In a significant legal twist, the West Bengal government and the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) have jointly moved the Calcutta High Court to challenge a controversial ruling that bars candidates allegedly involved in the 2016 WBSSC recruitment scam from participating in the new teacher recruitment process.
The case has once again brought the 2016 scam into the spotlight, raising fresh questions around fairness, legal interpretation, and the rights of disqualified candidates.
Background: The 2016 WBSSC Recruitment Scam
The 2016 WBSSC recruitment process was mired in allegations of irregularities and corruption. Several candidates were reportedly appointed to government teaching jobs without qualifying on merit. These appointments were later cancelled following legal scrutiny and widespread outrage.
HC Ruling: Tainted Candidates Cannot Reapply
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, in his recent order, ruled that individuals associated with the scam would not be allowed to sit for the upcoming selection process for school teachers. The judge cited a Supreme Court directive, which he interpreted as a blanket prohibition on these individuals’ future participation in teacher recruitment.
WB Govt & WBSSC Hit Back: Misinterpretation of SC Order
In response, the state government and WBSSC filed a petition before a division bench, claiming that the single-judge bench had misread the Supreme Court’s order.
According to the petitioners, the apex court merely instructed that no special relaxation be given to scam-linked candidates. It did not explicitly bar them from applying for future posts. The state contends that barring them completely amounts to an overreach of the Supreme Court’s intention.
Legal Grounds: Double Jeopardy Argument
The state’s argument further relies on Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, which provides protection against double jeopardy—punishment for the same offence more than once.
The state argues that since these candidates have already faced action (i.e., their appointments were cancelled), prohibiting them from applying again amounts to a second punishment, which violates their fundamental rights.
Revised Marking Scheme Raises New Questions
Adding to the controversy is the revised marking system introduced in the new teacher recruitment process:
- Written Exam: 60 marks (increased from 55)
- Academic Qualifications: 10 marks (reduced from 35)
- Teaching Experience: 10 marks
- Lecture Demonstration: 10 marks
- Interview: 10 marks
This new structure is being criticized for disadvantaging previously disqualified candidates. Since they were never allowed to join service, they lack official teaching experience. As a result, they may only be scored out of 90 instead of 100 marks, reducing their chances in a competitive selection.
A Matter of Fairness
The core of the petition is about fairness and opportunity. Should candidates who were disqualified once—without being criminally convicted—be denied a second chance to compete? Or should past allegations permanently bar someone from public service?
This question is not just legal—it’s also moral and institutional.
What Happens Next?
The division bench of the Calcutta High Court will now review the petition. Its decision could set a precedent not just for WBSSC but for all public recruitment in India.
The outcome could influence how tainted candidates are treated in future recruitment drives and how courts interpret Supreme Court orders and constitutional protections.
Conclusion
This legal challenge isn’t just about a batch of disqualified candidates—it raises larger questions about constitutional rights, judicial interpretation, and recruitment ethics. With thousands of aspirants awaiting clarity, the court’s decision will carry significant weight for the future of teacher recruitment in West Bengal.
Follow WhatsApp Channel
Follow Telegram Channel
Share this articles
