32000 Teacher Verdict: View Explanation of the Judgement Copy of Calcutta High Court, Download PDF
32000 Teacher Verdict: In a landmark judgment that brings relief to thousands of families across West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court Division Bench has set aside the order of the Single Bench which had directed the cancellation of appointments of approximately 32,000 primary teachers. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Hon’ble Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, delivered this verdict on December 3, 2025, effectively validating the services of the untrained teachers recruited through the 2016 selection process.
What is the Operative Order?
The Division Bench has explicitly set aside the impugned judgment dated May 12, 2023, passed in WPA 21187 of 2022. The Court disposed of all connected appeals and applications, rejecting the prayer for a stay on the operation of this judgment. This means the 32,000 teachers will continue in their service without the threat of immediate termination or the requirement to undergo a fresh recruitment exercise as previously ordered.
Key Reasons for Setting Aside the Single Bench Order
The 141-page judgment order copy highlights several critical legal and factual infirmities in the Single Bench’s decision. Here are the main grounds on which the jobs were saved:
1. Violation of Natural Justice
The Division Bench observed a fundamental flaw in the Single Bench’s order: the 32,000 teachers were not made parties to the writ petition, nor were they heard before their livelihoods were taken away. The Court noted that terminating services without granting an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court had also prima facie observed that orders were passed without joining the affected teachers.
2. Lack of Evidence on “Aptitude Test”
The Single Bench had concluded that no aptitude test was held based on the testimony of a small fraction of interviewers (about 30). The Division Bench scrutinized this and found that concluding “no aptitude test was taken” based on limited evidence was an error. The Court stated that mere suspicion cannot substitute actual proof, and the findings relied on “surmises and conjectures” rather than concrete evidence.
3. No Proof of Systemic Corruption
While the Single Bench referred to “stinking rats” and a “scam” involving the sale of jobs, the Division Bench found these observations to be unsupported by the pleadings in the writ petition. The Court noted that while investigations by the CBI and ED identified specific irregularities regarding 264 and 96 candidates, there was no material on record to link the 32,000 appointees to any money trail or corrupt practices. The Court emphasized that a group of unsuccessful candidates cannot damage the entire system without proof of systemic malaise.
4. Delay and Scope of Pleadings
The writ petition challenging the 2016 recruitment was filed in 2022, nearly six years later, without a valid explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the writ petitioners had not actually prayed for the cancellation of the appointments of these teachers; they had sought appointments for themselves in existing vacancies. The Court ruled that relief not prayed for cannot be granted.
5. Humanitarian Grounds
The Court took a compassionate view, noting that these appointees have rendered uninterrupted service for about nine years. Terminating their jobs at this stage would cause “insurmountable inconvenience” to them and their families. The Court held that appointments made years ago should be protected by equity, especially when the appointees are not proven to be involved in fraud.s
This verdict restores stability to the state’s primary education system. The Court has clarified that services cannot be terminated merely on the basis of an ongoing criminal proceeding or general allegations of corruption without specific proof against the individuals holding the posts.
