The State Of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee)

REPORTABLE


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 437

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9586 OF 2024)


STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

BAISHAKHI BHATTACHARYYA (CHATTERJEE)
AND OTHERS

.....

RESPONDENTS


W I T H

CIVIL APPEALS ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.
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,
25078 OF 2024

A N D

CIVIL APPEALS ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.
DIARY NOS. 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, 31175 OF 2024, AND DIARY NO. 2104 OF
2025
Signature Not Verified


Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.04.03
14:36:33 IST
Reason:

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 1 of 41





J U D G M E N T


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
1
Commission 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
2
the High Court at Calcutta. The Central Bureau of Investigation which had
carried out the investigation pursuant to the directions given by the High Court
3
at Calcutta is also arraigned as a respondent.

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

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.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 2 of 41



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.

F ACTUAL M ATRIX

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
4
Education, 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
5
Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016 govern the selection process for
Assistant Teachers for Classes IX and X.

4
Hereinafter, “Board”.
5
Hereinafter, “Class IX-X Rules”.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 3 of 41



• The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment
to the posts of Teachers for Classes XI and XII in Secondary and Higher
6
Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016 govern the selection process for
Assistant Teachers for Classes XI and XII.
• The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for
7
Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 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:
(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.
8
M/s. Nysa Communications Pvt. Ltd. was given the task of scanning and
•
9
assessing the Optical Mark Recognition 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:

6
Hereinafter, “Class XI-XII Rules”.
7
Hereinafter, “2009 Rules”.
8
Hereinafter, “M/s. Nysa”.
9
Hereinafter, “OMR”.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 4 of 41



• 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:

• The final status rank list was published on the website of WBSSC as per
the details given below:

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:

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 5 of 41



I. Appointment letters were received but candidates were not allowed to
10
join.
II. Non-publication of the fourth phase of the counselling list contrary to
11
the 2009 Rules.
III. Rank jumping i.e. candidates holding the rank below the petitioner(s)
12
had been given appointments.
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
13
had been published initiating a new recruitment process.
V. Pick and choose method in selecting candidates and flouting of
14
recruitment rules.
VI. Candidate(s) neither in the merit list nor in the waiting list was/ were
15
given appointment and also joined the school(s).
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.

10
WPA No. 14612 of 2021.
11
WPA No. 12266 of 2021.
12
WPA 18585 of 2021.
13
WPA 12270 of 2021.
14
WPA No. 13700 of 2021.
15
WPA 17273 of 2021.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 6 of 41



• 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 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.
16
• Vide order dated 15.02.2022 , the Single Judge directed the CBI to
investigate the alleged illegalities in the recruitment process. Pursuant to

16
Passed in WPA 12270 of 2021.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 7 of 41



17 18 19
further orders dated 05.04.2022, 07.04.2022, 18.05.2022, and
20 21
20.05.2022 of the Single Judge, four different FIRs were registered by
CBI.
22
Special Leave Petitions were filed before this Court and heard. Vide order
•
dated 09.11.2023, while dealing with a batch of cases in Achinta Kumar
23
Mondal and Others etc. v. Laxmi Tunga and Others etc. , 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.

(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.”


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.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 8 of 41



• Pursuant to the direction for investigation, the CBI had submitted four
24
interim and final Reports 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 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.


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.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 9 of 41



(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.

(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.”

L EGAL P OSITION
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

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 10 of 41



25
Others , 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 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.

25
(2021) 4 SCC 631.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 11 of 41



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
26
Others 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.
27
Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, 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 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.
28
Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others , has held that the

26
(1970) 1 SCC 648.
27
AIR 1962 SC 1110.
28
(1990) Supp SCC 692.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 12 of 41



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
29
Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others , 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
30
Another , 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
31
Punjab and Others , this Court elucidated three principles which must be
adhered to when cancelling appointments. First, there must be satisfaction

29
(1998) 9 SCC 236.
30
(2003) 7 SCC 285.
31
(2006) 11 SCC 356.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 13 of 41



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

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 14 of 41



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 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.
32
State of Punjab and Others , 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.
33
Shyam Kumar and Others , 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

32
(2014) 6 SCC 644.
33
(2010) 6 SCC 614.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 15 of 41



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.

34
17. In State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others , 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
35
Hanubhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others 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 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

34
(2021) 16 SCC 217.
35
(2017) 13 SCC 621.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 16 of 41



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.

36
18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others , 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

36
(2024) 9 SCC 743.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 17 of 41



of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The
probability test is applicable.
• 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.
I LLEGALITIES IN THE S ELECTION P ROCESS
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


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 18 of 41



(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

(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.


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 19 of 41



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:
“ 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 evolving illegal
procedure in violation of the provisions of Rule 16(v) and 18(1)
and (2) of the School Service Commission Rules, 2009.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 20 of 41




(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
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.


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 21 of 41



(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 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

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 22 of 41



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 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

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 23 of 41



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 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.


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 24 of 41



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
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 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.


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 25 of 41



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
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.


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 26 of 41



(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.

(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

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 27 of 41



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 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
37
WBSSC before the High Court :

37
See paragraph 240 of the impugned judgment.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 28 of 41



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:

TABLE – 1

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

TABLE – 2

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

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 29 of 41



either jumped rank or were appointed despite not being in the panel came to
light:
A: Person identified as tainted in the category of Rank Jumping and out
of Panel but appointed

The details of candidates who were appointed by manipulation of the
OMR scores is as under:
B: Person identified having dispute in OMR issue:

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:
• 1,498 out-of-panel candidates were illegally appointed;
• 926 candidates were involved in rank jumping; and

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 30 of 41



• 4,091 candidates were recommended despite OMR mismatches.

38
Thus, excluding 239 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

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).

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 31 of 41



they do not have the physical OMR sheets as they were destroyed in terms of
Rule 21 of the Class IX and X and 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.


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 32 of 41



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.

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

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 33 of 41



39
deleted/destroyed. 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 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.


39
Para. 16, CBI Report dated 05.02.2024.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 34 of 41



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:

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 35 of 41



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
40
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is inadmissible and thus, the said data

40
Hereinafter, “Evidence Act”.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 36 of 41



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 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.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 37 of 41



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.
D ELAY , L ACHES AND N ATURAL J USTICE
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
41
Babu. 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. 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.

41
(2014) 4 SCC 108.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 38 of 41




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.

ONCLUSION
C
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.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 39 of 41




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.


Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 40 of 41



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 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.


......................................CJI.
(SANJIV KHANNA)



…......................................J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 03, 2025.

Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 & Ors. Page 41 of 41