Facts
This batch of 49 writ petitions involved over 350 petitioners claiming to be teachers and non-teaching staff appointed in various recognized aided Madrasahs in West Bengal.
Source reference: para. 2, 3The litigation followed a decade-long dispute over the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 (MSC Act). While the High Court initially declared Sections 8, 10-12 of the MSC Act ultra vires in 2014-2015, the Supreme Court stayed those orders on 14th March 2016 and eventually upheld the Act’s validity in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah (2020).
Source reference: para. 5(e-l)Post-2020, in contempt proceedings (Snehasis Giri v. Subhasis Mitra), the Court constituted a 3-member Committee headed by Justice Debi Prasad Dey (Retd.) to verify the validity of appointments made during the interregnum (2014-2020).
Source reference: para. 10The Committee rejected all claims. Petitioners challenged these findings, alleging arbitrariness and seeking approval of their services.
Source reference: para. 5(p), 10Issues
1. Whether the appointments made by Madrasah Managing Committees during the interregnum were valid and complied with the mandatory recruitment procedures laid down in Notification-I (2015) and Notification-II (2016)?
Source reference: para. 14, 182. Whether the "deeming" observation in paragraph 64 of Sk. Mohd. Rafique (2020) granted absolute validity to all interim appointments regardless of procedural compliance?
Source reference: para. 153. Whether appointments made after the Supreme Court’s stay order dated 14th March 2016, without express leave of the Court, are legally sustainable?
Source reference: para. 39Law Applied
The Court applied the mandatory recruitment procedures under Notification No. 93-SE/S/10R-14/2013 dated 09.02.2015 (Notification-I) and Notification No. 486-MD/O/2M-11/2016 dated 04.03.2016 (Notification-II), which required open advertisements in two State-level dailies and prior communication to the District Inspector of Schools (DIoS) to satisfy Article 16 of the Constitution.
Source reference: para. 20, 21The Court relied on the distinction between "quashing" and "stay of operation" as established in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, holding that a stay does not wipe out the underlying law but renders the judgment inoperative.
Source reference: para. 40The Court also upheld the principles of public employment and merit-based selection as mandated in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand.
Source reference: para. 31(d)Reasoning
The Court conducted a "very special" review of 13 representative cases to test the Committee’s findings. It found that in every instance, the Managing Committees had bypassed mandatory safeguards.
Source reference: para. 13For example, some appointments were made by Ad hoc committees restricted to "day-to-day administration", others on non-existent/un-sanctioned posts, and many through "localized" or non-existent advertisements rather than the mandated two State-level dailies.
Source reference: para. 23(e), 24(c), 28(n), 30(d)The Court rejected the argument that the 2020 judgment’s "deeming clause" protected these appointees, noting that the subsequent Snehasis Giri order specifically required factual verification of procedural compliance.
Source reference: para. 17Crucially, the Court held that once the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment on 14th March 2016, a legal vacuum was created; any subsequent appointment made using the invalidated Notification-I or II without the Supreme Court's express leave was ex-facie illegal. In one case, the Court noted manifest fraud where documents appeared to be ante-dated to circumvent the 2020 ruling.
Source reference: para. 41, 32(j)Holding
The Court dismissed all 49 writ petitions, holding that none of the petitioners had an enforceable legal right.
It held that (a) procedural non-compliance with Notifications I and II (lack of wide advertisement/DIoS intimation) is fatal to the validity of the appointment; (b) Clause 6 of Notification-I (10% Management Quota) is unconstitutional as it permits non-competitive, opaque appointments to posts funded by the public exchequer; and (c) all appointments made after 14th March 2016 without Supreme Court permission are null and void.
Source reference: para. 37, 35(h-j), 41The Court vacated all interim orders protecting the petitioners’ services or salaries and directed that the vacancies be filled via the Madrasah Service Commission.
Source reference: para. 42, 44Original Court PDF
Najma KhatunvsThe State Of West Bengal
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in