Calcutta HC refuses to hear SSC contempt plea, says Supreme Court will decide 26,000 job case

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a contempt petition related to the cancellation of 26,000 jobs in the School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment scam. The division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Mohammad Shabbar Rashidi stated that since the matter is now being heard in the Supreme Court, further proceedings in the High Court are not maintainable.

The contempt plea had been filed by petitioners who alleged that despite repeated directions from both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court, the West Bengal SSC and the state’s education department had failed to take proper action. The petition accused the authorities of not implementing orders regarding the removal of ineligible and "tainted" teachers and not initiating salary recovery from those whose appointments were declared illegal.

During previous hearings, Justice Basak had directed the SSC to publish the names of disqualified candidates along with their OMR sheets and begin the process of recovering salaries paid to them. Following this, the state government sought permission to present new legal arguments in the case, which was allowed by the court.

The SSC and the state government argued that since the matter is sub judice in the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot proceed with any related hearing. The petitioners, however, maintained that the High Court retained the authority to hear contempt proceedings under its inherent powers. Despite the differing arguments, the bench ruled that the responsibility for monitoring compliance with judicial directives now rests solely with the Supreme Court.

The court observed that the Supreme Court had previously altered some parts of the High Court’s earlier orders, upheld certain portions, and set aside others. It said it is now for the apex court to examine whether its directions have been followed. With this order, the High Court effectively withdrew from the matter, which remains under consideration at the Supreme Court level.