Holding

Because the recruitment was pervasively tainted by systemic fraud and manipulation that could not be separated, the entire selection process must be set aside.

Summary

The West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) conducted a 2016 recruitment for assistant teachers and non‑teaching staff that was later found to involve massive irregularities, including rank‑jumping, out‑of‑panel appointments, manipulation of OMR scores, destruction of original answer sheets and illegal subcontracting. The High Court set aside the entire selection process, a decision appealed before the Supreme Court by the selectees and the State. The Court examined whether the irregularities were systemic enough to vitiate the whole process, whether the principles of natural justice required individual hearings, and whether defenses of delay, laches and estoppel could bar relief. Relying on precedent that en‑masse cancellation is justified only when fraud is pervasive and cannot be separated, the Court held that the evidence showed systemic fraud that rendered the entire recruitment irreparably tainted. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order cancelling all appointments, directing repayment of salaries by tainted appointees, and ordering a fresh transparent recruitment, while allowing certain untainted candidates to resume prior service or participate in the new process.

Issues considered

Whether the 2016 WBSSC recruitment process was vitiated by systemic irregularities and fraud.
Whether the entire selection should be annulled or only the appointments of tainted candidates should be set aside.
Whether principles of natural justice require individual notice and hearing in mass cancellation cases.
Whether the defenses of delay, laches, or estoppel are applicable given the concealed fraud.
Whether the CBI evidence, including data from hard disks and Section 65B certificates, is admissible for determining the extent of irregularities.

Legislation cited

Headnote

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 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 –

Subjects

recruitment scamsystemic irregularitiesen masse cancellationsegregation of tainted and untaintednatural justiceOMR destructionrank manipulationfraud in selectionWBSSCArticle 14Article 16public employment integrity

Judgment

[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 / non-
retention of mirror OMR images and inconsistency in answers given
by WBSSC under RTI demonstrate deliberate attempt to cover-
up 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 fact-
specific – 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 non-
specifically 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 non-
teaching 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 XI-
XII 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 subject-
disputes. 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. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others,29 the entire
examination was cancelled in view of the report of mass copying
and leakage of the question paper. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal,
M.P. (supra), the teachers did not object to the students entering the
examination hall with books, indicating their complicity. It was held
that the fact that some innocent students may have suffered in the
given facts was inconsequential.
11. Similarly, in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U.,
Puthuvalnikathu and Another,30 this Court examined a case
where a Special Committee scrutinized the answer sheets of 134
successful and 184 unsuccessful candidates, identifying only 31 as
involved in unfair practices. Based on this, the Court struck down the
decision of the competent authority to cancel the entire recruitment
process, deeming it extreme, unreasonable, and unnecessary given
the circumstances. The Court applied the test of whether there were
widespread, pervasive issues that had undermined the entire process
and whether it was impossible to weed out those benefiting from the
irregularities or illegalities.
12. In yet another decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v.
State of Punjab and Others,31 this Court elucidated three principles

28 (1990) Supp. SCC 692.
29 (1998) 9 SCC 236.
30 (2003) 7 SCC 285.
31 (2006) 11 SCC 356.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2257

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

which must be adhered to when cancelling appointments. First, there
must be satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the material collected
so as to enable the State to conclude that the selection process was
tainted. Second, to determine whether the illegalities committed go to
the root of the matter and vitiate the entire selection process, such
satisfaction should be based on a reasoned and thorough investigation
conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Third, there must be
sufficient material to support the conclusion that the majority of the
appointments were part of the fraudulent purpose or that the system
itself was corrupt. This three-pronged test, as outlined by Sinha J.,
is appropriate and should be adhered to.
13. The precursor to Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) involved raids
that led to the recovery of large sums of cash from the house of the
Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The allegations
suggested that the Chairman – who served from 1996 to 2002 – had
made several appointments between 1998 and 2001 for extraneous
considerations, including monetary ones. The affected appellants
before this Court, whose services were terminated, comprised four
categories of officers selected through four recruitment examinations
held between 1997 and 2001. Two FIRs came to be registered against
the Chairman and other officers of the Public Service Commission.
However, among the selectees, an FIR was filed only against one.
In this factual background, Sinha J. drew a distinction between a
proven case of mass cheating in a Board Exam and an unproven
charge of corruption in the context of appointment of a civil servant.
The en masse termination order setting aside several selections
spread over 3-4 years was reversed. This was an unprecedented
case of mass termination, with a walloping impact and consequences.
Applying the threefold factual and legal test, en masse termination
was set aside. In this context, it was observed that termination orders
should only be issued in cases where it is found to be impossible
or highly improbable to separate the tainted cases from the non-
tainted ones.
14. In our considered view, the opinion expressed by Dalveer Bhandari J.
in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) regarding the strict compliance
with the principles of natural justice is not in line with the ratio of the
earlier three Judge Bench decision in Bihar School Examination
Board (supra). We would like to observe that the en masse termination
in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) was based on the charge of
2258 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

corruption against the former Chairman, leading to the cancellation
of the entire selection process and appointments, even though the
charges against him had not yet been proven in a court of law.
15. Similarly, in another two Judge Bench decision in Joginder Pal
and Others v. State of Punjab and Others,32 this Court observed
that every effort should be made to separate tainted from untainted
candidates, and if it is found that segregating the tainted from
untainted is possible, cancellation of the entire selection process
would be incompatible with law.
16. In Chairman, All India Railways Recruitment Board and Another v.
K. Shyam Kumar and Others,33 where the decision of the Railway
Recruitment Board to cancel the examination and conduct retest
on the ground of malpractices involving mass copying, leakage of
question paper and impersonation was struck down by the High Court,
this Court – reversing the judgment of the High Court – upheld the
order of the Board to cancel the examination and conduct retest.
Considering the material on record, the widespread irregularities
and malpractice in the first written test, and the ultimate object of
fair selection, this Court upheld the finding of the Board that the
test was vitiated due to mass copying, impersonation, and question
paper leakage, rather than misconduct by just a few candidates.
In the said facts and circumstance, the decision of the Board to
cancel the selection and reconduct the examination was held to be
reasonable and well-balanced.
17. In State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others,34
there were allegations of large-scale malpractices involving tampering
with OMR sheets. After re-evaluation and further scrutiny, the
Teachers Recruitment Board found that 196 candidates had been the
beneficiaries of fraudulent alteration of marks. This Court referred to
the observations in Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State
of Gujarat and Others35 to hold that the authority of the State to
maintain the purity of the examination process is unquestionable.
Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai (supra) takes note of the settled dictum

