Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein, the Court set aside the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (‘WBSSC’) for the recruitment of non-teaching staff in Groups C and D, and Assistant Teachers for Classes IX and X, as well as Classes XI and XII, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna*, CJI, and Sanjay Kumar, J. upheld the impugned judgment that canceled the entire selection process en bloc but made certain modifications to the directions issued by the High Court.
Background
The appellants were the selectees, some of whom have been working for over five years. They fall into two categories: (i) selectees with purported evidence and material indicating wrongdoing and (ii) other selectees who claim that they were validly selected and have committed no wrongdoing. The State of West Bengal and the WBSSC have also challenged the impugned judgment.
The WBSSC governs the recruitment process for teaching and non-teaching staff in state-funded schools in West Bengal, under various legislative acts and rules, such as the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997, and the relevant selection rules for both teaching and non-teaching posts. In 2016, WBSSC initiated a selection process for numerous teaching and non-teaching positions. However, allegations of irregularities and illegalities, such as rank-jumping, non-publication of counseling lists, and wrongful appointments, emerged through various writ petitions. In response to these complaints, WBSSC acknowledged some mistakes and accepted its failure to properly manage the process, including the improper destruction of original OMR sheets, which violated the established rules. As a result of these issues, the Calcutta High Court directed an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’), leading to the registration of multiple FIRs to probe the alleged illegalities in the recruitment process.
Special Leave Petitions were filed before this Court and heard, leading to the issuance of an order on 09-11-2023, wherein the Court directed the CBI to complete its investigation within two months and submit a report to the High Court. Following this directive, the CBI submitted four interim and final reports regarding the recruitment process. Subsequently, in its impugned judgment dated 22-04-2024, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the entire selection process. Aggrieved the selectees filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
After reviewing various precedents, the Court concluded that when an in-depth factual inquiry uncovers systemic irregularities, such as fraud or other significant issues that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the selection must be cancelled in its entirety. However, where feasible, the Court suggested that tainted and untainted candidates should be segregated, ensuring fairness and equity. The decision to annul the selection process must be grounded in sufficient material gathered through a thorough and fair investigation. While it is not necessary for the evidence to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of evidence should reflect a reasonable certainty of systemic problems, applying the probability test. Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, if broad manipulation in the selection process is proven, priority must be given to preserving the integrity of the process. Furthermore, in cases where the entire selection process is found to be vitiated with widespread illegalities, individual notice and hearing may not be required due to practical considerations.
Illegalities in the selection process
The Court opined that this is a case where the entire selection process has been irrevocably vitiated and tainted beyond resolution. The large-scale manipulations and frauds, along with the subsequent attempt to cover them up, have irreparably damaged the integrity of the process. As a result, the credibility and legitimacy of the selection have been completely undermined, rendering any partial redemption or correction of the process impossible.
The Court referred to the findings of the Justice (Retd.) Bag Committee, which conducted a detailed scrutiny and verification of the appointments of non-teaching staff in Groups C and D. Additionally, the Court considered the reports submitted by the CBI. It noted that WBSSC had candidly admitted to several irregularities, including: (i) rank jumping, where candidates with lower ranks were preferred over those with higher ranks, (ii) out-of-panel appointments, where candidates not on the shortlist were recommended and appointed, (iii) appointments of candidates who were not recommended by WBSSC but were appointed by the Board, and (iv) manipulation of the OMR scores. However, the Court observed discrepancies in the number of candidates and their corresponding percentages where such irregularities were found. Notably, WBSSC acknowledged that, excluding 23,938 candidates who were affected by both OMR mismatches and other illegalities, 6,276 illegal appointments were made.
The Court further stated that WBSSC’s reliance on Rule 21 to justify the destruction of OMR sheets was misplaced, as Rule 21 specifically applies only to Assistant Teachers for Classes IX-X and XI-XII, not to the non-teaching Group C and D posts. The Court acknowledged that the Chairman of WBSSC, in a letter dated 22-07-2019, had instructed the destruction of OMR sheets pertaining to the 2016 selection process for both Assistant Teachers (Classes IX-X and XI-XII) and Group C and D employees. However, since Rule 21 does not cover non-teaching posts, the destruction of the OMR sheets for these categories was in violation of the applicable rules.
