Supreme Court Guidelines on Setting Aside Selection Process: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC)

In State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC), the Supreme Court laid down 4 key principles for setting aside an entire selection process due to irregularities, upholding the cancellation of 25,000 teaching and non-teaching appointments by the West Bengal SSC in 2016. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar emphasized systemic fraud, evidence standards, and the priority of process purity over candidate inconvenience. This blog explores the Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process, their implications, and their relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Introduction

On April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC), upholding the Calcutta High Court’s decision to cancel 25,000 teaching and non-teaching appointments made by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) in 2016 due to widespread irregularities. Justices Sanjiv Khanna (CJI) and Sanjay Kumar laid down 4 key principles to guide courts in setting aside an entire selection process when systemic fraud or irregularities undermine its integrity. The ruling addresses a long-standing issue in public recruitment, balancing the need for transparency with fairness to untainted candidates. This blog provides a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process, their legal implications, and their significance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Join Telegram Community

Join WhatsApp Community

Explore Courses

Background of State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC)

The case originated from the State Level Selection Test (SLST) 2016, conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) to recruit 24,640 teaching and non-teaching staff for government-sponsored and aided schools in West Bengal. Over 23 lakh candidates appeared, and 25,753 appointment letters were issued. However, allegations of systemic fraud, including OMR sheet tampering, rank-jumping, and cash-for-jobs scams, led to multiple writ petitions challenging the process.

Calcutta High Court Ruling

On April 22, 2024, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi, declared the SLST 2016 recruitment process null and void after a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe revealed widespread irregularities.
The court found that OMR sheets were tampered with, many were blank yet awarded passing marks, and appointments were made after the panel’s expiry.
The High Court ordered the cancellation of all 25,753 appointments, directed appointees to refund salaries as “proceeds of crime,” and mandated a fresh selection process within two weeks of the upcoming election results.
The court also ordered a CBI investigation into state officials, including those who created supernumerary posts to accommodate illegal appointments, leading to arrests of figures like former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee.

Supreme Court Proceedings

The State of West Bengal, WBSSC, and affected appointees challenged the High Court’s order in the Supreme Court, arguing that the blanket cancellation was disproportionate and ignored the possibility of segregating tainted and untainted candidates.
The Supreme Court initially granted interim protection to appointees on May 7, 2024, allowing the CBI to continue its probe but barring coercive actions against officials.
After extensive hearings, the court reserved its judgment on February 10, 2025, and delivered its verdict on April 3, 2025, upholding the High Court’s cancellation but modifying certain aspects, such as waiving the salary refund for appointees and granting relief to disabled employees.

Key Features of the Supreme Court Guidelines on Setting Aside Selection Process

In State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC), the Supreme Court laid down 4 key principles to guide courts in determining whether an entire selection process should be set aside due to irregularities:

1. Entire Exam Result Be Cancelled If In-Depth Inquiry Signals Fraud in Process

Principle: 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 possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be attempted to ensure fairness and equity.
Rationale: The court emphasized that systemic fraud, as seen in the SLST 2016 process, “vitiates the entire selection process beyond repair,” denuding its credibility and legitimacy.
Precedents:
- Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) (2021): Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah held that irregularities must be systemic enough to undermine the sanctity of the process, often constituting fraud that damages its credibility.
- Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970): The court ruled that when widespread unfair means are evident (e.g., at an examination center), individual hearings are not required if the entire process is cancelled, as the issue is systemic, not individual.
Application in the Case: The CBI investigation revealed 6,276 candidates benefited from OMR sheet tampering, with many blank sheets awarded passing marks. The court found the entire SLST 2016 process tainted, justifying its cancellation, but noted that segregation was not feasible due to the scale of fraud.

