Kolkata, Sept 2 (UNI) The Calcutta High Court today dismissed a petition filed by a section of candidates declared “tainted ineligible” in the School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment case, refusing to interfere with the list published by the SSC in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, while hearing the matter, came down heavily on the petitioners and questioned their delay in approaching the court.
“Where were you all this while? The moment the list is published, you rush to court,” the judge observed. He further remarked, “Enough is enough. After the Supreme Court’s direction and the subsequent publication of the list, how can you now claim that you are not tainted?”
Last week, the SSC published a list of 1,806 “tainted ineligible” candidates as per the Supreme Court’s directive. According to the order, these candidates will not be allowed to sit for the upcoming SSC recruitment examinations scheduled for September 7 and 14.
Challenging this, some of the listed candidates had moved the High Court seeking permission to appear in the exams. They argued that the basis of branding them as “tainted” was unclear.
During the hearing, Justice Bhattacharyya asked the petitioners whether they attended schools until December 31, as required by the Supreme Court’s earlier order.
“If you were not allowed to join schools after April 17 following the apex court’s direction, why did you not come to court earlier?” the judge asked.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Anindya Lahiri and Shakya Sen argued that their clients did not fall under the categories earlier identified by the High Court’s Division Bench — such as those who submitted blank answer sheets, obtained jobs from expired panels, or secured jobs outside official panels.
“My clients answered at least one question. They cannot be treated as having submitted blank answer sheets, and hence should not be disqualified from taking the exams,” Lahiri contended.
On the other hand, appearing for the SSC, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee maintained that all petitioners were indeed “tainted ineligible.”
He asserted, “There is no point in debating this further. These candidates manipulated their OMR sheets. The CBI provided us with the list after investigation, and we cross-checked it. These candidates secured jobs by jumping ranks through manipulation.”
The petitioners’ counsel further questioned why, if they were truly ineligible, admit cards were issued to them in the first place. “If they were declared unfit, why were they allowed to download admit cards? That decision too needs to be challenged,” counsel argued.
However, Banerjee reiterated that the CBI’s findings established large-scale tampering with OMR sheets. “The fraud is proven. There is no merit in contesting the marks or rankings of these candidates,” he told the court.
