Calcutta High Court Halts Stipends for Sacked Non-Teaching Staff Amid Recruitment Scandal

Court Ruling on Stipends
On Friday, the Calcutta High Court mandated that the West Bengal government cease monthly stipend payments to non-teaching staff dismissed following the Supreme Court's findings of irregularities in the 2016 hiring process.
Justice Amrita Sinha had previously reserved judgment on June 9 but had already put a hold on the state's plan to disburse stipends ranging from Rs 20,000 to Rs 25,000.
In its latest ruling, the court reiterated this prohibition, extending it until at least September 26.
The directive was issued in response to a writ petition contesting the allowance provision for staff whose employment had been terminated. This petition was filed by a waitlisted candidate who was not hired despite being on the merit list, allegedly due to the irregularities in the recruitment process.
On April 3, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's earlier order that annulled the appointments of approximately 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff by the West Bengal School Service Commission, citing manipulation and fraud in the recruitment process.
The Supreme Court had allowed 'untainted' teachers to remain in their positions until the academic year concluded or until new appointments were made, whichever came first. However, this did not extend to non-teaching staff, whose appointments were also revoked.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, the state government announced in April that the dismissed non-teaching staff would receive a monthly allowance until the court reached a decision on its review petitions.
On Friday, the High Court criticized the state for attempting to financially support individuals whose employment had been deemed fraudulent by the Supreme Court, instructing 'tainted' candidates to refund any payments received.
The court emphasized that by introducing a stipend scheme, the state was undermining the Supreme Court's ruling.
The court stated, 'Once the highest court has definitively ruled on the issue of illegal appointments and determined that they resulted from fraud, no beneficiary of such fraudulent actions should receive any support from public funds.'
Additionally, the court ordered the state government to submit a counter-affidavit addressing the petitioners' claims within four weeks, allowing the petitioners two weeks thereafter to respond.
In April 2024, the High Court had issued its directive regarding the termination of appointments based on a re-evaluation of Optical Mark Recognition sheets from the 2016 recruitment examination, which revealed that selected teachers had been hired based on blank sheets.