32 (2014) 6 SCC 644.
33 (2010) 6 SCC 614.
34 (2021) 16 SCC 217.
35 (2017) 13 SCC 621.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2259

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

that the cancellation of the examination is necessary and required in
cases where large-scale malpractices in the course of the conduct
of any examination process are alleged. In this context, this Court in
A. Kalaimani (supra) held that despite the inconvenience caused to
the untainted candidates, a serious doubt regarding the magnitude
of manipulation in the examination has to be given due weightage.
It was held that the finding of the Board that there were chances
of more people being involved in the manipulation of marks was a
bona fide decision being taken by the Board to instil confidence in
the public regarding the integrity of the selection process.
18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others,36 this Court
observed that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the
extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the
tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure
that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material
on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion.
There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a
conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly
strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single,
definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level.
Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise,
as reflected in the material before the court.
19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
• When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities,
such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the
entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its
entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted
and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with
fairness and equity.
• The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on
the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a
fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material
collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable
doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty
of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable.

36 (2024) 9 SCC 743.
2260 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

• Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates,
when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process
is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the
purity of the selection process.
• Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases
for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire
selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.

Illegalities in the Selection Process
20. In our opinion, this is a case wherein the entire selection process
has been vitiated and tainted beyond resolution. Manipulations and
frauds on a large scale, coupled with the attempted cover-up, have
dented the selection process beyond repair and partial redemption.
The credibility and legitimacy of the selection are denuded. The
High Court has referred to the illegalities in the impugned judgment
as under:
“335. The evidence placed before us have established the
following illegalities in the selection process: –
(i) SSC had appointed an agency namely M/s. NYSA for
the purpose of scanning and evaluating the OMR sheets
by a closed-door tender process in violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India
(ii) such agency had engaged another agency namely,
Data Scantech to scan the OMR sheets
(iii) although scanning was done at the office premises of
SSC, it is claimed by SSC that, SSC had never engaged
Data Scantech to scan the OMR sheets or authorised
M/s. NYSA to engage Data Scantech or any other agency
(iv) SSC had destroyed the original OMR sheet ostensibly
with scanned mirror image thereof being preserved in its
server
(v) CBI did not find any scanned mirror image of OMR
sheets in the server of SSC
(vi) OMR sheets had been destroyed without the scanned
mirror images being preserved in the server of SSC
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2261

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

(vii) SSC had provided scanned OMR sheets to RTI
applicants in the year 2018 till 2023 claiming that such
OMR sheets were from its database although, CBI did not
find any OMR sheets in the server of SSC
(viii) appointments higher than the declared vacancies had
been given in respect of all 4 categories
(ix) appointments had been given to persons who were
not even in the panel
(x) appointments had been given to persons who submitted
blank OMR sheets
(xi) appointments had been given persons after expiry of
the panel
(xii) persons placed lower in rank had been given
appointment in preference to persons placed higher in
rank in the merit list
(xiii) merit list containing the marks obtained by the
respective candidates had never been published
(xiv) counselling had been held subsequent to the expiry
of the panel
(xv) total beneficiaries of the illegalities are yet to be
identified and rendered improbable given the stand of
SSC, Board and State
(xvi) SSC had applied for permission to create supernumerary
posts to accommodate the illegal appointees
(xvii) Recruitment Rules governing the four categories had
never been adhered to either in letter or spirit”
The aforesaid established irregularities, cumulatively and incrementally,
demarcate the contours of the court to navigate the reliefs sought.
To ensure clarity and objectivity, we shall independently examine
the facts and form our conclusion.
21. First, we begin by referring to the findings of the Justice (Retd.) Bag
Committee, which undertook a thorough scrutiny and verification
of the appointments of non-teaching staff in Groups C and D. The
summary of the findings are as under:
2262 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“Summary of findings of the Enquiry Committee. On
consideration of our findings, described in detail under
heading 6 and fixing of responsibility of the individuals
described under heading 7, we would like to summarize
our findings as follows:
(i) The Central Commission changed the rank of the
candidates in the panel before uploading the panel in
the website of the Central Commission on June 20,
2019 in spite of direction of the High Court at Calcutta
to upload to entire existing panel already published on
November 6, 2017.
(ii) The constitution of the Committee approved by
the Hon’ble MIC of School Education Department
(Dr. Partha Chatterjee) notified in the form of an Order of
the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on
November 1, 2019 to supervise, monitor and guide the
Central Commission in connection with pending recruitment
process cannot be construed as direction of the State
Government in terms of Section 19 of the School Service
Commission Act, 1997 and as such the said Order cannot
have any validity in the eye of law.
(iii) Dr. Sharmila Mitra, Chairperson of Southern Regional
Commission, Dr. Mahuya Biswas, Former Chairperson
of the Eastern Regional Commission, Mr. Subhajit
Chattopadhyay, 55 Former Chairman of the South-Eastern
Regional Commission and Sk. Sirajuddin, Chairman
of Northern Regional Commission and Chairman of
Western Regional Commission abdicated their duties
and responsibilities in counseling the candidates and
recommending the names of the candidates of Group “D”
posts in terms of the provisions of Rule 16(v) and Rule
18(1) and (2) of the School Service Commission Rules,
2009 during the period of validity of the panel.
(iv) Dr. Subires Bhattacharya, Former Chairman of the
Central Commission usurped the power and authority of
the Regional Commissions by counseling the candidates
and making recommendation of names of the candidates
for Group “D” posts by manipulating infrastructure and
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2263

