Untainted employees may rejoin previous departments with seniority benefits if subsequent appointments are judicially annulled.

The applicant, Abhik Roy, was formerly employed as a Upper Division Clerk (UDC) at the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Kolkata

He resigned from ESIC to join as an Assistant Teacher under the Government of West Bengal following the 1st State Level Selection Test - 2016

On 03.04.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the teacher appointments but provided a specific remedy for "untainted" candidates to return to their previous departments

On 20.08.2025, the applicant submitted a representation to the ESIC seeking reinstatement to his former post based on the Apex Court's order, but the respondents failed to provide a reply

1. Whether the respondent authorities are required to consider the applicant's representation for reinstatement in service in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court's directions dated 03.04.2025

The Tribunal relied on the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 03.04.2025, specifically Paragraph 47

This provision grants "untainted" candidates, whose appointments were cancelled, the right to apply to their previous departments or autonomous bodies to continue service.

The rule stipulates that such applications must be processed within three months, the intervening period should not be treated as a break in service, and seniority and increments must be preserved, though no wages are payable for the period spent in the disputed teaching appointment

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s claim for reinstatement through the lens of the Supreme Court's protective directions for former government employees

The respondents argued that the applicant had not provided proof of being an "untainted" candidate in the teacher recruitment process

The Tribunal reasoned that the appropriate course of action was to mandate the competent authority (Respondent No. 4) to evaluate the applicant’s representation by verifying his status against the Apex Court's criteria

The Tribunal emphasized that the administrative decision must be a "reasoned and speaking order" passed within a strict one-month timeline to resolve the applicant's uncertainty

The authority must issue a reasoned and speaking order within one month from the receipt of the Tribunal's order

The respondents were granted liberty to demand documents from the applicant to satisfy themselves that he is not a "tainted" candidate

No costs were awarded