Calcutta: In a significant judicial turnaround, the Calcutta High Court set aside a 2023 order by a single-judge bench that had cancelled the appointments of roughly 32,000 primary school teachers in what came to be known as the “cash-for-jobs” recruitment scam.
A division bench comprising Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra delivered the verdict, reversing the cancellation on grounds that the earlier order lacked adequate evidence to justify annulling the entire recruitment — thereby reopening hope for thousands of educators whose careers and livelihoods had been thrown into uncertainty.
Background of ‘Cash-for-Jobs’ Recruitment Scam
The controversy dates back to 2016, when the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE) — via the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) — recruited over 42,000 primary school teachers based on the results of the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).
Soon after, some of the unsuccessful candidates challenged the recruitment process before the CHC, alleging massive irregularities — including manipulated merit lists, tampering with OMR answer sheets, undue mark adjustments, selection by outside agencies instead of a constituted committee, and “jobs-for-cash” transactions.
Investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) followed. High-profile arrests of senior WBSSC officials, middlemen, and politically connected individuals amplified the gravity of allegations.
Single-Judge Decision: Cancellation & Demand for Fresh Recruitment
On May 12, 2023, a single-bench of the CHC led by Abhijit Gangopadhyay — now a Member of Parliament — voided the appointments of nearly 32,000 teachers who had not completed formal training at the time of recruitment. The bench held that the selection process was “vitiated by fraud and irregularities,” prompting annulment and direction for fresh recruitment.
The judge observed that no legitimate aptitude test had been conducted, and that recruitment was managed by external agencies rather than a constituted selection committee — calling it a “gross illegality.”
Division Bench Verdict on ‘Cash-for-Jobs’ Recruitment Scam: Setting Aside the Cancellation
Legal Reasoning — No Proven “Systemic Malice”: On December 3, 2025, the division bench overturned the single-judge order. The bench held that while irregularities may have been alleged, there was no conclusive evidence establishing “systemic malice” necessary to annul the entire 2016 exercise.
The judges observed that a “group of unsuccessful candidates cannot be allowed to damage the entire system.”
They pointed out that to cancel the entire recruitment, there must be “a finding on systemic malice as borne out by the evidence on record.” Absent that, the services of thousands of teachers, many of whom had presumably served for years, could not be terminated summarily.
Moreover, the bench noted that there was no allegation or evidence that the students under these teachers had suffered because of their appointments. Nor was there proof that these teachers — many of them perhaps untainted — had obtained their positions by paying money or that they had faked credentials.
Concern Over Judicial Overreach & Procedural Fairness
The bench criticized the earlier order for having gone “beyond the pleadings” — meaning the cancellation had been ordered without giving all affected candidates an opportunity for a full hearing. The court stressed that service cannot be terminated simply on the basis of allegations or ongoing criminal proceedings; there must be a robust, evidence-based finding before such a drastic step is taken.
In doing so, the bench reaffirmed that courts must avoid “roving inquiries” and respect the principles of natural justice, especially when the livelihoods of thousands are at stake.
Implications: For Teachers, Governance and the Education Sector
- For approximately 32,000 primary school teachers, the judgment brings immediate relief. Many of them had faced uncertainty, possible job loss, and financial instability — some after years of service. The reinstatement may restore not only their jobs but dignity.
- Given the bench’s strong comments on fairness and procedural safeguards, a broad re-employment without fresh tests seems more plausible — unless fresh evidence emerges to justify scrutiny.
- The verdict complicates the narrative around the alleged scam — particularly the assumption that all 2016 appointees were “tainted.” By distinguishing between unproven allegations and systemic corruption, the court signals that sweeping cancellation may not be the right remedy without clear evidence.
- This will likely put pressure on investigative agencies to identify and prosecute only those individuals against whom there is clear evidence — rather than penalising an entire cohort.
- The ruling may prompt reforms in recruitment and hiring processes across the state (and perhaps other states too). Authorities may be compelled to ensure transparent, accountable, and document-based selection to avoid future litigations.
- Moreover, the judgment underscores the importance of due process — even amid serious corruption allegations — reinforcing that administrative wrongdoing does not automatically justify blanket annulment of appointments.
What Happens Next? The Road Ahead
The affected teachers and the education department will now likely follow up on formal reinstatement procedures. Notification, posting orders, salary payments and other formalities might begin soon.
Investigative agencies (CBI, ED) will continue probing those accused — but the court’s decision puts on them the burden of producing concrete evidence to justify cancellation for individuals, rather than implicating an entire batch.
There may be calls for systemic reforms in recruitment procedures across WBSSC — demanding digitised processes, transparent OMR handling, independent oversight, and stricter compliance with statutory norms.
Politically, this verdict might influence public discourse around accountability and “jobs-for-cash” recruitment scam — highlighting the balance needed between rooting out corruption and safeguarding honest employees.
Read also: Supreme Court’s Call for Asset Disclosure: Only 12% of Judges Comply
