SC Rejects Pleas Of 360 Bengal Madrassa Staff Seeking Regularization, Calls Appointments “A Blot On System”

New Delhi – The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed petitions filed by around 360 teaching and non-teaching staff of West Bengal madrassas who were seeking regularization and salaries under the state’s grant-in-aid scheme.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih examined the cases of 13 petitioners as “test cases” and said if even one of them had a valid claim, the court would have looked at the rest. 

“Unfortunately, none of the 13 petitioners could impress us,” the bench said while dismissing the entire batch of around 49 petitions.

Court’s key observations

• Claims rejected: “We do hereby reject the claims of all the petitioners. Since the claims stand rejected, there is no question of these petitioners being entitled to any arrears of salary or allowances.”
• On legality: The state cannot be made liable to pay where appointments were “not made in accordance with law”.
• Post-2016 appointments illegal: Any appointment made in a madrassa after March 14, 2016 — when the SC had stayed a Calcutta HC verdict — without the court’s express permission is “ex facie illegal and cannot be sustained”.
• On the appointments: “Spurious claims have been raised by these 13 petitioners… The appointments in question are a blot on the system; they must, therefore, be erased and not protected.”

The court also vacated interim orders that had restrained authorities from removing the staff or directed payment of salaries. It said vacant sanctioned posts can now be filled as per recommendations of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission.

The bench noted it could have imposed costs for “thoroughly misconceived” petitions, but refrained since it was already denying arrears.

Background of the case

The dispute stems from the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, which created a statutory body to recommend appointments in recognised madrassas.

The Calcutta High Court struck down the Act in 2014, and a division bench upheld it in 2015. The Supreme Court stayed the HC order in March 2016. In 2020, the SC upheld the validity of the 2008 Act.

In Feb 2023, the SC set up a 3-member committee to verify appointments made between 2015 and 2020. The committee found none of the claims valid. The staff then challenged that report in the apex court.

The bench said the committee did a “painstaking exercise” and “not a single claim met the threshold of a valid appointment. The rejection was on merits and not on technicalities.”