya, Ms. Manisha Pandey,
Rahul Kushwaha, Shubhankar, M.K. Rathor, Reegan S. Bel, Rakesh
Kumar Tiwari, Ashutosh Singh, Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi,
S.K. Pandey, Awanish Kumar, Anshul Rai, M/s. Dharmaprabhas
Law Associates, Kuldeep Rai, Nandini Rai, Aryan Dev Pandey, Ms.
Neelima Pathak, Ishwar Chnadra Roy, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar,
Jaydip Pati, Ms. Bhavya Tyagi, Pradeep Chandra Sati, Nitish
Kumar Rai, Ms. Anita, Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Sukesh Ghosh,
Gagan Deep Sharma, Veerendra Kumar, Hitesh Kumar, R.C.
Kaushik, Abhik Chimni, Shariq Ahmed, Tariq Ahmed, Ms. Pranjal
Abrol, M/s. Ahmadi Law Offices, Partha Burman, Nikhil Rohatgi,
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Shrika Gautam, Shashank Khurana,
Yuvraj Kashyap, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Ms. Tapati Sarkar, Rajesh
Yadav, Rahul Arya, Bhaskar Aditya, Ankit Ambasta, Bapi Das, Rajib
Mullick, Chittapriya Ghosh, Soumya Dutta, Somesh Ghosh, Ms.
Shivani Vij, Siddhant Upmanyu, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Krishna
M. Singh, M/s. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, Ashis Kumar
Chowdhury, Sukesh Ghosh, Rajib Ghosh, Babharu Bahan Behra,
P.C. Das, Bijay Adhikari, Chand Qureshi, Nikhil Rohatgi, Rajesh
Sen, Hardik Jayal, Vikas Jain, Ms. Shrawani, Shivansh Pandya,
Nikhil Rohatgi, Surjadipta Seth, Soumik Ghosal, Gaurav Singh,
Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Talha Abdul Rahman, Rahul Bajaj, Taha Bin
Tasneem, Amar Jain, M. Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Faizan
Ahmad, Rafid Akhter, Ms. Preeti Singh, Amitabrata Roy, Yuvraj
Narvankar, Joydeep Mazumdar, Mangaljit Mukherjee, Prabhat Sil, P.
Sil, Kunal Jain, Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Nishchaiy Sharma, Chaman
2244
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Choudhury, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Jayant Kumar Jakhar, Krishnam
Mishra, Nishant Singh, Prashant Bhushan, Supratik Sarkar, Saurav
Gupta, Gholam Mohiuddin, Anindo Mukherjee, Md. Iqbal Hussain,
Nitin Bhardwaj, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Kiran Kumar Patra,
Chandan Maity, Preetish Sahu, Adeel Ahmed, Arindom Mitra,
Ms. Ayushi Arora, Karan Lr, Chandratanay Chaube, Jonathan,
Atul Yadav, Md Ghouse Muddin Khan, Romil Pathak, Mrs. Neha
Pathak, Ms. Chavi Jain, Aryan Pathak, Ms. Sonal Sarda, Danish
Saifi, Naman V. Dwivedi, Bharat Shandilia, Ms. Jagrati Singh,
Partha Sil, Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Srijit Datta, Rahul Singh,
Anirban Sen, Subhrangsu Panda, Debottam Das, Upmanyu Tewari,
Akshay Kumar Sharma, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Avanish Pandey, Anirban
Ghosh, Rommel Khan, Ms. Tejaswita, Sohan Lal Adak, Sriram
P., Vikram Hegde, Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya, Ms. Hima Lawrence,
Ms. Chinmayi Shrivastava, Ashutosh Yadav, Rohan Mandal, Amit
Pawan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Ms. Aastha Shrestha, Ms. Shivangi
Singh Rawat, Suchit, Goutam Dey, Arkadipta Sengupta, Tavish
Bhushan Prasad, Shes Raj Bharti, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee
Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Mrinalini Mukherjee, Amit Sharma,
Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Pallavi Barua, Ms. Aparna Singh, Ms. Jyotika
Kalra, Joydeep Mukherjee, Aditya Jha, Ayush Anand, Kabir Shankar
Bose, Amit Mishra, Abhijeet, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Aryan Tikoo,
