Appointments “Are A Blot” On The System: Supreme Court Dismisses West Bengal Madrasah Staff Pleas, Terms Post-March 2016 Recruitments Without Judicial Leave Ex Facie Illegal
The Bench held that a stay order does not wipe out an underlying judgment, holding that unilateral appointments made by managing committees during the litigation vacuum carry no legal sanctity.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has rejected regularization bids by West Bengal madrasah staff, declaring their irregular appointments a blot on the system that must be erased. The court noted that preserving the services of unqualified or illegally recruited candidates cannot compromise student futures. Noting that none of the petitioners established a legally compliant recruitment process, the bench dismissed all claims for salary approvals, service protection, and arrears, allowing the Madrasah Service Commission to fill vacancies through proper channels.
The court held that any appointments made after March 14, 2016, the date the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's judgment invalidating the Commission Act, without express judicial permission are ex facie illegal. Clarifying that a stay order merely suspends operation without erasing the underlying judgment, the bench ruled that subsequent state-issued notifications became inoperative. Consequently, managing committees could not unilaterally make appointments during this interim vacuum.
The court adjudicated a consolidated batch of forty-nine writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, representing over 350 teaching and non-teaching staff seeking salary disbursements and service protection.
A Division Bench comprised Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “…The undue haste in making the appointments without waiting for pronouncement of the reserved judgment and/or the ante-dating of documents to evade the consequences thereof, speak for itself. Finding merit in Mr. Ahmadi’s argument, and apart from what we have held above as to unsustainability of the petitioners’ claims, we also hold that 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”.
“…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 observed.
Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid, Maninder Acharya, Devdutt Kamat, and Pijush Kanti Roy appeared for the petitioners and Senior Advocates Huzefa Ahmadi, Raju Ramchandran, and M. R. Shamshad appeared for the respondents.
Pursuant to the Calcutta High Court's invalidation of the Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, madrasahs appointed staff under temporary state guidelines. After the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's ruling, appointments continued.
In 2020, the Supreme Court validated the Commission Act, thereafter the contempt petitions led to the creation of the Justice Debi Prasad Dey Committee to verify these interim appointments. The committee's subsequent rejection of all claims led to this litigation.
In 2014 and 2015, the Calcutta High Court declared sections of the Commission Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stayed this on March 14, 2016, and eventually reversed the High Court in Sk. Mohd. Rafique (2020).
In 2023, the Snehasis Giri contempt bench constituted the fact-finding committee. Following the committee's adverse report, petitioners filed the present Article 32 Constitution of India petitions.
Testing the thirteen strongest cases, the Court found egregious flaws: lack of public advertisements, recruitments by ad-hoc committees lacking authority, unqualified candidates, and abuse of the ten percent management quota.
Placing reliance on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1, the court explained that staying the High Court order did not erase it but suspended its operation. Since a stream cannot rise above its source, the state notifications lost their legal foundation once the parent judgments were stayed. Unilateral appointments made in this vacuum without Supreme Court permission were declared illegal.
“In view of the order dated 14th March, 2016 granting stay, the judgment and order of the Division Bench under appeal, in which the judgment and order dated 12th March, 2014 of the Single Judge had merged, did not get ‘wiped out from existence’. However, definitely the same was the operative judgment and order until 14th March, 2016; and, as soon as the stay was granted, it became inoperative. The order of stay read with the subsequent order dated 17th May, 2018, referred to above, thus, created a vacuum. Neither the MSC Act nor NOTIFICATION-I or NOTIFICATION-II could operate, which were issued in the aftermath of the two judicial decisions (Single Bench and Division Bench) of the High Court…”, the Bench said.
“…To overcome the stalemate regarding filling up of vacancies, the Managing Committees of the madrasahs seeking to fill up vacant posts ought to have approached this Court to guide them as to which law should they follow. They could not have, on their own, proceeded with the appointment process perceiving NOTIFICATION-I or NOTIFICATION-II to be still valid and operative qua the madrasahs. As a stream cannot rise above its source, NOTIFICATION-I and NOTIFICATION-II, owing its existence to the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court dated 12th March, 2014 and 9th December, 2015, respectively, could not remain operational once the latter judgment was stayed. Indeed, appointments came to be made in a couple of cases post reservation of judgment in Civil Appeal No.5808 of 2017 by this Court…”, the Bench further noted.
Dismissing all petitions, the court ruled that the petitioners have no entitlement to salary arrears. All interim orders restraining the state from dislodging the petitioners or directing salary disbursements were vacated forthwith. The court authorized the Commission to fill the vacant sanctioned posts in accordance with its recommendations.
Cause Title: Najma Khatun & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 691)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Salman Khurshid, Maninder Acharya, Devdutt Kamat, and Pijush Kanti Roy, Senior Advocates, Biswaroop Bhattacharya and Srija Choudhury, Advocates.
Respondents: Huzefa Ahmadi, Raju Ramchandran, and M. R. Shamshad, Senior Advocates.