The Supreme Court of India on Monday, July 13, 2026, dismissed a batch of over 40 writ petitions filed by 361 teachers and non-teaching staff seeking regularized appointments and state-funded salaries in West Bengal madrasas. A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta and including Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that none of the petitioners could establish that their appointments were made in accordance with applicable recruitment rules. The court’s decision effectively ends the claims of the staff members, who had sought benefits under the state’s grant-in-aid scheme.
Legal Origins of the Dispute
The controversy stems from the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008, which established a commission to recommend appointments for recognized madrasas. In 2014, the Calcutta High Court struck down the Act, a decision later affirmed by a Division Bench in 2015. However, the legal landscape shifted in March 2016 when the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s verdict. The constitutionality of the 2008 Act was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2020 case *Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah*. Following this ruling, a dispute arose regarding the validity of appointments made in the interim period between the High Court’s 2015 decision and the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment.
Committee Findings and Court Scrutiny
In February 2023, the Supreme Court constituted a three-member committee to evaluate the validity of these appointments on an individual basis. The committee, headed by retired Calcutta High Court Justice Debi Prasad Dey, concluded that not a single claim met the threshold for a valid appointment. Before delivering its final judgment, the Supreme Court Bench independently examined 13 cases that the petitioners had presented as their strongest evidence. The court found that each of these representative cases contained serious legal defects and failed to meet government appointment standards. “A painstaking exercise was undertaken by the committee, which revealed that not a single claim met the threshold of a valid appointment,” the Bench observed. “Spurious claims have been raised by these 13 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.”
Key Rulings on Appointment Validity
The court established a firm timeline regarding the legality of recruitment in the state’s madrasas. The Bench ruled that any appointment made after March 14, 2016—the date the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s verdict—without the express permission of the apex court is “ex facie illegal” and cannot be sustained. The court further criticized the state government for issuing notifications for appointments while the High Court’s order was under challenge but not yet stayed. Additionally, the Bench noted that some recruitment notices for village madrasas were placed in newspapers alongside tender notices, a practice the court suggested was designed to limit competition rather than ensure wide publicity.
Practical Consequences for Madrasa Staff
Following the dismissal of the petitions, the Supreme Court clarified that the state government is not liable to release any arrears of salary or allowances to the petitioners. Because the court vacated the interim protections previously granted to the staff, the sanctioned posts are now considered vacant. The court ordered that these positions may be filled according to the recommendations of the commission formed under the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act. While the Bench noted that the petitions were “thoroughly misconceived” and could have warranted the imposition of costs, it opted to take a lenient view and declined to burden the petitioners with additional financial penalties.
Find more reporting in our News section.
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