Debanjan Mandal, Kunal Mimani, Tanish Arora.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, S.G., K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Suryaprakash V. Raju,
A.S.G., Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Rauf Rahim, Jaideep Gupta,
Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Rajiv Shakdher, Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, Maninder Singh, Mrs. V. Mohana, Shadan Farasat, Amit
Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advs., Shekhar Kumar, Bikram Banerjee, Firdous
Samim, Sudipta Dasgupta, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ali Asghar Rahim,
Arkadeb Biswas, Ms. Payel Shome, Arka Nandi, Ms. Sampriti
Saha, Ms. Dipa Acharya, Mrs. Swati Dey, Saikat Sutradhar,
Sondwip Sutradhar, Suthirtha Nayek, Ms. Sinjini Chakrabarti,
Baibhav Roy, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit
Bansal, Ms. Mrinalini Mukherjee, Sudipta Dasgupta, Firdous
Samim, Bikram Banerjee, Ms. Somsubhra Ganguly, Ms. Gopa
Biswas, Saikat Sutradhar, Ms. Sampriti Saha, Sondwip Sutradhar,
Ms. Swati Dey, Baibhav Roy, Ali Asghar Rahim, Ms. Sinjini
Chakraborty, Umesh Kumar Shukla, Subhro Prokas Mukherjee,
Raja Chatterjee, Adeel Ahmed, Arindom Mitra, Ms. Anupama
Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Arora, Ms. Riya Dutta, Atul Yadav, Piyush
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2245
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
Sachdev, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Bikram Banerjee, Ms. Ana
Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Tejasvi Gupta, T. Illayarasu, Yatharth
Gupta, Sudipta Dasgupta, Baibhav Roy, Ms. Sinjini Chakrabarti,
Rangasaran Mohan, Amarpal Singh Dua, Ms. Astha Sharma,
Joydeep Mazumdar, P. Sil, Kunal Jain, Debojyoti Bhattacharya,
Nishchaiy Sharma, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Mujahid Ahmad, Chand
Qureshi, Aarif Ali, Shaunak Ghosh, Sakhawat Khandakar, Raj
Kumar Yadav, Ms. Bhavya Pande, Dhirendra Kumar Verma,
Harshit Anand, Rakesh Ranjan, Mohd Tauhid, Ms. Swati Jha,
Mohd Faseeh Khan, Sohham Sau, Lohit Kumar Bimal, Karthik
Sundar, Gokul Athithiya, Raghav Kumar Bimal, Anindo Mukherjee,
Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Devesh Kumar Mishra, Mrs. Aisha
Siddiqui, Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Mrs. Arpana Soni, Ms. Preeti
Chauhan, Mohit Yadav, Mrs. Aarti Pal, Keshav Dev, Chandan
Kumar Mandal, Deepak Raj Singh, Rama Kant Sharma, Surendra
Ramgopal Aggarwal, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Ms. Tara
Elizabeth Kurien, D.P. Singh, Abhijit Sengupta, Soumya Dutta,
Shuvro Lahiri, Siddhant Upmanyu, Sukesh Ghosh, Ms. Sadhana
Sandhu, Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Kapil Sau, Gauranga Kumar Das,
Sanjay Maurya, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Kanu Agarwal, Raman
Yadav, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj Kumar, Madhav Sinhal, Ms.
Swati Ghildiyal, Samrat Goswami, Mrs. Shibani Bhattacharjee,
Shaveer Ahmed, Keshav Kant Sharma, Abdullah, Romil Pathak,
Subramaniam S., Veeraraghavan, Padmanabharaja, Bharat
Shandilia, Ms. Jagrati Singh, Rajesh K Sheoran, Sumit Kumar
Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Sunny Kadiyan, Ramendra Mohan
Patnaik, Subhasish Bhowmick, Vishak Bhattacharya, Ms. Manisha
Pandey, Rahul Kushwaha, Shubhankar, M.K. Rathor, Reegan S.
Bel, Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, Mujahid Ahmad, Chand Qureshi, Aarif
Ali, Shaunak Ghosh, Sakhawat Khandakar, Raj Kumar Yadav, Ms.
