The Calcutta High Court has hit pause on the West Bengal government’s controversial attempt to cushion thousands of ousted school employees with a public-funded stipend—after top courts found their appointments steeped in fraud.
At the heart of the storm lies the 2016 recruitment drive by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC), which handed out over 24,000 teaching and non-teaching jobs. Over 23 lakh candidates had vied for these posts. But as later unearthed, many appointments were secured through manipulated OMR sheet evaluations, turning the entire selection into a scandal.
After a rigorous judicial clean-up—first by the Calcutta High Court and then sealed by the Supreme Court in April 2025—the axe fell hard. Thousands from Group C and D categories were terminated. In an attempt to soften the blow, the State launched the “West Bengal Livelihood Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025,” offering monthly stipends of ₹25,000 or ₹20,000 to the affected.
That plan has now run into a legal wall.
Justice Amrita Sinha, ruling on multiple petitions, issued a stay on the scheme, calling it incompatible with public interest. The interim order bars the State from disbursing any funds under the scheme till at least September 26, or further orders—whichever comes first.
The Court minced no words: once appointments are declared fraudulent, continued financial support—especially with no work in return—cannot ride on the taxpayer’s back.
“It defies logic,” the Court observed, “that individuals deemed to have benefitted from fraud are to be paid from the public purse despite not performing any duties.”
Interestingly, challenges came from both those who were excluded from the scheme and from candidates who had participated in the original recruitment but were never hired.
The State defended the stipends as a humanitarian gesture—an attempt to ease the shock for thousands who lost livelihoods overnight. But for now, that argument holds no ground in the courtroom.
Meanwhile, the State’s review plea against the Supreme Court’s April ruling remains pending.
The legal tug-of-war is far from over—but for now, the message from the bench is loud and clear: no freebies for fraud.
