[Recruitment Scam] Why Are Tainted Candidates Being Allowed To Re-Apply Despite SC's Orders? Calcutta High Court Asks State

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday asked the West Bengal government why candidates who had been declared as tainted in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam were being permitted to reapply under a fresh recruitment process notified by the state on 30th May 2025, despite orders to the contrary by the Supreme Court.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya said, "Why are tainted candidates being permitted in spite of the directions by the Supreme Court? In your 30th May notification, there is no express bar to debar the tainted candidates from applying...I can observe that there are loopholes in the notification, but the court is not interfering since leave is granted...you say why tainted candidates will be allowed to participate in view of specific observations by the Supreme Court."

Petitioners approached the court, pointing out the state's recruitment notification and stating that it did not contain any prohibition on candidates who had been ousted from their jobs by the Supreme Court from applying under the present process.

It was stated that the state's notification had not heeded the order by the Apex Court.

In expressing disinclination to make any observations at the present stage, the court stated that the petitioners could seek any clarifications before the Supreme Court.

In noting the queries of the court at the present hearing, the state prayed for time to come back at a later date with clarifications.

"Kindly do not record anything...whatever we have done, it has been strictly in adherence with the Supreme Court's order. Nothing beyond that," state counsel submitted.

Petitioners added that while the state may have inadvertently committed an error while issuing the May notification, it could be rectified.

"This is troubling me...the Supreme Court has said tainted candidates will not be permitted; where is such indication in [state's] notification...let the issue be sorted by filing a clarification before the SC?" the Court stated.

Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to a later date.