HC dismisses plea challenging tainted candidates’ list

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of petitions filed by candidates challenging the publication of a list of tainted teachers and non-teaching staff whose appointments in government-sponsored and aided schools were struck down.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya ruled that the petitions were not maintainable as the list in question had been published by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (SSC) pursuant to a directive of the Supreme Court. The judge underlined that with special leave petitions on the issue still pending before the apex court, the high court could not intervene.

The controversy arose after the SSC issued a memorandum on August 30 putting up a list of 1,804 candidates who were declared tainted for irregularities in the 2016 State Level Selection Test (SLST) for teachers in classes IX, X, XI and XII. Petitioners contended they were wrongly included and should be treated as untainted.

Justice Bhattacharyya, however, pointed to the Supreme Court’s order of August 28, which had recorded the SSC counsel’s submission that the list of tainted candidates, whose appointments had been invalidated, would be uploaded on the Commission’s website within seven days. In view of this, the judge said, there was no scope for the high court to interfere with the publication.

The petitions thus stood dismissed, leaving the aggrieved candidates to pursue their remedies before the apex court.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had declared the entire selection process for more than 25,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in government-sponsored and aided schools across West Bengal as vitiated, leading to termination of services. The 1,804 names in the published list form part of this larger set of appointments invalidated following the court’s finding of widespread irregularities.

With Tuesday’s order, the Calcutta High Court effectively closed the door on challenges to the publication of the tainted list at the state level, reinforcing that the matter lies squarely under the Supreme Court’s supervision.