2. Evidence Used to Cancel En Masse Selection May Not Necessarily Prove Malpractice Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Principle: The decision to cancel a selection process en masse must be based on sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation, but it is not necessary to prove malpractice beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence is reasonable certainty of systemic malaise, applying the probability test.
Rationale: The court clarified that the threshold for cancelling a selection process is not as stringent as in criminal trials, where beyond reasonable doubt applies. Instead, a probability test—assessing the likelihood of systemic fraud based on available evidence—is sufficient.
Precedent:
- Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2006): The court outlined a three-pronged test for cancellation: (1) sufficiency of material to conclude the process is tainted, (2) illegalities must go to the root of the process, and (3) evidence must support that the majority of appointments were fraudulent or the system was corrupt.
- Clarification: The bench in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya noted that Justice Dalveer Bhandari’s emphasis on strict compliance with natural justice in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon was not in line with the earlier three-judge bench decision in Bihar School Examination Board, which prioritized systemic cancellation over individual hearings in cases of widespread fraud.
Application in the Case: The CBI and Justice Ranjit Bag Committee reports identified key perpetrators, including former WBSSC Chairman Dr. Subires Bhattacharya, and private firms like Nysa Communications Pvt. Ltd. and Data Scantech Solutions, involved in OMR tampering. The court found reasonable certainty of systemic fraud, justifying the cancellation.

3. If Deep Manipulation in Process Is Proven, Purity of the Process Must Take Precedence Over Inconvenience to Untainted Candidates

Principle: When broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, the purity of the process must be prioritized over the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates.
Rationale: The court held that maintaining the integrity of the selection process is paramount, even if it causes hardship to candidates who were not directly involved in the fraud. This ensures public trust in government recruitment and upholds Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment).
Precedent:
- State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani (2021): The Teachers Recruitment Board found 196 candidates benefited from OMR sheet tampering. The court held that despite inconvenience to untainted candidates, the magnitude of manipulation necessitated cancellation to restore public confidence in the process.
Application in the Case: The Supreme Court found that the SLST 2016 process involved “manipulations and frauds on a large scale,” with attempts to cover up the irregularities, tainting the entire process. The court prioritized process purity over the inconvenience to potentially untainted candidates, noting that segregation was not feasible due to the scale of fraud.

4. If It Is Factually Established That the Entire Process Is Vitiated, Individual Hearings Are Not Necessary

Principle: When it is factually established that the entire selection process is vitiated by large-scale illegalities, individual notice and hearings may not be necessary for practical reasons.
Rationale: The court recognized that systemic fraud affecting the entire process does not require individual hearings, as the issue is not about individual culpability but the integrity of the process itself. This approach prevents undue delays and ensures swift action to restore fairness.
Precedents:
- Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970): The court held that when widespread unfair means are evident, individual hearings are not required if the entire examination is cancelled, as the issue is systemic.
- Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024): The Supreme Court refused to cancel the NEET-UG 2024 exam despite allegations of a paper leak, as there was no evidence of systemic fraud affecting the entire process. The court noted that re-examination would disrupt over 23 lakh students, highlighting the need for proportionality in cancellation decisions.
Application in the Case: The CBI investigation and Justice Ranjit Bag Committee findings confirmed large-scale fraud in the SLST 2016 process, including OMR tampering and post-panel appointments. The court held that individual hearings were impractical given the scale of the irregularities, justifying the en masse cancellation.

Legal Implications of the Supreme Court Guidelines

The Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC) have significant implications for public recruitment, judicial oversight, and constitutional rights:

1. Strengthening Judicial Oversight in Public Recruitment

The guidelines provide a clear framework for courts to assess when a selection process should be cancelled, ensuring judicial oversight over public recruitment.
This aligns with the Supreme Court’s broader jurisprudence on Articles 14 and 16, as seen in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991), where the court held that equality of opportunity in public employment must be upheld, and fraudulent processes violate this principle.
The ruling ensures that systemic fraud does not undermine public trust in government recruitment, a concern raised in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar (2004), where the court cancelled a selection process due to widespread irregularities.

2. Balancing Fairness and Efficiency

The principle of segregation (where possible) protects untainted candidates, ensuring fairness while addressing systemic issues, as emphasized in Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021).
However, the court’s stance that individual hearings are not necessary in cases of large-scale fraud prioritizes judicial efficiency, preventing delays in addressing systemic issues, a principle echoed in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970).
This balance ensures that Articles 14 and 16 are upheld without compromising the practicality of judicial intervention.