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

evolving illegal procedure in violation of the provisions
of Rule 16(v) and 18(1) and (2) of the School Service
Commission Rules, 2009.
(v) Dr. Subires Bhattacharya, Dr. Sharmila Mitra, Dr. Mahuya
Biswas, Mr. Subhajit Chattopadhyay and Sk. Sirajuddin
are prima facie liable for disciplinary action on the charge
of gross dereliction of duty for violating the provisions of
Rule 16(v) and Rule 18(1) and (2) of the School Service
Commission Rules, 2009 and as such disciplinary action
can be taken against them by the Disciplinary Authority
or the Pension Sanctioning Authority in case of retirement
of any of the above officials in terms of the provisions of
the Rules by which they are governed.
(vi) Samarjit Acharya, Programme Officer of the Central
Commission and Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha, Former
Advisor of the Central Commission are prima facie
liable for committing offences punishable under Section
465/417/468/34 of Indian Penal Code.
(vii) Prof. Saumitra Sarkar, Mormer Chairman of the Central
Commission, Mr. Ashok Kumar Saha, Former Assistant
Secretary, Former Secretary and Former Chairman of
the Central Commission, Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha, Former
Advisor of the Central Commission and Dr. Kalynmoy
Ganguly, President of the Board are prima facie liable for
committing offences punishable under Section 120B of
Indian Penal Code.
(viii) FIR can be registered against Samarjit Acharya and Dr.
Santi Prasad Sinha on the allegation of committing offences
punishable under Section 465/417/468/34 of Indian Penal
Code and against Prof. Saumitra Sarkar, Mr. Ashok Kumar
Saha, Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha and Dr. Kalyanmoy Ganguly
on the allegation of committing offences punishable under
Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.

xxx xxx xxx
6. Summary of findings of the Enquiry Committee. On
consideration of our findings, described in detail under
heading 5 and fixing of responsibility of the individuals
2264 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

described under heading 6, we would like to summarise
our findings as follows:
(i) The Central Commission did not maintain transparency
at the time of publication of the panel of Group “C” posts
on December 20, 2017, as the candidates could not
access t the panel to know his/her rank vis-a-vis the rank
of other candidates in the panel and the copy of the panel
was not circulated among the Regional Commissions and
the offices of the District Magistrates of the concerned
district.
(ii) The Central Commission changed the rank of the
candidates in the existing panel before uploading the entire
panel in the website of the Central Commission on June
20, 2019 in spite of direction of the High Court at Calcutta
to upload the entire existing panel already published on
November 6, 2017.
(iii) The constitution of the Committee approved by
the Hon’ble MIC of School Education Department
(Dr. Partha Chatterjee) notified in the form of an Order of
the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on
November 1, 2019 to supervise, monitor and guide the
Central Commission in connection with pending recruitment
process cannot be construed as direction of the State
Government in terms of Section 19 of the School Service
Commission Act, 1997 and as such the said Order cannot
have any validity in the eye of law.
(iv) Dr. Sharmila Mitra, Chairperson of Southern Regional
Commission, Dr. Mahuya Biswas, Former Chairperson
of the Eastern Regional Commission Dr. Chaitali
Bhattacharya, Former chairperson of South-Eastern
Regional commission, Mr. Subhajit Chattopadhyay,
Former Chairman of the South-Eastern Regional
Commission and Dr. Sk. Sirajuddin, Chairman of Northern
Regional Commission and Chairman of Western Regional
Commission abdicated their duties and responsibilities
in counselling of the candidates and recommending the
names of the candidates of Group “C” posts in terms of
the provisions of 73 amended Section 7 of the School
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2265

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

Service Commission Act, 1997 and Rule 16(v) and Rule
18(1) and (2) of the School Service Commission Rules,
2009 during the period of validity of the panel.
(v) Dr. Subires Bhattacharya, Former Chairman of the
Central Commission during the first half of the year
2018 and Dr. Sharmila Mitra, Former Chairperson of the
Central Commission During the second part of the year
2018 usurped the power and authority of the Regional
Commissions by counselling the candidates and making
recommendation of names of the candidates for Group
“C” posts by manipulating infrastructure and evolving
illegal procedure in violation of the provisions of amended
Section 7 of the School Service Commission Act, 1997
and Rule 16(v) and 18(1) and (2) of the School Service
Commission Rules, 2009.
(vi) Dr. Subires Bhattacharya, Dr. Sharmila Mitra,
Dr. Mahuya Biswas, Dr. Chaitali Bhattacharya, Mr. Subhajit
Chattopadhay and Dr. Sk. Sirajuddin are prima facie liable
for disciplinary action on the charge of gross dereliction of
duty for violating the provisions of amended Section 7 of the
School Service Commission Act, 19997 and the provisions
of Rule 16(v) and Rule 18(1) and (2) of the School Service
Commission Rules, 2009 and as such disciplinary action
can be taken against them by the Disciplinary Authority
or the Pension Sanctioning Authority in case of retirement
of any of the above officials in terms of the provisions of
the Rules by which they are governed.
(vii) Mr. Samarjit Acharya, Programme Officer of the
Central Commission and Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha, Former
Advisor or the Central Commission are prima facie
liable for committing offences punishable under Section
465/417/468/34 of Indian Penal Code.
(viii) Prof. Saumitra Sarkar, Former chairman of the Central
Commission, Mr. Ashok Kumar Saha, Former Assistant
Secretary, Former Secretary and Former Chairman of
the Central Commission, Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha, Former
Advisor of the Central Commission and Dr. Kalyanmoy
Ganguly, President of the 74 Board are, prima facie, liable
2266 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for committing offences punishable under Section 120B
of Indian Penal Code.
(ix) FIR can be registered against Samarjit Acharya and
Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha on the allegation of committing
offences punishable under Section 465/417/468/34 of
India Penal Code and against Prof. Saumitra Sarkar,
Mr. Ashok Kumar Saha, Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha and
Dr. Kalyanmoy Ganguly on the allegation of committing
offences punishable under Section 120B of India Penal
Code.”
22. We have four reports submitted by the CBI. We would like to quote
some of the passages from the report dated 05.02.2024, submitted
by the CBI in compliance with the order dated 24.01.2024 passed
by the High Court at Calcutta. The relevant portion of the said report
reads as under:
“3. That during investigation, it was revealed that the West
Bengal Central School Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as ‘commission’ had awarded a work order
to M/s Nysa Communication Private Limited (‘hereinafter
referred to as M/s. NYSA’) for scanning and evaluation of
OMR answer sheets pertaining to the selection tests of
Group – D, Group – C, Assistant Teachers for classes IX –
X and XI – XII.
4. Investigation has established that Sh. Puneet Kumar
was the then Director and Sh. Niladri Das was the then
Vice President of the said M.s Nysa Communications
Pvt. Ltd. during relevant period. It has been established
during investigation that Sh. Niladri Das was in charge
of operations in respect of recruitment examinations
conducted by WBCSSC and frequently visited the officer of
WBCSSC to attend to the actual operational part and did
the requisite liaison on behalf of the agency for necessary
compliance of the instructions given by WBCSSC.
Sh Puneet Kumar, being the Director, mainly looked after
the financial affairs of the agency and represented it on
records.
5. Investigation has established that the scanning of
OMR sheets was undertaken by the said M/s Nysa
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2267

