The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a batch of nearly 125 appeals and cross-appeals, including one by the Bengal government relating to Calcutta High Court’s April 2024 judgment quashing the recruitment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff because of alleged illegalities following a CBI probe.

The proceedings saw stinging remarks by senior advocate Dushyant Dave who termed the Calcutta High Court order as being “tainted” on account of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay being part of the impugned judgment.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar told Dave, who was appearing for some of the appellants, that the court would not go into "political issues".

“We have heard the matter dispassionately.... We are going by the evidence, “ Chief Justice Khanna said.

Dave said Justice Gangopadhyay at that time had passed certain orders in the matter, had given newspaper interviews on the issue and had subsequently joined the BJP.

Perhaps, the Apex court was not willing to hear the submission as it was “unpalatable to the judiciary”, Dave said. Chief Justice Khanna replied: “This is an unacceptable remark.... We are not going into any political issues and we will not allow it.”

Later, the bench reserved its verdict. It is expected to pronounce the judgment in about a month.

The court was dealing with the Bengal government’s special leave petition assailing Calcutta High Court’s recent judgment quashing the recruitment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff for illegalities following a CBI probe. The Mamata Banerjee government contended that the ruling would lead to a “huge vacuum in the State Schools” and render "the education system at a stand-still”.

Besides the Bengal government, there were over 123 other petitions, applications and cross petitions supporting or assailing the high court judgment.

During Monday's concluding arguments, senior counsel led by Maninder Singh appearing for some intervenors in the matter said the Apex court should not interfere with the high court verdict it had been passed after hearing detailed arguments.

Another senior counsel, Ranjit Kumar, said the case of the untainted candidates should not be clubbed with those whose cases are allegedly tainted.

The counsel for the CBI informed the bench that the agency had collected several incriminating materials to establish that there were large-scale irregularities in the recruitment process.

On April 29, 2024, the Apex court had stayed the Calcutta High Court judgment directing a CBI probe into the conduct of Bengal government officials for creating supernumerary posts to fill up the 25,000-odd teachers posts. But the top court had orally opined that prima facie, even those who were not in the panel were recruited.

The Bengal and others had argued that the entire recruitment process should not have been set aside by the high court, even if there were irregularities in the appointment of some posts.

Though the Bengal government pleaded for a complete stay of the judgment, the court had said it was only staying that portion of the order that had directed the CBI to probe the conduct of the government officials for creating supernumerary posts.