HC questions state on ‘allowing’ tainted candidates in fresh recruitment process

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday questioned the Bengal government over its decision to allow previously tainted candidates to participate in a fresh recruitment process despite explicit directions from the Supreme Court to the contrary.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, while hearing a plea challenging the state’s recruitment notification dated May 30, 2025, asked the state to clarify why individuals who had been declared as “tainted” in connection with the school jobs scam were being permitted to reapply. “Why are tainted candidates being permitted in spite of the directions by the Supreme Court?” the judge asked, noting the absence of any express bar in the fresh notification against such candidates. Petitioners contended that the May 30 notification does not include any prohibition on the participation of individuals who were removed from their jobs by the apex court.

They argued that this omission runs contrary to the Supreme Court’s explicit observations and orders in the matter. Justice Bhattacharya observed that while he found certain “loopholes” in the state’s notification, the High Court was not inclined to interfere at this stage since the Supreme Court had already granted leave in the matter. However, the judge questioned the state on why the notification had not incorporated the apex

court’s directive. Responding to the court’s queries, the state sought time to provide clarifications and requested that no formal remarks be recorded at this stage. “Kindly do not record anything… whatever we have done, it has been strictly in adherence with the Supreme Court’s order,” the state counsel submitted. The petitioners also submitted that if the omission in the May notification was unintentional, it could be rectified appropriately.

“This is troubling me... the Supreme Court has said tainted candidates will not be permitted; where is such indication in the notification?” the court remarked. The matter has been adjourned, with the court indicating that any clarification regarding the scope of the Supreme Court’s directions may be sought before the apex court.