Bhavya Pande, Dhirendra Kumar Verma, Harshit Anand, Rakesh
Ranjan, Mohd Tauhid, Ms. Swati Jha, Mohd Faseeh Khan, Sohham
Sau, Lohit Kumar Bimal, Karthik Sundar, Gokul Athithiya, Raghav
Kumar Bimal, Anindo Mukherjee, Mohammad Usman Siddiqui,
Devesh Kumar Mishra, Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Ms. Sakeena Quidwai,
Mrs. Arpana Soni, Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Mohit Yadav, Mrs. Aarti
Pal, Keshav Dev, Chandan Kumar Mandal, Deepak Raj Singh,
Rama Kant Sharma, Surendra Ramgopal Aggarwal, Vijay Kumar,
Sunando Raha, S.K. Sayanuddin, Kunal Malik, Manish Awasthi,
Kiran Kumar Patra, Amit Pawan, Goutam Dey, Tavish Bhushan
Prasad, Shes Raj Bharti, Anjan Datta, Rajnil Mukherjee, Ms.
Debonila Sarkar, Ms. Ishita Shrivastava, Vishal Arun Mishra.
2246
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, CJI
Leave granted.
2.
The impugned judgment dated 22.04.2024 en bloc sets aside the
2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School
Service Commission1 for the recruitment of non-teaching staff in
Groups C and D, and Assistant Teachers for Classes IX and X, as
well as Classes XI and XII.
3.
The appellants before us are the selectees, some of whom have
been working for over five years. They fall into two categories:
(i) selectees with purported evidence and material indicating
wrongdoing and (ii) other selectees who claim that they were validly
selected and have committed no wrongdoing. The State of West
Bengal and the WBSSC have also challenged the impugned judgment.
4.
The respondents before us are the writ petitioners who have
succeeded before the High Court at Calcutta. The Central Bureau
of Investigation2 which had carried out the investigation pursuant to
the directions given by the High Court at Calcutta is also arraigned
as a respondent.3
5.
The implicated selectees have challenged the judgment on the
following main grounds: First, that the evidence against them is weak,
unproven, and inadmissible. Second, they were punished without an
inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice. Third, while they
were chargesheeted, they have not been convicted and should be
treated as innocent. The other selectees, the State of West Bengal,
and WBSSC argue that the High Court erred by annulling the entire
selection process based on the CBI report and should have only
cancelled the appointments of those found guilty, leaving the other
appointments intact.
1
Hereinafter, "WBSSC".
2
Hereinafter, "CBI".
3
Diary No. 21281/2024, SLP (C) 16643-45/2024, SLP (C) 18366/2024, SLP (C) 11721/2024, SLP (C)
14331/2024, SLP (C) 22110/2024, SLP (C) 25078/2024 etc.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2247
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
Factual Matrix
6.
To avoid prolixity, we will not revisit the detailed facts or the origin of
the litigation, as they are clearly outlined in the impugned judgment.
Instead, we will focus on the key facts necessary to decide the
appeals:
 •
The West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 governs
the establishment of the School Service Commission, which
is responsible for selecting individuals for teaching and nonteaching positions in State-funded schools in West Bengal.
 •
The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963
governs the establishment and functioning of the West Bengal
Board of Secondary Education,4 which appoints teachers and
non-teaching staff in the institutions as per the West Bengal
School Service Commission Act, 1997.
 •
The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for
Appointment to the posts of Teachers for Classes IX and X
in Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 20165
govern the selection process for Assistant Teachers for Classes
IX and X.
 •
The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for
Appointment to the posts of Teachers for Classes XI and XII
in Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 20166
govern the selection process for Assistant Teachers for Classes
XI and XII.
 •
The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of
Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff)
Rules, 20097 govern the selection process for Group C and
Group D Non-Teaching posts.
 •
In 2016, WBSSC, the statutory selection body, had issued
a notification for regional and state level selection tests and
commenced the selection process for the following posts:
4
Hereinafter, "Board".
5
Hereinafter, "Class IX-X Rules".
6
Hereinafter, "Class XI-XII Rules".
7
Hereinafter, "2009 Rules".
2248
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(i)
12,905 Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X;
(ii)
5,712 Assistant Teachers for Classes XI & XII;
(iii) 2,067 Non-teaching Staff under Group C; and
(iv) 3,956 Non-teaching Staff under Group D.
 •
M/s. Nysa Communications Pvt. Ltd.8 was given the task of
scanning and assessing the Optical Mark Recognition9 sheets.