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

Communication Pvt Ltd at WBCSSC office at Acharya
Sadan under direct supervision of Sh Niladri Das and
in presence of WBCSSC officials. It has been further
established that M/s NYSA communication Pvt. Ltd. had
further given work order w.r.t. scanning the original OMR
to M/s Data Scantech Solutions, Noida who remained
present on the premises of WBCSSC for the scanning
work. After completion of scanning, the precessed data
in the form of scanned images of OMRs, scan data etc.
were handed over by M/s Data Scantech Solutions to
M/s Nysa Communication Pvt Ltd. who took the same to
their officer located at Noida in digital form (Hard Disks)
leaving the original hard copies of OMR sheets in the office
of the WBCSSC, WBCSSC handed over their answer keys
in respect of all subjects to M/s Nysa Communications Pvt
Ltd for evaluation of OMR responses.
6. That, while scanning the original OMR sheets by M/s
Data Scantech Solutions on behalf of M/s Nysa, two
“.DAT” files were generated containing SCAN NO., Bar
Code, ROLL NO., VENUE CODE, BOOKLET SERIAL
NUMBER, SUBJECT CODE, CATEGORY, GENDER,
MEDIUM and RESPONSE CODE. In the process of
scanning, the image copies of the original OMR sheets
were also captured.
7. That, a sample of the “.DAT” file generated during
sscaning of one OMR sheet is cited as an example below: -
Responses of candidates in the OMR is appearing as
Response Code in alphabets, while “#” indicates end of
one OMR sheet
8. That, two such “.DAT” files are generated since scanning
is done twice to avoid any technical error. Thereafter, a
final “.DAT” file is prepared which is called a clean data
file. After receiving the answer keys from Commission, the
same is compared with this final “.DAT” file and a “DBF”
File is generated having the score of the candidates.
9. That during investigation the server database of
the Commission was seized by the Central Bureau of
Investigation containing all the data pertaining to selection
2268 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

tests of Group – D, Group – C, Assistant Teachers for
classes IX – X and XI – XII.
10. That, during investigation of the case, three hard disks
were recovered on 15/16.09.2022 from the residence of
Pankaj Bansal, ex-employee of M/s. NYSA, located at
Ghaziabad. The certificates dated 16.09.2022 u/s 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from Shri. Pankaj Bansal were
also obtained, in triplicate, with regard to genuineness of
the date contained in these three hard-disks so recovered.
11. That, During investigation, data files containing
scanned OMRs, “.DAT” files etc. pertaining to the aforesaid
WBCSSC recruitment matters were also seized from
M/s Data Scantech Solutions. During investigation of
RC-03(A)/2022-Kol, the hash values of these Data files
of Scantech Solutions were matched with the hash value
of the corresponding files recovered from the hard discs
seized from Pankaj Bansal and was found to be matching,
which establishes that the data contained in the three hard
disks recovered from Pankaj Bansal’s possession were
not contaminated.
12. That, a similar exercise of matching the data available
on the hard disks of Pankaj Bansal with the data seized
from the Commission was done during the course of
investigation and it was found that there were mismatch
between the two, in as much as, the written marks awarded
to candidates as available on the server of the commission
had been increased to qualify undeserving candidates.
This mismatch establishes that manipulation in marks of
written examination in the case of many candidates was
resorted to and such candidates were identified. The
comparison of these actual/genuine OMR marks with the
OMR marks available in WBCSSC Server shows that there
is manipulation in 952 nos. of candidates of IX-X, 907 nos.
of candidates of XI-XII, 3481 nos. of Gr. C candidates and
2823 nos. of Gr. D candidates.
13. That, during the course of investigation, several
emails were found to have been exchanged between
the accused officials of the Commission, certain private
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2269

