The Calcutta High Court has intervened to block the West Bengal government’s attempt to provide monthly stipends to non-teaching staff who lost their positions following a Supreme Court ruling on recruitment irregularities.
Justice Amrita Sinha delivered the order on Friday, effectively halting the state government’s stipend payments that were designed to support Group C and D non-teaching employees affected by the April Supreme Court judgment.
The controversy stems from a major recruitment fraud that occurred in 2016 through the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Supreme Court had previously upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to terminate the appointments of over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff members due to irregularities in the selection process.
In April, a Supreme Court bench comprising former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar characterized the recruitment process as fundamentally flawed and fraudulent. The court found evidence of systematic manipulation including OMR sheet tampering and rank falsification.
Following the mass dismissals, the Mamata Banerjee-led state government announced a financial support package for affected non-teaching staff. The scheme proposed monthly stipends of Rs 25,000 for Group C employees and Rs 20,000 for Group D staff members.
This compensation plan was the government’s response to the widespread job losses resulting from the Supreme Court’s strict enforcement of recruitment integrity standards.
Multiple petitions were filed in the Calcutta High Court challenging both the government’s stipend decision and the format of new recruitment processes being planned for teaching positions. The court reserved judgment on these matters the previous Monday before delivering Friday’s ruling.
The High Court’s intervention reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny of how the state government handles the aftermath of the recruitment scandal.
The Supreme Court’s April decision was unambiguous in its condemnation of the 2016 recruitment process. The court described the appointments as fraudulent and equivalent to cheating, finding no grounds to overturn the High Court’s original dismissal order.
However, the Supreme Court did provide some relief by ruling that dismissed employees would not be required to return salaries they had already received during their employment period. The case highlights the broader implications of recruitment fraud in public sector employment. With over 25,000 positions affected across state-run and state-aided schools, the scandal has had significant consequences for both the education system and the individuals whose careers were disrupted.
The High Court’s latest ruling adds another layer of complexity to the state government’s efforts to address the fallout from the recruitment irregularities while maintaining judicial oversight of remedial measures.
About the Author