The Court further observed that, since the recruitment process continued even after the one-year validity period of the panel, there was no justification for the destruction of the OMR sheets. It noted that the time period specified in Rule 21 coincided with the validity period of the panel. Moreover, WBSSC failed to maintain mirror copies of the OMR sheets in their computer records. As a result, the destruction of the physical OMR sheets and the failure to preserve scanned or mirror images of the OMR sheets were crucial factors that the High Court rightly took into consideration. The Court concurred with the High Court’s assessment of these significant lapses in the process.
The Court stated that WBSSC’s justification for extending the panel term was untenable. The one-year period for the destruction of OMR sheets, as specified in Rule 21, coincided with the validity period of the panel. Since the counseling and appointments for Assistant Teachers for Classes IX-X and XI-XII occurred after the panel’s validity had expired, these appointments were deemed illegal and contrary to the established rules. The Court also dismissed the reliance on High Court orders in individual cases of rank jumping, as those decisions were made without an understanding of the broader illegalities in the recruitment process.
Additionally, the Court noted the serious discrepancies in WBSSC’s handling of the OMR sheets. The CBI report revealed that WBSSC had initially retained the scanned/mirror copies of the OMR sheets, but these copies were later destroyed or deleted. This was in contradiction to WBSSC’s claims that they had not retained the scanned copies. The Court found that the destruction of the OMR sheets, coupled with the failure to maintain the scanned/mirror copies, reflected a deliberate attempt to cover up the illegalities and lapses in the selection process. Furthermore, the Court considered the evidence from the CBI report regarding the manipulation of OMR scores, and the connections between Nysa Communications Pvt. Ltd. and Indi Info Systems Private Limited, suggesting that the awarding of additional work to the latter company was tied to the manipulation of the exam results.
The Court further observed that, apart from WBSSC’s failure to retain mirror copies of the scanned OMR sheets, other serious questions arose. Notably, there were significant discrepancies between the marks in WBSSC’s computer software and the data found on three hard disks recovered from the office in Noida. Additionally, WBSSC did not upload the marks of candidates when it published the list of those called for interviews or included in the panel/waitlist. Marks were only made available after the High Court, through its order mandated the disclosure of marks for each empanelled candidate. The Court noted that this omission appeared deliberate, likely intended to conceal the marks of candidates on the waitlist, thus raising serious concerns about potential data manipulation. It was also revealed that certain candidates who had not attempted a single question were nevertheless awarded marks and even issued appointment letters.
Moreover, the Court referred to another significant finding in the impugned judgment, which highlighted discrepancies between the recommendations made by WBSSC and the number of appointment letters issued by the Board. The investigation uncovered disparities between the number of candidates recommended for appointment by WBSSC and the actual number of appointment letters issued by the Board, further pointing to irregularities in the process.
The Court noted that when confronted with the discrepancies, the Board had argued that all appointment letters were issued on the basis of WBSSC’s recommendations. However, WBSSC contradicted the Board’s position, stating that they had not recommended the excess number of candidates mentioned by the Board. Both the Board and WBSSC later attempted to justify the discrepancy, claiming that the Board had counted all appointment letters without excluding candidates who did not join, while WBSSC had excluded such candidates from its recommendations. They further argued that there was no discrepancy for teaching staff and that the small difference for non-teaching staff was insignificant, as many of these candidates were already on the tainted list due to issues like rank-jumping or being out of panel.
The Court, however, rejected this late attempt by WBSSC and the Board to reconcile the figures. The Court emphasized that the number of recommendations made by WBSSC is independent of whether or not a candidate actually joined the post. Therefore, the discrepancy between the number of recommendations and the number of appointment letters issued was significant and could not be dismissed as a minor issue.
Additionally, the Court rejected the claim that the data on the three hard disks showed no interpolation and was consistent with the data in the computers.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of irregularities, WBSSC initially attempted to cover up these lapses and illegalities. The Court concluded that this cover-up made the verification process increasingly difficult, if not impossible, given the extent of the camouflage and alterations at every stage. The Court was convinced that the entire selection process was intentionally compromised due to the illegalities involved
The Court found no valid ground or reason to interfere with the direction of the High Court that the services of tainted candidates, where appointed, must be terminated, and they should be required to refund any salaries/payments received. Since their appointments were the result of fraud, this amounts to cheating.