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

persons and officials of NYSA. These emails contained
lists of candidates, whose OMR marks were found to be
increased in the server of the Commission. Besides this,
emails have been exchanged between the staff of NYSA
themselves containing manipulated data of candidates.
This shows the complicity of officials of M/s NYSA in this
conspiracy.
14. That, during investigation, it emerged that in the year
2019, Shri Niladri Das of M/s NYSA Communications Pvt
Ltd left NYSA and started his own business in name &
style of M/s ND Info Systems Pvt Ltd., Noida, and was
engaged in the business of Data processing in line of
M/s NYSA. The said Niladri Das poached Pankaj Bansal,
Kuldeep Singh, Anoy Saha, Muzammil Hossain and others
support staff from NYSA.
15. That, it has emerged from the investigation that before
leaving NYSA, Niladri Das and his staffs retained all the
data pertaining to recruitment examinations of WBCSSC
including the data of Group C,D, Assistant Teacher (IX-
X, XI – XII) with them. Even after leaving NYSA, Niladri
Das, Pankaj Bansal and Muzammil Hossain kept providing
assistance to WBCSSC in the matters of RTI on the basis
of the data of NYSA which was manipulated and also
hosted on the WBCSSC server. This also establishes
that Niladri Das, Pankaj Bansal and Muzammil Hossain
who were involved in the entire scam and it was in their
knowledge that data has been manipulated and therefore
they continued to extend this assistance solely to avoid
detection.
16. That, if there would have been no manipulations then
the scanned images of OMRs available with WBCSSC
were sufficient to respond to RTI queries. Investigation
revealed that WBCSSC had destroyed the original OMR
sheets and the scanned images of original OMR sheets in
the year 2019, which again leads to an inference that the
same were destroyed to keep the entire scan under wraps.
17. That, investigation establishes that as a reward for doing
aforesaid manipulation in the OMR score, M/s NDISPL of
2270 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Niladri das was provided work of recruitment of Teachers
in Upper Primary conducted by WBCSSC. Apart from this,
many other recruitment works were also assigned to Niladri
Das by the Government of West Bengal. Various list of
candidates related to Upper Primary were communicated
to Niladri Das from S P Sinha, Sharmila Mitra, etc. Were
found in the email of Niladri Das (niladri@ndispl.com)
which shows his criminal conduct.
18. Result of comparison of these electronic records
collected from M/s Data Scantech Solutions with that of
the hard disks seized from Pankaj Bansal –
(a) As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the hard
disk recovered from Pankaj Bansal contained the marks
of written examination, typing test, etc. This marks when
compared with marks available in WBCSSC server resulted
in the identification of candidates whose marks of written
examination, typing test were manipulated.
(b) M/s Data Scantech Solutions made the initial scanned
images of OMR’s. These scanned images were given
to M/s NYSA. Pankaj Bansal retained a copy of these
scanned images.
(c) That in connection with candidates of Class IX – X,
XI – XII, the scanned image of OMR sheets as collected
from M/s Data Scantech Solutions pertaining to the alleged
candidates whose OMR marks were found manipulated
were matched with the scanned image of OMR sheets as
available in the hard disk of Pankaj Bansal and the same
are found identical.
(d) The Response string of candidates pertaining to IXX
and XI- XII as recovered from M/s Data Scantech Solutions
matches with the Response String available in the hard
disk seized from Pankaj Bansal. On the basis of these
response strings the actual/ genuine OMR marks of IX-X
and XI-XII candidates were determined. The comparison
of these actual/ genuine OMR marks with the OMR
marks available in WBCSSC Server shows that there is
manipulation in 952 nos. Of candidates of IX-X and 907
nos. of candidates of XI-XII.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2271

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

(e) The Response string of candidates pertaining to Gr. C
& Gr. D as recovered from M/s Data Scantech Solutions
matches with the Response String available in the hard
disk seized from Pankaj Bansal. On the basis of these
response strings the actual/ genuine OMR marks of
Gr. C & Gr. D candidates were determined. The comparison
of these actual/ genuine OMR marks with the OMR
marks available in WBCSSC Server shows that there is
manipulation in 3481 nos. of Gr. C candidates and 2823
nos. of Gr. D candidates.
(f) That, the investigation has established the genuineness
of the data of hard disks seized from Pankaj Bansal.
19. THAT, in compliance to the solemn order dated
24.01.2024 of this Hon’ble Court, three hard-disks, in
original, seized from the residence of Pankaj Bansal
along with original certificate dated 16.09.2022 u/s 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, obtained from Pankaj Bansal
are being submitted before this Hon’ble Court. The three
hard-disks are in sealed condition. The certificate u/s 65-B
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in original, obtained from
Shri. Pankaj Bansal dated 16.09.2022 is annexed hereto
and marked as “Annexure – A”.
20. That, Hon’ble Division Bench at High Court at Calcutta
in WPA 2613 of 2018 (Basanta Das Vs The State of West
Bengal & Ors) directed CBI on 24.01.2024 for production
of the above mentioned three original hard disks seized
from Pankaj Bansal and in compliance to such direction
all the said three hard disks were returned back by CFSL,
Hyderabad in sealed condition and are now being produced
with this report.
21. That, the present status of all the above mentioned
four recruitment cases of CBI is “disposed –off from
investigation”, where multiple charge sheets in each such
cases have been filed by CBI before the Learned Trial
Court, Alipore. The alleged offences of the First Information
Reports and the subsequent irregularities found during
the course of investigation have been substantiated in all
2272 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

such cases of CBI and all the charge sheets contain the
detailed investigation carried out by CBI in such cases.”
The facts stated in the report dated 05.02.2024, submitted by the
CBI, speak for themselves.
23. WBSSC has been candid enough to admit; (i) rank jumping, that is, to
say candidates having lower rank were preferred over those having
higher rank, (ii) out of panel appointments, that is, candidates who are
not in the panel of shortlisted candidates have been recommended
and appointed, (iii) candidates who were not recommended by
WBSSC were appointed by the Board, and (iv) manipulation of the
OMR scores. However, there is a discrepancy in both the number
of candidates and their corresponding percentages where such
irregularities have been identified.
24. The impugned judgment refers to the following statistical report
submitted by WBSSC before the High Court37 :

Alleged
S. Post Class Total OMR Rank Alleged Irregularity
No. Name Level Recommendation Issue Jumping Irregularity in
Percentage

Assistant IX-X
1. 11610 808 185 993 8.50%
Teacher Level

Assistant XI-XII
2. 5596 771 39 810 14.47%
Teacher Level

Group-C
3. - 2037 783 - 783 38.43%
(clerk)

