School Jobs Scam: SC allows 'untainted' teachers to stay for now, asks West Bengal to complete new recruitment by Dec 31

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the West Bengal government to let assistant teachers who have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing to continue working in state schools for now, citing the academic interest of students in Classes 9 to 12, ToI reported. However, the court said that no non-teaching staff or teachers identified as tainted will be allowed to remain in their posts.

The court directed the West Bengal government, the state education board, and the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) to submit an affidavit by May 31. The affidavit must include an advertisement for fresh recruitment of teachers and a written assurance that the selection process will be completed by December 31, 2025.

The Supreme Court said those currently allowed to continue as teachers would not receive any benefit in the upcoming recruitment test.


The order comes shortly after the court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to cancel the 2016 recruitment of more than 25,700 teachers and non-teaching staff for state-run and state-aided schools in West Bengal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Mamata Banerjee-led state government, the WBSSC, and 125 of the recruited candidates.

Also Read: How India's massive school jobs scam left 25,000 in limbo

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “The entire selection process has been vitiated and tainted beyond resolution.”

The court also said that tainted candidates, whether appointed as teachers or non-teaching staff, “should be required to refund any salaries/payments received. Since their appointments were the result of fraud, this amounts to cheating.” It added that those who were not found to have committed any wrongdoing would lose their jobs but would not be asked to return the salaries or reimbursements they had received.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had earlier criticised the court's decision, saying a more just approach would have been to transfer the affected staff. Referring to a separate controversy involving alleged corruption in the judiciary, she said, “I have a question here. If the only consequence after crores are recovered from a judge's house is a transfer, they could have just transferred these 25,000 brothers and sisters as well.”

“We have no complaint against any judge. But, as a citizen, I have every right to say — with respect to the judiciary — that I cannot accept the judgment,” Banerjee said. “We cannot criticise a judge, but we can express our views on humanitarian grounds.”

The scandal, widely referred to as the West Bengal SSC scam or the “school jobs-for-cash” case, stems from widespread irregularities in the recruitment of teachers and non-teaching staff by the WBSSC in 2016. What began as a regular recruitment process turned into one of the most high-profile corruption cases in West Bengal, implicating prominent political figures and setting off a years-long legal battle.

The 2016 recruitment exams were held by the WBSSC for 24,640 sanctioned posts in state-run and state-aided schools. Around 23 lakh candidates took the test in hopes of securing a government job. However, 25,753 appointment letters were issued — a figure that exceeded the official number of posts and raised the first major alarm.

Investigations later revealed serious manipulation of the process. There were reports of tampered OMR answer sheets, fabricated merit lists, and cases where candidates who had submitted blank scripts were given jobs. Several appointees allegedly paid bribes to secure their positions, bypassing merit entirely.

After a series of legal petitions, the Calcutta High Court cancelled all 25,753 appointments, calling the process fraudulent and manipulated. On 11 April 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, stating that the selection process was irreparably vitiated by fraud. The bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna described the recruitment as a “systemic failure” and declined to overturn the earlier judgment.

(with ToI inputs)