 •
The candidates who had appeared in the exam were allowed to
log in and check their respective status/result on the evaluation
of the OMR sheet on or about the following dates:
(a) Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X
02.05.2017
(b) Assistant Teachers for Classes XI & XII
08.05.2017
(c)
Non-teaching Staff Group 'C'
24.07.2017
(d) Non-teaching Staff Group 'D'
23.06.2017
 •
A common list with the marks was not uploaded. However,
candidates were allowed to log in to the WBSSC website to
check if they had been called for a personality test or interview.
 •
WBSSC then conducted the interviews and personality tests,
maintaining a ratio of 1:1.4 for teachers and 1:2 for non-teaching
staff, based on the marks obtained by the candidates.
 •
Personality tests/interviews for the candidates were conducted
on the following dates:
(a) Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X
06.11.2017
onwards
(b) Assistant Teachers for Classes XI & XII
14.09.2017 to
24.09.2017
(c) Non-teaching Staff Group 'C'
24.10.2017
to 02.11.2017
(d) Non-teaching Staff Group 'D'
16.08.2017 to
31.08.2017
8
Hereinafter, "M/s. Nysa".
9
Hereinafter, "OMR".
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2249
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
 •
The final status rank list was published on the website of WBSSC
as per the details given below:
(a)
Assistant Teachers for Classes IX & X
28.08.2018
(b)
Assistant Teachers for Classes XI & XII
27.11.2017
(c)
Non-teaching Staff Group 'C'
20.12.2017
(d)
Non-teaching Staff Group 'D'
06.11.2017
The list did not display the marks obtained, but it included
both the candidates who were in the panel and those on the
waiting list.
 •
Even before the results were declared, WPA No. 30649 of 2016
was filed by Baishakhi Bhattacharyya against the State of West
Bengal and others before the High Court at Calcutta in December
2016. The allegation made by Baishakhi Bhattacharyya was
the failure to grant age relaxation. This case became the lead
case before the High Court at Calcutta.
 •
Other writ petitions were filed subsequently in 2021, seeking
individual appointments and alleging illegalities in the 2016
recruitment process. Illustratively, some of the issues raised
were:
I.
Appointment letters were received but candidates were
not allowed to join.10
II.
Non-publication of the fourth phase of the counselling list
contrary to the 2009 Rules.11
III.
Rank jumping i.e. candidates holding the rank below the
petitioner(s) had been given appointments.12
IV.
Candidates in the waiting list for Group D posts in the
panel published on 20.06.2019 were ignored, as a new
notification dated 14.06.2021 had been published initiating
a new recruitment process.13
10
WPA No. 14612 of 2021.
11
WPA No. 12266 of 2021.
12
WPA 18585 of 2021.
13
WPA 12270 of 2021.
2250
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
V.
Pick and choose method in selecting candidates and
flouting of recruitment rules.14
VI. Candidate(s) neither in the merit list nor in the waiting
list was/ were given appointment and also joined the
school(s).15
 •
Counter affidavits, affidavits and reports were filed by the
WBSSC and the Board.
 •
On some occasions, WBSSC filed affidavits accepting the
illegalities and mistakes, be it on account of rank-jumping or
the person being issued appointment letter(s) was not one of
the selected/empanelled candidates.
 •
When questioned, WBSSC stated that it could not verify the
number of illegal recommendations or provide details of such
candidates. We will later refer to their affidavit dated 27.09.2022
filed in WPA No. 17273 of 2021 for further explanation.
 •
A four-member committee, chaired by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bag,
a retired Judge of the High Court at Calcutta, was formed. The
committee included representatives from WBSSC, the Board,
and an Advocate. This committee was tasked with scrutinizing
and verifying the appointments of non-teaching staff in Groups
'C' and 'D'. We will discuss their findings later.
 •
WBSSC was unable to produce the original OMR sheets. Initially,
they submitted mirror/scanned copies, but later claimed they
had not retained these copies. They stated that these copies
had been provided by M/s. Nysa.
 •
WBSSC, citing Rule 21 of the Classes IX-X and Classes XIXII Rules, justified its executive decision dated 22.07.2019 to
destroy the physical OMR sheets one year after the results
were declared. We will examine this argument subsequently.
 •
Although the applicable rules clearly do not permit the
destruction of OMR sheets for non-teaching staff (Groups C
and D), WBSSC violated these rules by directing the destruction
14
WPA No. 13700 of 2021.