3. Standard of Evidence for Cancellation

The court’s adoption of the probability test over the beyond reasonable doubt standard lowers the evidentiary threshold for cancelling a selection process, making it easier to address systemic fraud.
This aligns with Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2006), which emphasized sufficiency of material over conclusive proof, but the court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya clarified that natural justice requirements are less stringent in systemic fraud cases, as per Bihar School Examination Board.
The ruling ensures that courts can act swiftly on reasonable certainty of fraud, protecting the integrity of public recruitment.

4. Priority of Process Integrity Over Candidate Inconvenience

The court’s emphasis on purity of the process over inconvenience to untainted candidates reinforces the importance of transparency in public employment, as seen in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani (2021).
This principle upholds Article 16(1) (equality of opportunity), ensuring that fraudulent appointments do not disadvantage genuine candidates, a concern raised in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2016), where the court cancelled a selection process due to OMR tampering.
However, the court’s decision not to require salary refunds (unlike the High Court’s order) and to grant relief to disabled employees reflects a humanitarian approach, balancing process integrity with social justice.

5. Implications for Future Recruitment Processes

The guidelines set a precedent for future cases involving selection irregularities, providing a judicial framework to assess systemic fraud.
They may prompt recruitment agencies like the SSC to adopt stricter transparency measures, such as digital record-keeping and independent audits, to prevent fraud, as suggested by the CBI findings in the SLST 2016 case.
The ruling also highlights the need for state governments to ensure fair recruitment practices, as the West Bengal government’s creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate illegal appointments was a key factor in the scam.

Critical Analysis: A Necessary Reform or an Overreach?

The Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC) aim to address systemic fraud in public recruitment, but they also raise several questions about their practical implications and fairness.

Strengths

Upholding Constitutional Rights: The guidelines protect Articles 14 and 16 by ensuring that fraudulent appointments do not undermine equality of opportunity, as seen in the SLST 2016 scam, where 6,276 candidates benefited from OMR tampering.
Judicial Clarity: The 4 key principles provide a clear framework for courts to assess selection irregularities, balancing process integrity with fairness to untainted candidates, as emphasized in Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021).
Deterrence Against Fraud: By prioritizing purity of the process, the ruling deters recruitment agencies and state governments from engaging in or covering up fraudulent practices, as seen with the West Bengal government’s role in creating supernumerary posts.
Proportionality: The court’s decision to waive salary refunds and grant relief to disabled employees reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that social justice is not sacrificed for process integrity.

Challenges and Concerns

Impact on Untainted Candidates: The cancellation of 25,753 appointments, including potentially untainted ones, raises concerns about fairness, as argued by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who suggested segregation was possible based on CBI data identifying 6,276 tainted candidates. The court’s finding that segregation was not feasible due to the scale of fraud may disproportionately affect genuine appointees.
Practicality of Fresh Recruitment: The West Bengal government argued that cancelling the entire process would create a vacuum in schools, affecting students, especially with the new academic session approaching. The court’s directive for a fresh selection within three months may be challenging given the scale of recruitment (24,640 posts).
Judicial Discretion vs. Systemic Cancellation: The principle that individual hearings are not necessary in cases of large-scale fraud may limit judicial discretion, potentially overlooking cases where segregation could be feasible, as seen in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024), where the court refused to cancel NEET-UG 2024 due to lack of systemic fraud.
Public Sentiment: Posts on X reflect mixed sentiment, with some users praising the ruling for addressing corruption in public recruitment, while others express concern for untainted candidates who “worked for years” and now face job loss, highlighting the human cost of such cancellations.

Critical Perspective

The Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process are a necessary reform to address systemic fraud, as seen in the SLST 2016 scam, where OMR tampering and post-panel appointments tainted the entire process. The 4 key principles provide a robust framework to ensure transparency and public trust in government recruitment, aligning with Articles 14 and 16. However, the blanket cancellation of 25,753 appointments raises questions about proportionality, especially when the CBI identified only 6,276 tainted candidates.

