The Supreme Court has 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 the petitioners could establish that their appointments were made through a valid recruitment process. The Court upheld the findings of a three-member verification committee and ruled that the appointments failed to satisfy the legal requirements governing recruitment during the relevant period.
Background of the Case
The petitions arose from a long-running dispute over appointments made in recognised aided madrasahs after provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 were struck down by the Calcutta High Court in 2014. Those provisions were later restored by the Supreme Court in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah (2020).
Following contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court constituted a three-member committee headed by a retired High Court judge to verify whether appointments made during the intervening period complied with applicable recruitment procedures. After examining nearly 500 claims, the committee found that none of the appointments could be treated as valid. Those findings were challenged through the present batch of writ petitions.
Court's Observations
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih examined in detail the claims of 13 petitioners whose cases were projected as the strongest examples of alleged injustice.
The Court found repeated violations of mandatory recruitment norms, including absence of open advertisements in State-level newspapers, appointments against non-existent or unsanctioned posts, failure to inform education authorities, appointments by committees lacking legal authority, and non-compliance with prescribed selection procedures. In some cases, the Court also noticed discrepancies in documents and timelines placed before it.
Rejecting the argument that all appointments made after the High Court's 2014 judgment automatically became valid, the Bench held that the issue had already been addressed in earlier proceedings directing verification of every individual appointment.
The judgment observed:
“The Committee was set up to filter claims... No claim was found to be genuine on individual assessment, and the rejection was on merits and not on technicalities.”
The Bench further clarified that although it ordinarily would not interfere with factual findings of such a committee, it nevertheless independently examined the selected cases to satisfy itself that no genuine appointment had been wrongly rejected.
Appointments After 14 March 2016 Held Unsustainable
The Court also considered appointments made after 14 March 2016, when the Supreme Court had stayed the Calcutta High Court's judgment striking down the Madrasah Service Commission Act.
It held that once the stay order came into force, recruitment could not continue under the State notifications issued after the High Court's decision unless the concerned madrasahs obtained express permission from the Supreme Court.
The Bench observed:
“Any appointment made in any madrasah after 14th March, 2016 without obtaining express permission of this Court is also ex facie illegal and cannot be sustained.”
Decision
After examining the material placed on record, the Court concluded that none of the 13 representative petitioners had established a legally valid appointment. Since those cases were presented as the strongest among all petitioners, the Court declined to examine the remaining claims individually.
The Bench held that the State could not be directed to release salary or arrears where appointments had not been made in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure. All interim orders protecting the petitioners' service or directing payment of salary were vacated.
Dismissing the entire batch of writ petitions, the Court permitted the vacant sanctioned posts to be filled through recommendations of the Madrasah Service Commission in accordance with law. Although it found the petitions to be without merit, the Bench chose not to impose costs on the petitioners.
Case Details:
Case Title: Najma Khatun & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566 of 2024 (with connected matters)
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: 13 July 2026