15
WPA 17273 of 2021.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2251
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
of the physical OMR sheets through its executive decision
dated 22.07.2019.
 •
Upon realizing illegalities in appointment, WBSSC terminated
the services of some candidates under Rule 17 of the Classes
IX-X and XI-XII Rules, and Rule 18 of the 2009 Rules.
In accordance with the interim orders passed by the High Court
at Calcutta, WBSSC also withdrew the recommendations for
certain candidates.
 •
Vide order dated 15.02.202216, the Single Judge directed the CBI
to investigate the alleged illegalities in the recruitment process.
Pursuant to further orders dated 05.04.2022,17 07.04.2022,18
18.05.2022,19 and 20.05.202220 of the Single Judge, four different
FIRs21 were registered by CBI.
 •
Special Leave Petitions were filed before this Court and heard.22
Vide order dated 09.11.2023, while dealing with a batch of cases
in Achinta Kumar Mondal and Others etc. v. Laxmi Tunga
and Others etc.,23 this Court directed that:
"We accordingly direct the CBI to complete the
investigation within two months and submit its report
before the High Court. The CBI shall also be at liberty
to take such steps as may be lawful in pursuance of
their investigation.
(ii) We also direct that protection to the appointments
which is being accorded today in this order shall
continue for a period of six months to enable the
Division Bench to finally adjudicate on the subjectdisputes. The Division Bench shall examine all the
points that may be raised before it including the
question of maintainability of the proceedings.
16
Passed in WPA 12270 of 2021.
17
Passed in WPA 18585 of 2021.
18
Passed in WPA 5538 of 2022.
19
Passed in WPA 5406 of 2022.
20
Passed in WPA 12270 of 2021.
21
RC0102022A0002, RC0102022A0003, RC0102022A0004 and RC0102022A0005.
22
Arising out of impugned final/interim judgment and orders dated 16-02-2023 in MAT No. 274/2023 & MAT
No. 259/2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta.
23
SLP (C) Nos. 4078-4079/2023.
2252
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(iii) The proceedings in which petitioners/appellants
have approached this Court directly without being
impleaded as parties to the proceedings before the
High Court shall also have right of audience before
the High Court but for that purpose, appropriate
application(s) shall have to be filed before the High
Court.
(iv) As we foresee the possibility of a large number of
litigants approaching the Division Bench of the High
Court, we leave it to the Division Bench to formulate
its own procedure for regulating the manner in which
hearing shall be conducted by it. The Division Bench
may explore the possibility of hearing the parties in
representative capacity, so that there is no multiple
hearing on the same point of law or fact."
 •
Pursuant to the direction for investigation, the CBI had submitted
four interim and final Reports24 before the High Court.
 •
Vide impugned judgment dated 22.04.2024, the Division Bench
set aside the entire selection process. The Division Bench has
given the following directions:-
"363. In view of the discussions above, we issue the
following directions:
(i) Writ petitions appearing in the monthly list of
March, 2024 of this Bench, which are not filed and
numbered in the years 2021 and 2022 are released
from the list due to lack of jurisdiction/determination.
(ii) All appointments granted in the selection processes
involved being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, are declared null and void and
cancelled.
(iii) OMR sheets available in the three hard disks, if
not already done or such portion not done, must be
24
Dated 09.01.2024 in WPA 18585/2021, 16.01.2024 in WPA 5406/2022, 05.02.2024 in WPA 5406/2022
and 07.12.2022 in WPA 13700/2021.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2253
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
uploaded in the website of SSC forthwith and made
available to the public for viewing.
(iv) Persons who had been appointed outside
the panel, after expiry of the panel as also those
who submitted blank OMR sheets but obtained
appointments, must return all remunerations and
benefits received by them to the State exchequer
along with interest calculated at 12 percent per
annum, from the date of receipt thereof till deposit,
within a period of four weeks from date.
(v) In default, the District Magistrates under whose
jurisdictions, such candidates reside, will take
expeditious steps to realize such amount from
such persons, as arrears of land revenue and shall
ensure that recovery is made within a period of six
weeks of the date of initiation of proceeding for
recovery.
(vi) Respective District Inspectors of School will report
to the respective District Magistrates as to whether
money directed to be paid by the persons concerned
have been paid to the State exchequer or not.