The court’s reliance on the probability test lowers the evidentiary threshold, which may lead to overreach in future cases where segregation is feasible. Moreover, the lack of individual hearings in systemic fraud cases, while practical, risks undermining natural justice, as argued by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, who suggested show-cause notices to ensure fairness. The West Bengal government’s role in enabling fraud through supernumerary posts highlights a deeper issue of state complicity, which the guidelines do not directly address. A more balanced approach might involve interim measures—such as suspending tainted appointments while retaining untainted ones—alongside systemic reforms to prevent future fraud, ensuring justice for all stakeholders.

Relevance for Judiciary, APO, and JLO Aspirants

The Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC) are a critical topic for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams:

Prelims: Expect questions on the case name (State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya), the 4 key principles, the number of cancelled appointments (25,753), and the SLST 2016 scam details.
Mains: Write essays on topics like “Supreme Court Guidelines on Setting Aside Selection Process: Balancing Transparency and Fairness” or “Impact of Systemic Fraud on Public Recruitment,” discussing Articles 14 and 16, judicial oversight, and systemic reforms, with references to Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021), Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970), and Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024).
Interviews: Discuss the implications of the guidelines for public recruitment, judicial efficiency, and constitutional rights, citing State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya and related cases, while addressing challenges for untainted candidates and the need for systemic reforms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process, issued on April 3, 2025, in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC), provide a robust framework for addressing systemic fraud in public recruitment, upholding the cancellation of 25,753 teaching and non-teaching appointments by the West Bengal SSC in 2016. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar outlined 4 key principles: cancelling the entire process when systemic fraud is evident, using a probability test for evidence, prioritizing process purity over candidate inconvenience, and forgoing individual hearings in large-scale fraud cases.

The guidelines build on precedents like Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021) and Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970), ensuring transparency and public trust in government recruitment while upholding Articles 14 and 16. For Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants, understanding these guidelines is essential for 2025 exams, offering insights into public recruitment law, judicial oversight, and constitutional rights, and preparing them to tackle questions on these topics with a balanced perspective.

Call-to-Action

Master the Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process for your 2025 exams! Join Doon Law Mentor’s Courses for expert guidance. Follow @doonlawmentor on Instagram for daily legal updates!

FAQs

What did the Supreme Court rule in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025 SC)?
The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of 25,753 teaching and non-teaching appointments by the West Bengal SSC in 2016, laying down 4 key principles for setting aside selection processes due to systemic fraud.
What are the 4 key principles in the Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process?
The principles are: (1) cancel the entire process if systemic fraud is evident, (2) evidence need not prove malpractice beyond reasonable doubt, (3) prioritize process purity over candidate inconvenience, and (4) individual hearings are not necessary in large-scale fraud cases.
Why did the Supreme Court cancel the SLST 2016 appointments in West Bengal?
The court found systemic fraud in the SLST 2016 process, including OMR sheet tampering and post-panel appointments, vitiating the entire selection process beyond repair.
What is the probability test in the Supreme Court guidelines?
The probability test allows cancellation based on reasonable certainty of systemic fraud, not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, as per the guidelines.
How does the Supreme Court balance fairness in selection cancellations?
The court suggests segregating tainted and untainted candidates where possible, but prioritizes process purity if deep manipulation is proven, as per State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani (2021).
Are individual hearings required before cancelling a selection process?
No, the court held that individual hearings are not necessary if the entire process is vitiated by large-scale illegalities, as per Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970).
What evidence standard applies to cancelling a selection process?
The standard is reasonable certainty of systemic malaise, using the probability test, not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
How did the Supreme Court address untainted candidates in the West Bengal SSC case?
The court found segregation unfeasible due to the scale of fraud, prioritizing process purity, but waived salary refunds and granted relief to disabled employees.
What precedents did the Supreme Court rely on for its guidelines?
The court relied on Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021), Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970), Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2006), and State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani (2021).
Why are the Supreme Court guidelines on setting aside selection process important for Judiciary aspirants?
The guidelines address public recruitment law, judicial oversight, and constitutional rights, making them a key topic for prelims, mains, and interviews in 2025 exams.