The high court division bench that struck down the state’s appeal to allow tainted teaching job aspirants to write fresh selection tests said in its written order that it had observed a “detailed and elaborate recording of the nature and extent of corruption that has plagued the education system”.

The order, signed by Justices Soumen Sen and Smita Das De, was uploaded on Friday. The bench had delivered the verdict on Thursday.

“... it is really painful that the causes of candidates with tainted hands are now being defended for recruitment in the... education system of the state. A teacher is said to be a fraudster when he secures a job by unfair means, which is completely inconceivable and unacceptable by any stretch of imagination,” the order stated.

The court said defending tainted candidates was especially painful, given Bengal's legacy of illustrious educators like scientists Satyendra Nath Bose and Meghnad Saha, who “produced students of extraordinary calibre”.

“These names are not exhaustive but illustrative of the kind of education the state had,” it noted.

At Thursday’s hearing, Justice Sen, the senior judge on the bench, said tainted candidates could not be allowed to take the tests, citing the Supreme Court’s April 3 order. “The state government and the school service commission (SSC) are not in a position to argue in favour of the tainted candidates,” he said.

The division bench upheld a single bench order that barred tainted candidates from taking the tests.

The written order of the division bench made it clear that it had rejected the argument by senior advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, who represented the SSC. He had argued on Wednesday that barring the tainted from retaking the tests would amount to double punishment, since they had already lost their jobs.

The written order stated: “It is really shocking and baffling that the appellants are supporting the tainted candidates,” the order stated. “None of the three categories of candidates mentioned in the orders of the division bench and the Supreme Court deserves any consideration.”

“The argument that these candidates should have a level playing field on the basis of Article 16 of the Constitution is clearly not acceptable, as it would militate against the basic notion of justice and fairness," it stated.

"It cannot be the fundamental policy of the State to encourage fraudsters in public employment.”