4. Group-D - 3880 1741 - - 44.87%

25. In the written submissions filed on behalf of WBSSC in this Court,
two tables have been furnished. Table 1 pertains to candidates who
either jumped rank or were appointed despite not being in panel.
Their details are as under:

37 See paragraph 240 of the impugned judgment.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2273

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

TABLE – 1

Out of Panel
S. Rank
Category (a) but still Total (d)
No Jumped (b)
appointed (c)

Assistant Teachers for
1 74 111 185
Class IX-X

Assistant Teachers for
2 20 18 38
Classes XI-XII

3 Group C 132 249 381

4 Group D 237 371 608

5 Total 463 749 1212

Table 2 furnished by WBSSC is for candidates who were appointed
by manipulating the OMR sheets. Table 2 is as under:

TABLE – 2

No. of Candidates with
No. of Candidates
alleged OMR score
Category (a) out of (b) who were
mismatch as per CBI
appointed
image

Assistant Teachers
952 808
Classes IX and X

Assistant Teachers for
907 772
Classes XI and XII

Group C 3481 782

Group D 2823 1911

26. In another written submission filed on behalf of WBSSC in this Court,
it is claimed that on further verification, the following details of the
candidates who either jumped rank or were appointed despite not
being in the panel came to light:
2274 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

A: Person identified as tainted in the category of Rank
Jumping and out of Panel but appointed

Out of Panel but still
Category Rank Jumped
Appointed

Assistant Teachers-
74 111
Classes IX-X

Assistant Teachers-
20 18
Classes XI-XII

Group C 132 249

Group D 237 371

Total (1212) 463 749

The details of candidates who were appointed by manipulation of
the OMR scores is as under:

B: Person identified having dispute in OMR issue:

No. of Candidates
OMR issue and
identified by CBI
Category recommended by
(appointed and not
Commission
appointed)

Assistant Teachers-
952 796
Classes IX and X

Assistant Teachers- XI
907 772
and XII

Group C 3481 782

Group D 2823 1741

TOTAL 4091

WBSSC claims that 57 Group C and 170 Group D selectees/
appointees with OMR mismatches were not recommended but
appointed. However, their names also figure in the lists of candidates
appointed through rank jumping and out of panel. WBSSC admits that:
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2275

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

• 1,498 out-of-panel candidates were illegally appointed;
• 926 candidates were involved in rank jumping; and
• 4,091 candidates were recommended despite OMR mismatches.
Thus, excluding 23938 candidates who fall under both OMR mismatch
and other illegalities, WBSSC acknowledges that 6,276 illegal
appointments were made.
27. At this stage, we would like to refer to the affidavit dated 27.09.2022
filed on behalf of the WBSSC before the High Court at Calcutta,
wherein the WBSSC stated:
“ I, further say that in the course of the investigation by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, in short) the Chairman
and the Secretary of the Commission have had several
meetings with the officials of the CBI including the Head
of Branch, ACB, wherefrom it appeared that in the course
of their investigation/interrogation they have also come
across a considerable number of illegal appointments.
However, as the CBI has not disclosed the details with
regard to the said illegal appointments detected by them
to the Chairman and/or Secretary of the Commission, the
Commission is not in a position to state the number of
such illegal recommendations and/or furnish the details
of such candidates.”
WBSSC, however, submits that the affidavit dated 27.09.2022 was
filed before they had access to the status reports of the CBI and
the data/details gathered pursuant to their investigation, including
the scanned mirror copies of the OMR sheets. The data which has
now come to light allows segregation of meritorious candidates from
those appointed illegally. Therefore, WBSSC argues that the entire
selection process should not be annulled.
28. We may have accepted this argument if WBSSC had the original
physical OMR sheets or the mirror copy of the OMR sheets. However,
WBSSC accepts that they do not have the physical OMR sheets as
they were destroyed in terms of Rule 21 of the Class IX and X and

38 57 candidates (Group C – OMR Mismatch), 170 candidates (Group D – OMR Mismatch) and 12
candidates (Class IX-X Assistant Teacher – common to rank jumping and out of panel).
2276 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Class XI and XII Rules, which require retention of the OMR sheets
for only one year. Rule 21 of the Class IX and X and Class XI and
XII Rules reads:
“21. Preservation of written examination answer
scripts. – The written answer scripts/OMRs of examinations
shall be destroyed by the Commission after 1 year from
the date of publication of the panel.”
29. Admittedly, the OMR sheets for the candidates who had applied
for non-teaching Groups C and D posts were also destroyed.
The reliance placed on Rule 21 by WBSSC to justify the destruction
of OMR sheets is misplaced, as Rule 21 applies only to Assistant
Teachers for Classes IX-X and XI-XII, not to non-teaching Groups
C and D posts. It is acknowledged that the Chairman of WBSSC, in
a letter dated 22.07.2019, instructed the destruction of OMR sheets
related to the 2016 selection process for Assistant Teachers (Classes
IX-X and XI-XII) and Group C and D employees.
30. Moreover, given that the recruitment process was ongoing even after
the one-year validity period of the panel, there is no justification for
the destruction of the OMR sheets. It is apparent that the time period
specified in Rule 21 was coinciding with the time period specified
for the validity of the panel. Further, WBSSC did not maintain the
mirror copies of the OMR sheets in their computer/records. Thus, the
destruction of the physical OMR sheets and the failure to maintain
scanned/mirror images of the OMR sheets are significant factors which
were rightly taken into consideration by the High Court. We concur.
31. WBSSC has also tried to justify the extension of the term of the
panel. As noted above, the time period of one year specified in
Rule 21 for the destruction of the OMR sheets coincides with the
time period specified for the validity of the panel. There is no doubt
that the counselling process and appointments made to the post of
Assistant Teachers for classes IX-X and XI-XII were made after the
expiry of the panel. This is illegal and contrary to the rules. Reliance
on the orders/judgments of the High Court in stray cases of rank
jumping, where the High Court directed to appoint candidates after
the expiry of the validity of the panel, would not have any significant
impact. The court, at that stage, was not concerned and aware of
the illegalities in the appointment procedure and had not specifically
examined the question of appointment after the expiry of the panel.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2277