Therefore, the Court held that for the candidates not specifically found to be tainted, the entire selection process has been rightly declared null and void due to the egregious violations and illegalities, which violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As such, the appointments of these candidates are cancelled. However, candidates who are already employed need not be asked to refund or restitute any payments made to them. However, their services will be terminated. Furthermore, no candidate can be appointed once the entire examination process and results have been declared void.
The Court also concluded that some of the candidates who had been appointed, but were not classified as tainted, may have previously worked in different departments of the State Government or with autonomous bodies. Although their appointments were being canceled, these candidates retained the right to apply to their previous departments or bodies to resume service.
The Court directed that these applications must be processed by the respective departments or bodies within three months, allowing the candidates to return to their previous positions.
The Court clarified that the period between the termination of their previous appointments and their rejoining would not be considered a break in service. Their seniority and other entitlements were to be preserved, and they would be eligible for increments. However, the State Government or autonomous bodies would not pay wages for the period they had been employed under the disputed appointment. Furthermore, if necessary, supernumerary posts could be created for individuals appointed during the interregnum.
The Court also addressed the case of disabled candidates, particularly noting the case of one selectee whose appointment was allowed to continue on humanitarian grounds. While the Court did not interfere with this decision, it made it clear that other differently-abled candidates would not be entitled to the same benefit, as doing so would conflict with legal principles and the rule of law. However, considering their disability, these candidates were permitted to continue and would receive wages until the fresh selection process was completed.
The Court further allowed the disabled candidates to participate in the fresh selection process, if required, with age relaxation and other necessary concessions. Similarly, other candidates who were not specifically tainted were also eligible to participate in the fresh selection process, with appropriate age relaxation.
The Court opined that this direction would be fair and just, as it would allow these candidates to take part in the new selection process to fill the vacancies.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the impugned judgment that canceled the entire selection process en bloc but made certain modifications to the directions issued by the High Court.
However, the Court also decided to independently address an issue raised in the appeal(s) filed by the State of West Bengal concerning the direction for an investigation by the CBI regarding the decision to create supernumerary posts. The SLP related to this matter will be listed for hearing on 08-04-2025.
[State of W.B. v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719, decided on 03-04-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Respondents: Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shivani Lal, Adv., Mr. Hiren Dasan, Adv., Mr. Suman Sengupta, Adv., Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Sanam Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv., Ms. Sundri, Adv., Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR, Mr. Jayprakash Bansilal Somani, Adv., Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv., Ms. Shisba Chawla, AOR, Mr. Manoj Kumar Chowdhary, Adv., Mr. Vinay Chadda, Adv., Mr. Gururaj S., Adv., Mr. Devesh Kumar Mishra, AOR, Mr. Jayprakash Bansilal Somani, Adv., Mr. Nishant Verma, AOR, Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Amitabh Ranjan, Adv., Ms. Samiksha Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR, Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR, Mr. Vishak Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Manisha Pandey, Adv., Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Adv., Mr. Shubhankar, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar Rathor, Adv., Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv., Mr. S.K. Pandey, Adv., Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv., Mr. Karmendra Singh, Adv., Mr. Ravilochan Daliparthi, Adv., Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv., Ms. G. Anusha, Adv., Mr. Varnik Kundaliya, Adv., Ms. Mallika Ranjan, Adv., M/s. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR, Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kuldeep Rai, Adv., Mr. Nandini Rai, Adv., Mr. Aryan Dev Pandey, Adv., Mr. Ishwar Chnadra Roy, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Chawda, Adv., Mr. Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, AOR, Mr. Jaydip Pati, AOR, Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Adv., Mr. Veerendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. R.C. Kaushik, AOR, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shariq Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Abhik Chimni, Adv., Ms. Pranjal Abrol, Adv., M/s. Ahmadi Law Offices, AOR, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Partha Burman, Adv., Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR, Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv., Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv., Mr. Shashank Khurana, Adv., Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv., Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, AOR, Ms. Tapati Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Adv., Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv., Mr. Bhaskar Aditya, AOR, Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bapi Das, Adv., Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR, Mr. Shivani Vij, Adv., Mr. Somesh Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv., Ms. Rashmi Singhania, AOR, Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Dr. Maneka Guruswami, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Adv., Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Anil C. Nishani, Adv., Mrs. Deepti Singh, Adv., Mr. Sudhindra Tripathi, Adv., M/s. