Can Teachers Appointed in West Bengal Madrasahs Claim Service Benefits Despite Irregular Appointments?
Case Name: Najma Khatun & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (with connected matters)
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 691; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566 of 2024 (with connected matters)
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Held: The Supreme Court held that teachers and non-teaching staff appointed in aided madrasahs in West Bengal during the period when provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 had been declared unconstitutional by the Calcutta High Court cannot automatically claim approval of service or salary. The Court ruled that every appointment had to satisfy the applicable recruitment procedure, including public advertisement, appointment against sanctioned vacancies, selection through a valid committee, and compliance with the relevant Government notifications. Upholding the findings of the verification committee constituted in Snehasis Giri, the Court held that none of the petitioners established a legally valid appointment. It further clarified that appointments made after 14 March 2016, when the Supreme Court stayed the High Court judgment, without express permission of the Court were ex facie illegal and incapable of being regularised.
Summary: The batch of writ petitions was filed by more than 350 teachers and non-teaching employees serving in various aided madrasahs across West Bengal. They alleged that despite having worked for several years, the State had denied them approval of service, salary, and other consequential benefits. Their claims arose from the prolonged litigation surrounding the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, under which appointments to aided madrasahs were required to be made through the Madrasah Service Commission.
The controversy became complicated after the Calcutta High Court struck down certain provisions of the 2008 Act, leading many managing committees to make appointments under Government notifications issued during that period. Although the Supreme Court later upheld the validity of the Act in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah, disputes continued regarding the legality of appointments made in the intervening period. In contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court constituted a three-member committee to verify whether each appointment had been made against sanctioned vacancies, through a transparent recruitment process, by duly constituted managing committees, and in accordance with the prescribed rules. The committee rejected every claim placed before it.
Examining the challenge to the committee’s findings, the Supreme Court independently assessed the representative cases projected by the petitioners. The Court found repeated violations of the prescribed recruitment procedure, including absence of statewide advertisements, appointments against non-existent or unsanctioned posts, lack of approval from competent authorities, appointments by committees lacking legal authority, and recruitment processes conducted contrary to the applicable notifications. The Court also rejected the contention that its earlier decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique had automatically validated every appointment made during the relevant period. It held that verification of individual appointments remained essential and reaffirmed that appointments made after the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment on 14 March 2016 without obtaining express permission of the Court were illegal.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the entire batch of writ petitions and upheld the verification committee’s conclusion that none of the petitioners had established a valid appointment. It vacated all interim orders protecting the petitioners’ services or directing payment of salary and held that the State was under no obligation to release arrears or service benefits. The Court further directed that the vacant sanctioned posts in the concerned madrasahs should now be filled only through recommendations of the Madrasah Service Commission in accordance with the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008. Although the petitions were found to be misconceived, the Court refrained from imposing costs.