New Delhi, July 13: The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by nearly 360 teaching and non-teaching employees working in various madrassas across West Bengal, refusing their demand for regularisation of service and payment of salaries under the state government’s grant-in-aid scheme. The ruling brings an end to a prolonged legal dispute over appointments made during a period of uncertainty surrounding the state’s madrassa recruitment framework.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih delivered the judgment after closely examining a representative sample of 13 petitions selected from the larger group. The court observed that if any of these cases had established a valid legal claim, it would have considered extending similar relief to the remaining petitioners. However, none of the selected cases convinced the Bench that the appointments were lawful.
Court Finds No Legal Basis for Relief
While pronouncing the verdict, the Bench stated that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their appointments were made in accordance with the statutory recruitment process. As a result, the court rejected every petition filed by the teaching and non-teaching employees.
The judges also made it clear that once the claims had been dismissed, there was no legal entitlement to salary arrears, allowances, or any other financial benefits claimed under the grant-in-aid policy.
According to the court, government funds cannot be released for appointments that were not made through a legally recognised recruitment process. Public authorities, it said, cannot be compelled to bear financial liability arising from appointments that violate statutory provisions.
Interim Protection Withdrawn
The Supreme Court also vacated all interim orders that had earlier protected many petitioners from removal or directed authorities to continue paying admissible salaries during the pendency of litigation.
With those protections withdrawn, the affected employees will no longer enjoy judicial safeguards against administrative action. The Bench observed that the continuation of such interim relief was no longer justified after dismissal of the petitions.
The judgment further paves the way for the state government to fill vacant sanctioned teaching and non-teaching positions through the recruitment mechanism prescribed under the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act.
Appointments After March 2016 Declared Illegal
A significant part of the ruling concerns appointments made after March 14, 2016, when the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of an earlier Calcutta High Court judgment relating to the recruitment process.
The Bench held that any appointment made after that date without obtaining specific permission from the Supreme Court would be considered illegal on its face.
The judges noted that such appointments lacked legal authority and therefore could not be protected merely because the individuals had continued in service for several years.
Representative Cases Failed to Establish Merit
To ensure fairness while dealing with hundreds of petitions, the court had earlier decided to examine 13 representative cases in detail.
After reviewing documents, appointment records, and submissions, the Bench concluded that none of the selected petitioners had been appointed through a valid legal process.
The court remarked that the documentary evidence placed before it contradicted the claims made by the petitioners regarding the legality of their appointments.
According to the judgment, several claims were unsupported by authentic records and failed to satisfy the standards required for judicial intervention.
Strong Observations on Recruitment Process
The Supreme Court made unusually strong observations regarding the appointments under challenge.
It stated that the disputed appointments represented serious irregularities within the recruitment system and should not receive judicial protection.
The Bench observed that courts are expected to uphold the rule of law and cannot legitimise appointments that bypass statutory procedures merely because the employees have worked for a considerable period.
It emphasised that public employment must always comply with constitutional principles of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity.
No Costs Imposed Despite Dismissal
Although the court described the petitions as legally misconceived, it chose not to impose litigation costs on the employees.
The judges noted that since salary arrears and financial claims had already been denied, imposing additional monetary penalties would not serve any useful purpose.
Taking what it described as a lenient approach, the Bench decided to dismiss the petitions without awarding costs against the petitioners.
Background of the Long-Running Dispute
The litigation originated from disputes surrounding the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, which established a statutory commission responsible for recommending appointments of teachers in recognised madrassas.
The validity of the legislation was challenged before the Calcutta High Court, which struck down the Act in 2014. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld that decision in 2015.
However, in March 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court judgment, allowing the statutory framework to continue pending final adjudication.
Eventually, in 2020, the apex court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2008 Act, restoring certainty to the recruitment process.
Committee Constituted to Verify Appointments
Despite the 2020 verdict, disputes continued regarding appointments made during the period between the High Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s final ruling.
To address those concerns, the Supreme Court constituted a three-member committee in February 2023.
The committee was tasked with examining whether appointments made during the intervening period complied with legal requirements.
After conducting an extensive verification exercise, the committee concluded that none of the appointments under scrutiny met the standards of a valid recruitment process.
Employees affected by the committee’s findings subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
Committee Findings Upheld
The Supreme Court accepted the committee’s conclusions after finding that every claimant had been given an opportunity to present documents and arguments.
The Bench observed that the committee carried out a detailed scrutiny of individual cases and rejected claims based on merit rather than procedural technicalities.
According to the judgment, the petitioners were effectively seeking a second review of factual issues that had already been carefully examined.
The court declined to interfere with those findings, stating that there was no reason to reopen questions that had been conclusively settled after a thorough inquiry.
Vacancies to Be Filled Through Legal Recruitment
Following dismissal of the petitions and withdrawal of interim orders, the Supreme Court clarified that sanctioned vacant posts may now be filled through recommendations made under the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission.
The ruling is expected to enable the state government to proceed with fresh recruitment in accordance with the statutory procedure while bringing closure to one of the longest-running disputes concerning madrassa appointments in West Bengal.
The judgment also reinforces the principle that appointments in publicly funded educational institutions must strictly comply with established legal procedures, and courts will not regularise appointments found to be contrary to law.