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR, Mrs. Rachana Shrivastava, Sr. Adv., Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Rajib Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR, Mr. Babharu Bahan Behra, Adv., Mr. Sakhawat Khandakar, Adv., Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Adv., Mr. P.C. Das, Adv., Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Surendra Ramgopal Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Bijay Adhikari, Adv., Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv., Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Ankur, Adv., Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv., Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv., Ms. Swati Jha, Adv., Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv., Ms. Gursheen Kaur, Adv., Mr. Sohham Sau, Adv., Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv., Mr. Abdul Wahab, Adv., Mr. Ashish Dixit, Adv., Mr. Karthik Sundar, Adv., Mr. Keshav Dev, Adv., Mr. Gokul Athithiya, Adv., Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv., Mr. P.B. Reddy, Adv., Mr. Roshan Lal, Adv., Ms. Patnam Shyla, Adv., Ms. C.S. Hema, Adv., Ms. Snehasree Lakkamaneni, Adv., Mr. Preeti Chauhan, Adv., Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv., Ms. Monika Sharma, Adv., Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv., Mrs. Aarti Pal, Adv., Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Karuna Nundy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv., Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv., Ms. Shrawani, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Sen, Adv., Mr. Hardik Jayal, Adv., Mr. Vikas Jain, AOR, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv., Mr. Surjadipta Seth, Adv., Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Adv., Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR, Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Adv., Mr. Amar Jain, Adv., Ms. Sara, Adv., Mr. M.A. Karthik, Adv., Ms. Ninni Susan Thomas, Adv., Ms. Megha Khanna, Adv., Mr. M. Shaz Khan, Adv., Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv., Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv., Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Adv., Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Ms. N.S. Nappinai, Sr. Adv., Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv., Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, Adv., Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Adv., Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Adv., Mr. Prabhat Sil, Adv., Mr. P. Sil, Adv., Mr. Mangaljit Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Kunal Jain, Adv., Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Nishchaiy Sharma, Adv., Mr. Chaman Choudhury, Adv., Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR, Mr. Jayant Kumar Jakhar, Adv., Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Adv., Mr. Nishant Singh, Adv., Mr. Saurav Gupta, AOR, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Partho D. Barman, Adv., Mr. Gholam Mohiuddin, Adv., Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, AOR, Mr. Umrao Singh Rawat, Adv., Mr. Chandan Maity, Adv., Mr. Preetish Sahu, Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv., Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR, Mr. Arindom Mitra, Adv., Ms. Ayushi Arora, Adv., Mr. Chandratanay Chaube, Adv., Mr. Atul Yadav, Adv., Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv., Mr. Karan Khetani, Adv., Mr. Md Ghouse Muddin Khan, Adv., Mr. Jonathan Ivan Rajan, Adv., Mr. Jahangir Iqbal, Adv., Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Sr. Adv., Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv., Ms. Chhavi Jain, Adv., Mrs. Neha Pathak, Adv., Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv., Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv., Mr. Aryan Pathak, Adv., Mr. Arimardhan Sharma, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Arya, Adv., Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh, Adv., Mr. Bharat Shandilia, Adv., Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR, Mr. Partha Sil, AOR, Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Adv., Mr. Debottam Das, Adv., Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv., Mr. Akshay Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mrs. V.D. Khanna, AOR, Mr. Sriram P., AOR, Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikram Hegde, Adv., Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Hima Lawrence, AOR, Ms. Chinmayi Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, Adv., Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR, Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta, Adv., Mr. Goutam Dey, Adv., Mr. Tavish Bhushan Prasad, AOR, Mr. Shes Raj Bharti, Adv., Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR, Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv., Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv., Ms. Aparna Singh, Adv., Ms. Jyotika Kalra, AOR, Mr. Joydeep Mukerjee, Adv., Mr. Aditya Jha, Adv., Ms. Tenzing Doma Lepcha, Adv., Mr. Harshal Kulkarni, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv., Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Tanish Arora, Adv., Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR, Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR, Mr. Yash Singhania, Adv., Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv., Mrs. Sumedha Halder, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR, Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Adv., Mr. Asif Iqbal, Adv., Mrs. Rabia Khatoon, Adv., Mrs. Soma Mal, Adv., Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Govind Manoharan, Adv., Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, Adv., Mr. A. Karthik, AOR, Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv., Ms. Devahuti Pathak, Adv., Mr. Tenzing Bhutia, Adv., Mr. B.D. Rao Kundan, Adv., Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Adv., Mr. Joydee Mazumdar, Adv., Mr. P. Sil, Adv., Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Upma Shrivastava, AOR, Mr. M R Shamshad, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arijit Sarkar, Adv., Ms. Zeb Hasan, Adv., Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv., Mr. Amit Mishra, Adv., Mr. Abhijeet, Adv., Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Adv., Mr. Aryan Tikoo, Adv., Ms. Namrata Sinha, Adv., Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR, Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv., Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv.