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

32. The CBI report dated 05.02.2024 states that M/s. Nysa – contracted
for scanning and evaluation of OMR sheets by WBSSC – undertook
the said exercise at the offices of WBSSC. M/s. Nysa had further
sub-contracted the work order w.r.t. scanning the original OMR
sheets to M/s Data Scantech Solutions, whose officials also remained
present at the offices of WBSSC for scanning. The scanning process
was conducted by examining two outputs:- (i) the scanned image
of the OMR sheet and (ii) the scanned image of the answer string
with language coded inputs. M/s. Nysa then made a tabulation of
the results of the OMR sheet evaluation and shared it with WBSSC.
33. It is peculiar that WBSSC did not retain the mirror/scanned copies of
the OMR sheets in their electronic record while allowing M/s. Nysa to
keep them. The CBI report dated 05.02.2024 indicates that WBSSC
did initially retain the scanned/mirror copies of the OMR sheets which
were subsequently deleted/destroyed.39 The contradictory stance of
WBSSC on the possession and destruction of scanned/mirror copies
of the OMR sheets reflect an attempt to cover up illegalities and
lapses in the selection process. Though the WBSSC claimed to not
retain the scanned/mirror images of the OMR sheets, vide Right to
Information application response dated 12.10.2023 and 18.01.2024,
they furnished the scanned/mirror images of OMR sheets to two
candidates. WBSSC records in the Right to Information application
response dated 12.10.2023 and 18.01.2024 that the mirror image of
OMR sheet is being furnished ‘as per data stored in Commission’s
database’. However, subsequently WBSSC took a stance that the
said scanned/mirror copies of the OMR sheets were obtained from
the data retrieved by CBI.
34. WBSSC in the initial affidavits filed before the High Court and earlier
when they had furnished information, including marks reflected in
the OMR sheets, had not claimed non-availability of the scanned
OMR sheets.
35. The CBI report dated 05.02.2024 notes the mismatch between the
OMR sheet evaluation and the marks as recorded by WBSSC. The
CBI report also refers to the email exchange between the staff of
M/s. Nysa regarding the increase of marks for specific candidates
and the manipulation of data. The email correspondence also shows

39 Para. 16, CBI Report dated 05.02.2024.
2278 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that as a reward for the manipulation in the OMR score, some other
works were awarded to M/s. Indi Info Systems Private Limited, Noida,
a company founded by Mr. Niladri Das, who was previously associated
with M/s. Nysa. The report suggests a connection between the
awarding of this work and the manipulation of the examination results.
36. Apart from WBSSC not retaining mirror copies of the scanned
OMR sheets, other questions arise. In particular are the significant
discrepancies between the marks in WBSSC’s computer software
and the data found on the three hard disks recovered from Pankaj
Bansal’s office in Noida. Further, WBSSC did not upload the marks
of candidates while uploading the list of the candidates called for
interview or included in the panel/waitlist. Marks were only displayed
after the High Court vide order dated 12.05.2022 in WPA 8059 of 2022
mandated the disclosure of marks for each empanelled candidate.
This omission appears deliberate, likely intended to conceal the
marks of candidates on the waitlist, raising concerns about potential
data manipulation. It is also a known fact that some candidates who
did not attempt a single question were awarded marks and issued
appointment letters.
37. It is also important to refer to another finding recorded in the impugned
judgment regarding a discrepancy in the recommendations made
by WBSSC and the number of appointment letters issued by the
Board. The investigation revealed the following disparities between
the number of candidates recommended for appointment by WBSSC
and the number of appointment letters issued by the Board:

Number of
Number of Excess
candidates
appointment appointment
Post Name recommended
letters issued letters issued
for appointment
by the Board by the Board
by WBSSC

Assistant Teachers
11,425 12,946 1,071
for Classes IX and X

Assistant Teachers
5,557 5,756 199
of Classes XI and XII

Group C 2067 2483 416

Group D 3881 4550 669
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2279

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

When confronted, the Board had proffered that all appointment letters
were issued on the recommendation of WBSSC. On the other hand,
the WBSSC contradicted the stance of the Board by stating that they
had not issued recommendations for the excess numbers mentioned
by the Board. WBSSC and the Board now claim that the discrepancy
in the number of appointment letters issued is incorrect. The Board
counted all letters without adjusting for candidates who did not join,
while WBSSC excluded those candidates from its recommendations.
Therefore, there is no discrepancy for teaching staff, and the small
difference for non-teaching staff is irrelevant, as many of these
candidates are already on the tainted list for rank-jumping or being
out of panel. We reject this late attempt by WBSSC and the Board
to reconcile the figures, as the number of recommendations made
by WBSSC is independent of whether a candidate joined the post.
38. There is also a dichotomy in the positions taken by the tainted
candidates and the untainted candidates regarding the scanned
copies of OMR sheets recovered from Pankaj Bansal and M/s. Data
Scantech Solutions. It is the stand of the tainted candidates before
us that the scanned copy of the OMR sheets are not the ones which
the candidates had filled up at the time of examination. Thus, they
cannot be persecuted and treated as tainted. On the other hand,
the untainted candidates claim that the scanned copies of the OMR
sheets are the original sheets which the candidates had filled up.
39. It is also submitted by the tainted candidates that the certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 187240 is inadmissible
and thus, the said data is unreliable. In our opinion, the issues of
authenticity of the data viz. the mismatch between the datasets and
the admissibility of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence
Act, need not be decided in these proceedings, as it falls under the
purview of the criminal court. However, suffice it to state that the
Evidence Act does not strictly apply to the proceedings in a Writ
Court, and the decision is rendered based on the evidence and
material on record. Further, the issue involved in the present case is
different and one relating to the purity and sanctity of the selection
process. Therefore, the Court can rely upon the contradictory pleas
taken by the tainted and the untainted candidates. In the given facts

