Calcutta High Court Dismisses Pleas By Madrasa Teachers Against Re-Verification Of Appointments

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by teaching and non-teaching staff of different Madrasahs in West Bengal challenging the State's decision to verify the validity of their appointments, holding that the authorities could examine whether the recruitment process complied with the prescribed guidelines.

Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Snehasis Giri v. Subhasis Mitra and Najma Khatun v. State of West Bengal made it necessary to examine whether the appointments had been made in accordance with the relevant government notifications, even though the petitioners were not parties to those proceedings.

The Court observed that the impugned memoranda issued by the Director of Madrasah Education were notices seeking verification of appointments and did not, at that stage, adversely affect the petitioners' rights.

“Thus, the impugned memos are just a mere notice to attend the office of the concerned respondent authorities along with certain relevant documents and nothing more nothing less and cannot be said to be an adverse order affecting the rights of the parties,” the Court observed.

The five writ petitions challenged memoranda dated July 28 and 29, 2026, calling upon the petitioners to appear for a hearing to verify the validity and legality of their appointments to teaching and non-teaching posts in different Madrasahs.

The petitioners had been appointed between November 2015 and March 2016, during the period when provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, had been declared unconstitutional by the Calcutta High Court but before the Supreme Court stayed that decision on March 14, 2016. Their appointments had subsequently received approval from the competent authorities, and they had been receiving salaries from the State.

The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court, in its January 6, 2020 judgment in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah, had protected appointments made by Madrasahs after the High Court's decision. They contended that their appointments had attained finality and could not be reopened after nearly a decade, particularly when they had not been parties to the subsequent proceedings concerning the validity of other Madrasah appointments.

They further argued that the State had already scrutinised their appointments before granting approval and releasing salaries, and that the Director of Madrasah Education lacked the power to review those decisions.

Opposing the petitions, the Madrasah Service Commission argued that the Supreme Court's subsequent rulings had clarified that the protection under the 2020 judgment did not put an end to the controversy surrounding appointments made during the relevant period.

The Commission submitted that, in Snehasis Giri, the Supreme Court had constituted a committee to examine the validity of appointments based on prescribed eligibility criteria and recruitment procedures. The committee's findings were subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in Najma Khatun, which rejected the claims of the employees before it.

The Commission contended that the standards laid down in those proceedings applied to the petitioners as well, and that the memoranda merely initiated a verification exercise rather than imposing any adverse decision.

Accepting this position, Justice Pattanayak noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique could not be read in isolation from its subsequent rulings in Snehasis Giri and Najma Khatun.

The Court held that the subsequent proceedings had clarified that the validity of appointments made during the relevant period depended on compliance with the prescribed recruitment notifications dated February 9, 2015, and March 4, 2016.

The Court also rejected the argument that the continued payment of salaries established the validity of the appointments. It noted that the State had reserved its right to take appropriate action against Madrasahs that appointed ineligible teachers, and that the release of salaries did not, by itself, conclusively establish that the appointments complied with the prescribed requirements.

The Court further observed that the petitioners' appointments had not been examined by the committee constituted by the Supreme Court, as they had continued to receive salaries and were not parties to those proceedings. This, however, did not exempt their appointments from verification under the applicable criteria.

Holding that the impugned memoranda could not be characterised as arbitrary attempts to reopen settled appointments, the Court dismissed all five writ petitions and vacated any subsisting interim orders. No costs were imposed.

Case Title: Tarikul Molla & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. and connected matters

Case Numbers: WPA 19888, 19902, 19910, 19914 and 19923 of 2026