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 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 defectsThe 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. BackgroundTo 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 viewThe 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...

Supreme Court Rejects Regularisation Claims Of 350+ West Bengal Madrasah Staff Appointed When State Law Was Struck Down

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Supreme Court Rejects Regularisation Claims Of 350+ West Bengal Madrasah Staff Appointed When State Law Was Struck Down

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers