The counsel for the state and the school service commission asked a high court division bench on Wednesday whether it had the jurisdiction to hear a contempt petition against the state education department.

Partha Sarathi Sengupta, the counsel appearing for the state, told the division bench headed by Justice Debangsu Basak that since the Supreme Court had modified the order passed by Calcutta High Court, the bench did not have the jurisdiction to hear a contempt petition on the order.

Saptangshu Basu, the counsel for the SSC, supported Sengupta.

The division bench comprising Justice Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi fixed the matter for hearing on April 28.

On April 22, 2024, the high court terminated the jobs of 25,753 teaching employees. The state government moved the Supreme Court against the order, but on April 3, 2025, the court upheld the order.

On April 17, the apex court modified its April 3 order and allowed the sacked but “not specifically tainted” teachers to continue in their posts till December 31. The court, however, did not provide similar relief to the sacked non-teaching staff (Group C and D), saying the number of tainted candidates was “substantially high” among them.

The petitioners filed the contempt petition against the state education department and the SSC, alleging that the department and commission did not upload OMR sheets and no steps were taken to get the salaries back from the tainted candidates as the court had ordered.

The petition also claimed that the names of those whose appointments were cancelled by the high court’s April 2024 order have been included in the salary portal for April 2025.

Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, who appeared for teachers and staff, said since the contempt petition was civil, the “high court division bench has the jurisdiction to hear the case”.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Basak, the senior judge of the bench, asked the state what measures were taken to get back the salaries.

Sengupta replied that he had “no idea.”

Justice Basak asked: “Are you not interested in telling the court about your decision before the question you raised is settled?”

“I have no information on the issue,” said Sengupta.