(vii) CBI will undertake further investigation in
respect of all the four cases. CBI will interrogate all
persons who had received appointments beyond
the panel, after expiry of the panel and after
submitting blank OMR sheets. If necessary, CBI shall
undertake custodial interrogation in respect of each of
them.
(viii) CBI will undertake further investigations
with regard to the persons involved, in the State
Government approving creation of supernumerary
post to accommodate illegal appointments. If
necessary, CBI will undertake custodial interrogation
of such person involved.
(ix) CBI shall submit its reports with regard to further
investigations as directed herein, preferably within
three months from date, with the jurisdictional Court.
2254
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(x) Leave granted to SIT to seek appropriate directions
so that the investigations and trials come to their
logical conclusions.
(xi) SSC shall undertake a fresh selection process
in respect the declared vacancies involved in these
selection processes preferably within a fortnight
from the date of declaration of results of the ensuing
elections.
(xii) Appointments for preparation, evaluation and
scanning of OMR sheets shall be made by SSC by
open tender and after declaring the eligibility criteria
and other terms and conditions of the contract.
(xiii) SSC shall follow the Rules governing the
selection processes in letter and spirit.
(xiv) SSC shall make available all policy decisions
with regard to compliance of the Recruitment Rules
governing any of the categories of the selection
process in its website."
Legal Position
7.
This Court in several cases has examined the question when
the entire selection process should be struck down in case of
irregularities. It will be apposite to refer to some of the decisions
as the ratio and reasoning, in our opinion, is clear and does not
suffer from contradictions. In Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others,25 this
Court observed that determining when the examination process is
vitiated by irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. The
answer lies in examining whether the irregularities were systemic
enough to undermine the sanctity of the process. In some cases,
the irregularities may border on or even constitute fraud, which
severely damages the credibility and legitimacy of the process.
In such cases, the only option is to cancel the result entirely. These
are situations where it is difficult to separate the tainted from the
untainted participants, and the irregularities are widespread, indicating
25
(2021) 4 SCC 631.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
2255
State of West Bengal v.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others
a malaise or fraud that has corrupted the process. On the other
hand, there are cases where only some participants have committed
irregularities. In such cases, it may be possible to segregate the
wrongdoers from those who adhered to the rules. The innocent should
not suffer for the actions of the wrongdoers. By segregating the guilty,
the selection process for the untainted candidates can proceed to
its logical conclusion. This aligns with the principle of equality of
opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, as well
as the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution,
which mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable process. Care
must be taken to ensure that the innocent are not unfairly penalized
alongside the wrongdoers by cancelling the entire process. To treat
the innocent and the wrongdoers equally would violate Article 14 of
the Constitution, as it would involve treating unequals equally. The
innocent should not be punished for faults they did not commit.
Finally, while the decision of the recruiting body is subject to judicial
control, the body must retain a measure of discretion.
8.
Sachin Kumar (supra) refers to an earlier decision of three Judges of
this Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra
Sinha and Others26 where it was held that when the conduct of all
examinees, or at least the vast majority, at a particular examination
centre reveals the use of unfair means, it may not be necessary for
the board to give individual opportunities of hearing to the candidates
if the entire examination is being cancelled. This is not a case where
anyone is charged with unfair means and would need to defend
themselves. An examination vitiated by widespread unfair means
falls into a separate category, so giving notice in individual cases
is not required.
9.
In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,
Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others,27 a Constitution
Bench of this Court held that when there is a discovery of widespread
unfair practices, such as the leakage of question papers or destruction
of answer books, it may not be necessary to give each examinee
an opportunity to be heard. While it may not be appropriate to
completely whittle down the requirement of natural justice and fair
26
(1970) 1 SCC 648.
27
AIR 1962 SC 1110.
2256
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
play, a straitjacket formula cannot be applied when the examination
was not properly conducted or when the majority of the examinees
did not act as they should have. Therefore, insisting that the Board
should hold a detailed inquiry into each individual case was considered
incorrect. It was also observed that such an approach would delay
the functioning of an autonomous body like the Board of High School
and Intermediate Education.
10. In line with the above ratio, this Court in Anamica Mishra and
Others v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and
Others,28 has held that the cancellation of the entire recruitment
process was not justified as there was no systemic flaw in the entire
recruitment process, and the issue was only with regard to calling the
candidates for interview. However, in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal,
M.P. v.