WBSSC: In a major development following the cancellation of 26,000 teacher and non-teaching staff appointments that shook the state, a contempt of court case has been filed against the School Service Commission (SSC) in the Supreme Court. This action was reportedly taken because specific directives from the highest court’s ruling have not been implemented, even after three months have passed. This incident once again raises questions about transparency in the state’s education system and the future of the recruitment process.
What Was the Supreme Court’s Directive?
On April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment canceling the appointments of 26,000 teachers and non-teaching staff in the state. However, paragraph 47 of that verdict also included several crucial directives.
The petitioners allege that the SSC has failed to comply with these directives in a timely manner.
Among the key directives were:
- Return to Previous Employment: Candidates from the 2016 recruitment process who were not identified as “tainted” and had left their previous jobs in autonomous bodies or other departments to join the SSC-appointed positions must be allowed to return to their former jobs.
- Continuity of Service: Upon returning to their old jobs, their service continuity must be maintained. This means their seniority, increments, and all other benefits will remain intact.
- Creation of Supernumerary Posts: If there are no vacancies in their previous departments, “supernumerary posts” or additional positions must be created to accommodate their reappointment.
The Supreme Court had given the SSC and the state government a three-month deadline to implement these directives. However, it is alleged that even after this period has expired, many eligible candidates have not been able to rejoin their former jobs.
The Plight of the Victims and the Context of the Case
It is understood that while the SSC has prepared a list of candidates who came from previous jobs, the process of reinstating them in their old positions is not yet complete. Many candidates, particularly visually impaired teachers, have been unable to rejoin their previous workplaces, leaving them in a state of extreme uncertainty.
It is due to this helplessness that an individual named Somnath Niyogi filed the contempt of court case against Arun Kumar Roy in the Supreme Court on September 4, 2025 (Diary No. 50586/2025). The primary demand of the petitioners is the immediate and complete implementation of the Supreme Court’s order.
This case has created a new stir in the state’s educational and administrative circles. It now remains to be seen what action the Supreme Court will take on this matter and when the affected job candidates will receive justice.
