The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday set aside the earlier order that had cancelled the appointments of 32,000 primary school teachers in West Bengal. The two-judge bench rejected the previous judgment delivered by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and observed that the entire recruitment process could not be declared illegal based on the limited irregularities identified.
Bench Says “Widespread Malpractice Not Proven”
In its detailed 141-page ruling, the court held that the evidence presented did not establish that the entire recruitment was tainted by universal corruption. It said that while several irregularities had been detected by investigative agencies during the recruitment process, these did not meet the threshold required to strike down all appointments.
According to the bench, only a small number of cases—such as candidates receiving unlawfully high marks or discrepancies in interview assessments—were clearly proven. These isolated instances, the court said, could not justify cancelling the jobs of thousands who were never accused of wrongdoing.
Previous Order Had Cited Multiple Irregularities
The earlier single-judge order had pointed to several issues, including the absence of a formal aptitude test, lack of a proper selection committee, unclear scoring procedures, and evidence of manipulation in interview marks. It had also highlighted that candidates with higher scores from reserved categories were sometimes left out of the general list, and alleged that the recruitment board had allowed external influences to shape the process.
However, the Division Bench noted that these problems indicated lapses in procedure rather than conclusive proof that the entire selection was “fraudulent from beginning to end.”
Court Warns Against Mass Punishment
The judges observed that the teachers had been working for several years and that many families depended on their income. Scrapping all 32,000 jobs, the court said, would cause “irreparable hardship” to thousands of people who were never found guilty of manipulating the process.
It added that ordering a fresh recruitment examination after nearly a decade would be “unreasonable and unfair,” especially since the candidates’ age and circumstances have changed significantly since the original selection.
Relief for Teachers
The verdict was met with relief among thousands of primary teachers whose jobs had been under threat for months. Many gathered outside the court to celebrate after the judgment was announced.
While acknowledging the need for transparent and accountable recruitment practices, the Division Bench emphasised that courts must avoid blanket cancellation of large-scale appointments unless clear and comprehensive evidence of total malpractice is presented.