For Petitioners: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Srabani Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv., Mr. Kustubh Singh, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Gopa Biswas, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Talukdar, Adv., Ms. Ananyaa Mazumdar, Adv., Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Adarsh, Adv., Ms. Somshubhra Ganguly, Adv., Ms. Payel Shome, Adv., Mr. Saikat Sutradhar, Adv., Ms. Sampriti Saha, Adv., Mr. Sondwip Sutradhar, Adv., Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Baibhav Roy, Adv., Ms. Swati Dey, Adv., Mr. Arka Nandi, Adv., Mr. C. Aravind, Adv., Mr. Subhro Prokas Mukherjee, AOR, Ms. Sinjini Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Shakhder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR, Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Arindom Mitra, Adv., Ms. Ayushi Arora, Adv., Mr. Atul Yadav, Adv., Ms. Anupama Gupta, Adv., Ms. Riya Dutta, Adv., Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv., Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR, Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv., Mr. T. Illayarasu, Adv., Ms. Vaidehi Kolhe, Adv., Mr. Rangasaran Mohan, Adv., Mr. Amarpal Singh Dua, Adv., Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR, Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv., Ms. Gopa Biswas, Adv., Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv., Mr. Arkadeb Biswas, Adv., Ms. Payel Shome, Adv., Mr. Arka Nandi, Adv., Ms. Sampriti Saha, Adv., Ms. Dipa Acharya, Adv., Mrs. Swati Dey, Adv., Mr. Saikat Sutradhar, Adv., Mr. Sondwip Sutradhar, Adv., Mr. Suthirtha Nayek, Adv., Ms. Sinjini Chakrabarti, Adv., Mr. Baibhav Roy, Adv., Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shantanu Mitra, Adv., Ms. Monika Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Gursheen Kaur, Adv., Mr. Abdul Wahab, Adv., Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv., Mr. Aurangzeb Khan, Adv., Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Mohd Tauhid, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Mohd Faseeh Khan, Adv., Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Server Alam, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Parvez Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Mohd Shahzad Ansari, Adv., Mr. M.P. Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Vijendra Kasana, Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR, Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Adv., Mr. P. Sil, Adv., Mr. Kunal Jain, Adv., Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Nishchaiy Sharma, Adv., Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv., Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Adv., Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv., Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv., Mrs. Sumedha Halder, Adv., Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Adv., Mr. Asif Iqbal, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR, Mrs. Rabia Khatoon, Adv., Mrs. Soma Mal, Adv., Mr. Shuvro Lahiri, Adv., Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR, Mr. Kapil Sahoo, Adv., Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, Adv., Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G., Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv., Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv., Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv., Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Sen, Adv., Mr. Shaveer Ahmed, AOR, Mrs. Shibani Bhattacharjee, Adv., Mr. Chetan Garg, Adv., Mr. Keshav Kant Sharma, Adv., Mr. Digvijay Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. C. Aravind, Adv., Mr. Subramaniam S., Adv., Mr. Kamalanath A.M., Adv., Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR, Mr. Rajesh K Sheoran, Adv., Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv., Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, AOR, Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, AOR, Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR, Mr. Vishak Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Manisha Pandey, Adv., Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Adv., Mr. Shubhankar, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar Rathor, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv., Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv., Mr. Kunal Malik, AOR, Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Adv., Mr. S.K. Sayan Uddin, Adv., Mr. Pulkit Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Manish Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, AOR, Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR, Mr. Partha Sil, AOR, Mr. Goutam Dey, Adv., Mr. Tavish Bhushan Prasad, AOR, Mr. Shes Raj Bharti, Adv., Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv., Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