40 Hereinafter, “Evidence Act”.
2280 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and circumstances, the failure of WBSSC to keep scanned/mirror
copies of the OMR sheets assumes great importance.
40. Further, it is clear that there is a discrepancy between the scanned
OMR sheets recovered from the three hard disks in Pankaj Bansal’s
possession and the marks recorded in WBSSC’s computer/
records. This discrepancy has been acknowledged and accepted
by WBSSC.
41. The claim that the data on the three hard disks shows no interpolation
and is consistent with the data in M/s. Data Scantech Solutions’
computers fails to account for significant gaps and discrepancies.
These issues, highlighted in both the impugned judgment and our
findings, clearly point to large-scale manipulation and tampering
with results, including rank-jumping, discrepancies in marks, the
issuance of appointment letters to candidates not on the panel, and
appointments made beyond the panel’s validity period.
42. In spite of the factual background and the credible evidence indicating
irregularities, WBSSC initially did try and cover up the lapses
and illegalities. The cover up itself has made the verification and
ascertainment more difficult or rather impossible given the scale of
camouflage and dressing up done at each stage. We are convinced
that the entire selection process was intentionally compromised due
to the illegalities involved.

Delay, Laches and Natural Justice
43. WBSSC and the candidates have raised pleas of estoppel, delay,
and laches in filing the writ petitions. In our view, the impugned
judgment correctly dismisses these pleas, relying on this Court’s
judgment in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage
Board and Others v. T.T Murali Babu.41 The judgment distinguishes
between acquiescence, delay and laches, noting that they have
distinct characteristics, though the underlying principle remains one
of estoppel. Laches refers to remissness or slackness, involving
unreasonable delay or negligence in seeking equitable relief, which
prejudices the other party. It arises from the neglect of a party to
assert their right, thereby preventing them from obtaining relief.

41 (2014) 4 SCC 108.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2281

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

In our opinion, this bar does not apply here, as the fraud and illegalities
were only uncovered in 2021 and 2022. Applying the defence of
laches, which is not a statutory bar, would be contrary to equity and
justice in these circumstances. The principle of acquiescence also
does not apply, as it assumes knowledge of the act, followed by
passive acceptance. Therefore, it introduces a new implied defence
that does not fit the facts of this case. Delay, as a general principle,
encompasses both laches and acquiescence, and delay is always
fact-specific. In this case, where fraud was concealed, as well as a
cover up was practised, these principles cannot be applied.
44. We have already partially addressed the plea of failure to adhere
to the principles of natural justice while examining the applicable
case law. It is also important to emphasize that, in this case, public
notices were issued, and the candidates/applicants/petitioners
were afforded the opportunity to inspect the data and present their
arguments. In light of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion
that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked to validate the
fraud that has occurred. These principles are not rigid or inflexible;
rather, they must be applied with due regard to the specific facts
and circumstances at hand.

Conclusion
45. The last question relates to the relief and whether it requires any
modification. We find no valid ground or reason to interfere with the
direction of the High Court that the services of tainted candidates,
where appointed, must be terminated, and they should be required
to refund any salaries/payments received. Since their appointments
were the result of fraud, this amounts to cheating. Therefore, we see
no justification to alter this direction.
46. For candidates not specifically found to be tainted, the entire selection
process has been rightly declared null and void due to the egregious
violations and illegalities, which violated Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. As such, the appointments of these candidates are
cancelled. However, candidates who are already employed need
not be asked to refund or restitute any payments made to them.
However, their services will be terminated. Furthermore, no candidate
can be appointed once the entire examination process and results
have been declared void.
2282 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

47. Some of the appointed candidates who do not fall within the category
of tainted candidates may have previously worked in different
departments of the State Government or with autonomous bodies,
etc. In such cases, although their appointments are cancelled,
these candidates will have the right to apply to their previous
departments or autonomous bodies to continue in service with those
entities. These applications must be processed by the respective
government departments or bodies within three months, and the
candidates will be allowed to resume their positions. Further, the
period between the termination of their previous appointment and
their rejoining will not be considered a break in service. Their
seniority and other entitlements will be preserved, and they will
be eligible for increments. However, for the period they were
employed under the disputed appointment, no wages will be paid
by the State Government or autonomous bodies. Further, if required
and necessary, supernumerary posts may be created for persons
appointed in the interregnum.
48. Lastly, we address the case of disabled candidates. Our attention has
been drawn to one such case where the impugned judgment held
that the appointee, Ms. Soma Das, shall be allowed to continue on
humanitarian grounds. While we will not interfere with this finding,
we make it clear that other differently-abled candidates will not be
entitled to the same benefit, as it would contradict legal principles
and the rule of law. However, in consideration of their disability, these
candidates will be permitted to continue and will receive wages until
the fresh selection process and appointments are completed.
49. The disabled candidates mentioned in the previous paragraph will
be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process, if required,
with age relaxation and other concessions. Similarly, other candidates
who are not specifically tainted will also be eligible to participate,
with appropriate age relaxation. In our opinion, such a direction
would be fair and just, as it would allow these candidates to take
part in the fresh selection process, which should now be initiated
to fill the vacancies.
50. Our observations and findings would not influence the criminal
proceedings.
51. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned judgment cancelling en bloc /
entire selection process but have made certain modifications in the
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2283

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

directions issued by the High Court. The appeals are disposed of
in aforesaid terms.
52. We, however, will independently take up the issue raised in the
appeal(s) filed by the State of West Bengal with regard to the
direction of investigation by the CBI on the decision taken to create
supernumerary posts. The Special Leave Petition(s) to this extent
will be listed for hearing on 08.04.2025.
53. All pending applications, including impleadment applications, also
stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of – SLP’s to be listed for
hearing on 08.04.2025.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)