The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of 49 writ petitions filed by more than 350 teachers and non-teaching staff of various aided madrasahs in West Bengal, holding that none of the appointments under challenge could be shown to have been made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta upheld the findings of a three-member verification committee, observing that the petitioners failed to establish any enforceable legal right to service benefits arising from appointments that were not made through a valid and lawful process.
The bench traced the prolonged litigation back to the constitutional challenge against the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008. While the validity of the Act had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Sk. Mohd. Rafique, the present proceedings arose from claims by teachers and staff appointed during the intervening period when parts of the Act had been declared unconstitutional by the Calcutta High Court before that decision was reversed.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The controversy stemmed from appointments made in aided and recognised madrasahs after the Calcutta High Court struck down key provisions of the Madrasah Service Commission Act in 2014. During that period, the State Government issued notifications prescribing an alternative recruitment procedure through managing committees instead of the Madrasah Service Commission.
Later, in 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Madrasah Service Commission Act, restoring the statutory mechanism for recruitment. However, disputes continued over appointments made during the intervening period, resulting in contempt proceedings and the constitution of a three-member committee headed by a retired High Court judge to verify whether such appointments complied with the applicable recruitment norms. The committee examined nearly 500 claims and concluded that not a single claimant had established a valid appointment.
Given the large number of petitioners, the Supreme Court directed counsel to identify the ten strongest cases of alleged injustice along with a few additional cases. The Court required the petitioners to answer specific questions concerning recognition of the institutions, validity of the managing committees, sanctioned vacancies, publication of advertisements, selection procedures, approval by educational authorities and other aspects of the recruitment process before examining the merits of their claims.
The Court observed that if even these carefully selected cases failed to establish lawful appointments, there would be no justification for reopening the claims of the remaining petitioners.
A central feature of the judgment is the Court’s emphasis that recruitment to aided madrasahs must strictly comply with the statutory notifications governing appointments.
The Court noted that the applicable notifications required:
- appointments only against sanctioned vacancies;
- publication of vacancies through open advertisements in at least two State-level newspapers;
- constitution of properly authorised selection committees;
- communication with the District Inspector of Schools and other educational authorities before recruitment; and
- compliance with prescribed eligibility conditions and selection procedures.
The Bench rejected arguments that these requirements were merely directory, holding that relaxing such safeguards would dilute standards of public recruitment and undermine the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment.
After independently examining the selected cases, the Court found recurring defects in the recruitment process.
Among the deficiencies identified were:
- appointments made by ad hoc managing committees lacking authority to undertake permanent recruitment;
- recruitment against posts that had ceased to exist or whose sanction had lapsed;
- absence of advertisements in State-level newspapers;
- failure to inform the District Inspector of Schools as required;
- appointments made without sanctioned vacancies;
- candidates lacking prescribed qualifications;
- recruitment based on walk-in interviews not contemplated by the governing notifications; and
- instances where records indicated fabricated or unsupported claims.
The Court stressed that these were not mere procedural irregularities but went to the root of the legality of the appointments.
The petitioners argued that the committee had mechanically rejected every claim without proper application of mind.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It observed that the committee had conducted an extensive factual exercise after hearing the parties and individually examining the claims. Judicial review over such factual findings is limited, the Bench noted, particularly when the petitioners failed to demonstrate manifest perversity or arbitrariness.
Although the Court independently scrutinised the selected cases to satisfy itself, it ultimately found no reason to interfere with the committee’s conclusions.
One of the principal submissions advanced by the petitioners relied on an observation in the Supreme Court’s earlier Sk. Mohd. Rafique judgment suggesting that appointments made after the High Court’s decision would be deemed valid.
The Bench rejected this argument, holding that the later judgment in Snehasis Giri had already clarified that every appointment still required verification regarding compliance with recruitment rules, eligibility, sanctioned vacancies and transparency of the selection process.
The Court memorably observed that building a case solely on the earlier observation was “like building on sand” and amounted to mistaking “a whisper for authority.”
In one of the individual cases, counsel sought relief under Article 142 of the Constitution to preserve the appointment despite admitted defects.
The Court declined, observing that the power to do complete justice cannot be exercised to protect appointments made contrary to law, particularly where doing so could compromise educational standards.
The Bench remarked that protecting the service of an ineligible teacher cannot come at the cost of students’ future.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
