Supreme Court Rejects Regularisation Claims Of 350+ West Bengal Madrasah Staff Appointed When State Law Was Struck Down
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by more than 350 teachers and non-teaching staff of aided madrasahs in West Bengal, holding that none of them could establish that their appointments were made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the findings of a three-member...
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by more than 350 teachers and non-teaching staff of aided madrasahs in West Bengal, holding that none of them could establish that their appointments were made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih upheld the findings of a three-member committee constituted by the Court in 2023 to verify the legality of appointments made during the period when provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 had been struck down by the Calcutta High Court but before the Supreme Court restored its validity in 2020.
The Court held that the committee had undertaken a detailed factual exercise and found that "not a single claim met the threshold of a valid appointment." Although the Court independently examined 13 cases projected by the petitioners as the strongest examples of injustice, it concluded that each appointment suffered from serious legal defects
The petitioners claimed that they were regularly appointed and were hence entitled to draw salary from the Grants-in-Aid Scheme of the State Government of West Bengal.
The bench evaluated individual claims of 13 petitioners as a representative sample and found that each appointment diluted the standard of appointment set by the government notification. In fact, it found that all these appointments were not even legally sustainable.
"A wholesome consideration of the materials placed on record completely contradicts the claims of the 13 (thirteen) petitioners that they were validly appointed in the madrasahs concerned. Spurious claims have been raised by these 13 (thirteen) petitioners, which obviously are devoid of any merit. The appointments in question are a blot on the system; they must, therefore, be erased and not protected."
The bench also criticised the hasty decision of the State government in issuing notification I and II for appointment when the High Court's order was under challenge before the Supreme Court, but no stay was granted. It said that the notifications issued were under the legislation which was unconstitutional as the High Court's order operated and in such stalemate, the Managing Committee should have approached the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the Court held that any appointment made in any madrasah after the High Court's order, that is, March 14, 2016, is ex facie illegal.
Background
To briefly state, more than 40 writ petitions have been filed by 361 petitioners claiming regularisation. One set are those appointed after the 2008 Act was held unconstitutional by the High Court and before the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment.
Eventually, in SK. Mohd Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 2008 Act. In the meanwhile, numerous interim orders were passed for release of salary and allowances in favour of the petitioners.
Consequently, contempt petitions were moved before the Supreme Court alleging non-compliance of the interim order directing release of payment. On February 2, 2023, in Snehasis Giri v Subhasis Mitra, a two-judge bench constituted a committee to look into the individual cases. The committee, headed by retired Justice Debi Prasad Dey of the Calcutta High Court, found that none could substantiate their claims of appointment. This led to the present Article 32 by the aggrieved teachers and non-teaching staff.
Supreme Court's view
The Court rejected the argument that all appointments made after the Calcutta High Court struck down portions of the Madrasah Service Commission Act automatically stood validated by the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Sk. Mohd. Rafique. It held that this issue had already been addressed in the 2023 Snehasis Giri decision, which required individual verification of appointments before any benefit could be granted.
Significantly, the Bench held that after the Supreme Court stayed the Calcutta High Court's judgment on March 14, 2016, no madrasah could proceed with appointments under the 2015 or 2016 government notifications without obtaining the Court's express permission. It ruled that any appointment made after that date without such permission was "ex facie illegal" and could not be sustained.
While examining one recruitment process, the Court also criticised the manner in which an advertisement had been published, observing that placing a recruitment notice for a village madrasah on a newspaper page dominated by tender notices appeared designed to restrict competition rather than ensure wide publicity. The Court said such attempts to limit the zone of consideration "can and should never be countenanced by any court, much less this Court."
Dismissing all the petitions, the Bench vacated earlier interim orders protecting the petitioners' employment and directing payment of salaries. It held that since the appointments had not been made in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedures, the State could not be held liable to pay salaries or arrears. The Court further directed that the vacant sanctioned posts may now be filled through recommendations of the Madrasah Service Commission.
Although the Court observed that the petitions were "thoroughly misconceived" and costs could have been imposed, it refrained from doing so, noting that it was already declining the claim for arrears of salary and allowances.
The judgment was reserved on May 21.
Headnote
Constitutional Law — Article 30(1) & Article 16 — Minority Rights Vs. Public Exchequer Accountability - Minority educational institutions do not possess an absolute right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to burden the public exchequer through a completely non-competitive, opaque selection process - Government aid without financial accountability is constitutionally unsustainable - Clause 6 of Notification-I, which permitted a "10% Management Quota" for appointments without wide public advertisements, is unconstitutional and an anti-thesis to the mandate of equality and equal opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Para 35-39]
Civil Procedure & Jurisprudence — Interim Orders — Stay Of Operation Vs. Quashing Of An Order - There is a distinct legal difference between the quashing of an order and staying its operation - While quashing restores the original position before the order was passed, a stay merely makes the order inoperative from the date of the stay without wiping it out from existence - Where the High Court's judgment striking down a recruitment Act was stayed by the Supreme Court, it created a legal vacuum where neither the original Act nor the transitional notifications could operate independently - Any public employment appointment made by managing committees after the date of the stay order (14th March 2016) without seeking express permission or leave from the Supreme Court is ex-facie illegal and invalid. [Relied On Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC 1; Paras 40 - 42]
Public Employment & Labour Law — Regularisation Of Service — Binding Nature Of Larger Bench Decisions - Claims of regularisation in public service cannot be entertained when the initial appointment is rooted in fundamental breaches of recruitment procedures or made against non-existent/un-sanctioned posts - Under Article 141 of the Constitution, the principle of stare decisis dictates that the strict ratios laid down by Larger Benches regarding public employment regularisation bind all courts unequivocally - Co-equal or smaller benches adopting liberal views confined to specific facts cannot dilute or contradict these established Larger Bench precedents. [Relied on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1; Distinguished: Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 909; Paras 24 - 31]
Administrative Law — Extraordinary Jurisdiction — Article 142 Powers - The invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice is contextual and cannot be exercised mechanically - The Supreme Court will not invoke Article 142 to protect the services of irregularly or illegally appointed teachers at the cost of the students' future and the integrity of public employment streams. [Para 27-32]
Case Details: NAJMA KHATUN AND ORS.v THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS|W.P.(C) No. 566/2024
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 667