ED chargesheets Partha Chatterjee in West Bengal SSC recruitment case

What the Record Shows

The West Bengal school-recruitment matter sits at two distinct stages, and this report keeps them separate. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed criminal charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against the former West Bengal Education Minister Partha Chatterjee and others; those charges are allegations that remain to be tried. Separately, the Supreme Court of India has already ruled on the recruitment itself, upholding the cancellation of the appointments made through a tainted 2016 process.

On the criminal track, the ED arrested Partha Chatterjee in July 2022 and filed its principal prosecution complaint on 18 April 2024, followed by a first supplementary chargesheet on 18 October 2025 and a second supplementary chargesheet on 25 June 2026 naming Chatterjee, Arpita Mukherjee and Kuntal Ghosh. Per the ED, it has issued provisional attachment orders totalling Rs 301.58 crore in the assistant-teacher case, part of Rs 702.93 crore attached across the West Bengal recruitment cases as disclosed in its June 2026 chargesheet. These are the ED's own figures and claims, not judicial findings.

On the civil track, the Supreme Court on 3 April 2025 upheld the Calcutta High Court's annulment of the 2016 School Service Commission recruitment, affecting roughly 25,753 appointments. The court held that "the entire selection process has been vitiated and tainted beyond resolution." Chatterjee, who was released on bail by the Supreme Court in November 2025 after three years and three months in custody, denies the allegations against him, and his party has characterised renewed ED activity ahead of the 2026 state election as politically timed.

How It Worked

The mechanism, as the ED describes it in its chargesheet, was a large-scale manipulation of the recruitment run by the West Bengal School Service Commission for teaching and non-teaching posts. The ED alleges that OMR answer-sheet scores were manipulated, personality-test marks were tampered with, unqualified candidates were given illegal appointments, and appointment letters were issued even after the validity of the merit panels had expired, with illegal gratification collected from candidates and layered through several individuals and entities.

The ED alleges that Chatterjee, as Minister-in-Charge of School Education, abused his official position to influence and facilitate the process. Prosecution sanction to proceed against him was granted by the Governor of West Bengal. Every one of these characterisations is the ED's allegation and has not been tested at trial.

What is established, because a court has ruled on it, is the scale of the irregularity in the recruitment. In its 3 April 2025 judgment the Supreme Court recorded the CBI's finding of "manipulation in 952 nos. of candidates of IX-X, 907 nos. of candidates of XI-XII, 3481 nos. of Gr. C candidates and 2823 nos. of Gr. D candidates." The court concluded that "manipulations and frauds on a large scale" had "dented the selection process beyond repair" and upheld the annulment of the entire panel.

The procedural history runs on parallel lines: the CBI investigation, ordered by the Calcutta High Court, examined the recruitment irregularities and fed the appointment-cancellation litigation, while the ED's ECIR and successive chargesheets pursued the alleged money trail. The criminal trial on the PMLA charges is yet to conclude.

Who Lost Money

Two groups bore the consequences. The first is the body of genuine merit-list candidates who, the record indicates, were displaced by appointments the courts have since found to be tainted. For them the loss was a job wrongly given to someone else. The second is the set of appointees whose positions the Supreme Court cancelled: some 25,753 people lost appointments when the 2016 panel was annulled, and for those the court identified as tainted, it directed that "services of tainted candidates must be terminated, and they should be required to refund any salaries/payments received."

The public exchequer is the other party said to be affected, through salaries paid over years to appointees the process should never have selected and through the disruption to schools that had staffed themselves from the panel. Cash and jewellery were reported seized from premises linked to a person later named in the ED's chargesheet during searches in July 2022; the precise value circulated at the time is cited here only as it was reported and is not treated as an established figure.

The ED's attachment figures indicate the sums it says represent proceeds of the alleged offence, but an attachment is a claim over assets, not a recovery paid to any victim. No compensation to displaced candidates flows from these attachments at this stage.

Where It Stands Now

The current position, as re-checked against the record, is that the criminal case is pending trial and the civil question of the appointments has been decided. Partha Chatterjee was granted bail by the Supreme Court and released in November 2025 after more than three years in custody; he has been expelled from ministerial office and suspended from his party. The ED conducted a fresh search at his Kolkata residence in April 2026, and filed a second supplementary chargesheet on 25 June 2026. Charges under the PMLA have been filed but not proved, and the trial is yet to conclude.

On the recruitment, the Supreme Court's 3 April 2025 decision stands: the 2016 panel is annulled, tainted appointees face termination and salary refund, and the court directed that the CBI's investigation into officials who created supernumerary posts continue, listing that aspect separately.

A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The Supreme Court's ruling on the recruitment process is a civil finding about the validity of appointments; it is not a criminal conviction of any individual named in the ED's chargesheet.

What It Means

This matter shows how India's system runs two separate tracks over the same facts. A court can cancel appointments in the public interest, on the civil standard, while the criminal question of who is personally culpable is decided much later, on the far higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. A reader should not read the appointment cancellation as a criminal verdict against any accused, and should not read an ED chargesheet or attachment as proof of guilt.

The practical literacy point is to note the stage a matter has reached. An arrest and a chargesheet mark the allegation stage; an attachment is a claim over assets pending confirmation; bail is not an acquittal; and a civil cancellation of appointments is a separate outcome from a criminal conviction. You can follow how these stages play out through the Oquilia enforcement archive, and read related coverage such as the Delhi excise policy discharge and the Supreme Court bail order in a PMLA cash-for-jobs case, both of which turn on the difference between an accusation and a finding.

For candidates and their families, the durable lesson is procedural: recruitment records, OMR sheets and merit panels are documents that courts can and do examine, and the transparency of that process is what allowed the irregularities to be identified and litigated in the first place.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. The ED has filed a chargesheet, which contains allegations, not findings of guilt. Partha Chatterjee, Arpita Mukherjee and Kuntal Ghosh are accused and are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The PMLA charges are yet to be tried, and Chatterjee has denied the allegations. Due process continues.

What did the Supreme Court actually decide?

On 3 April 2025 the Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court's annulment of the 2016 School Service Commission recruitment, affecting about 25,753 appointments. It held the selection process was "vitiated and tainted beyond resolution", directed termination and salary refund for tainted appointees, and ordered the CBI investigation into related officials to continue.

Is this the same as a criminal conviction?

No. The Supreme Court's decision concerns the validity of the appointments, a civil question decided on the civil standard. The criminal charges under the PMLA against the accused are separate, are still at the trial stage, and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before anyone can be held guilty.

Is Partha Chatterjee in custody?

No. He was arrested by the ED in July 2022 and granted bail by the Supreme Court, and was released in November 2025 after three years and three months in custody. Bail is not an acquittal; it means he awaits trial while at liberty. The ED filed a further supplementary chargesheet in June 2026.

Where can I read the official record?

The Supreme Court's 3 April 2025 judgment on the recruitment, The State of West Bengal vs Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), is available on Indian Kanoon. The ED's chargesheet details are reported from official disclosures made when the complaints were filed.

This report is based on the Supreme Court of India judgment dated 3 April 2025 in The State of West Bengal vs Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and the Enforcement Directorate's chargesheet disclosures, reviewed on 1 August 2026.