The Supreme Court issued a stern warning in the Bengal teacher recruitment case, cautioning that it would proceed with ex-parte orders if the PIL petitioners, whose plea led to the Calcutta High Court's stay on the appointment of approximately 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff and a CBI inquiry, fail to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks.

Earlier, on April 29, the apex court had stayed the high court's order for a CBI inquiry into the creation of supernumerary posts by state officials. However, the court expressed preliminary concerns that individuals not on the selected panel had been recruited.

During the recent hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra noted that the respondents (PIL petitioners) had not yet submitted their counter-affidavits. The court's order recorded this absence of filings.

“In the event that any of the respondents seek to file, they shall file on or before two weeks. If no counter is filed, then the right to file counter stands closed,” the bench said, thus indicating that it would pass appropriate orders if the respondents failed to file their response within two weeks.

The parties involved in the dispute include the Bengal government, West Bengal School Service Commission, original petitioners not selected for appointment, individuals whose appointments were annulled by the high court, and the CBI. The court appointed specific counsels to act as nodal points for the case.

While refraining from staying the entire high court judgment that invalidated the recruitment process on April 22, the apex court agreed to comprehensively review the matter through detailed hearings.

The case revolves around the Bengal government's challenge to the high court's decision annulling the recruitment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching employees due to alleged irregularities uncovered during a CBI investigation. The state argues that this ruling could severely disrupt the functioning of state schools.

“These are broad categories and will not exclude any person to argue before the court apart from these…. It would be necessary to have a common compilation during the hearing,” the CJI said while adjourning the matter.

The government's appeal contends that the high court erred by not distinguishing valid appointments from allegedly illegal ones and by ordering all appointed individuals who were outside the panel to return their salaries with interest. The high court had set a four-week deadline for this repayment.