Judicial Stay on Recruitment | Madrasah Appointments Void Without Court Permission Under Article 32 : SC

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a decisive judgment in a batch of 49 writ petitions, dismissing the claims of over 350 teachers and non-teaching staff of West Bengal madrasahs who sought validation of their appointments and consequential service benefits. The Court held that appointments made without strict adherence to recruitment notifications or during the pendency of judicial stay orders are ex facie illegal and cannot confer any legal rights on the appointees.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, teachers and non-teaching staff of various madrasahs in West Bengal, alleged deprivation of legitimate service benefits by the State. The dispute originated from the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 (MSC Act), which introduced a centralized selection process for appointments in aided madrasahs. Sections 8 and 10-12 of the MSC Act were initially struck down by the Calcutta High Court as violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees minority institutions the right to administer their affairs. However, the Supreme Court later upheld the MSC Act in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah, restoring the validity of appointments made through the Commission.

Key Facts

• The West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education Act, 1994 established a regulatory framework for madrasahs, including the Management of Recognised Non-Government Madrasahs (Aided and Un-aided) Rules, 2002, which governed appointments.
• Prior to the MSC Act, appointments were made based on recommendations from Regional School Service Commissions, with approval from the District Inspector of Schools (DIoS).
• On 12th October 2007, the State Government declared aided madrasahs as minority institutions, exempting them from reservation policies but mandating selection through the West Bengal School Service Commission.
• The MSC Act, enacted on 22nd October 2008, centralized appointments through the Madrasah Service Commission, mirroring the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997.
• Sections 8 and 10-12 of the MSC Act were struck down by the Calcutta High Court on 12th March 2014, a decision upheld by the Division Bench on 9th December 2015.
• The Supreme Court stayed the Division Bench’s judgment on 14th March 2016 and ultimately upheld the MSC Act in Sk. Mohd. Rafique on 6th January 2020, validating appointments made through the Commission.
• Post the High Court’s judgment, the State issued two notifications:
  • NOTIFICATION-I (9th February 2015): Regulated recruitment in institutions exempted from the School Service Commission.
  • NOTIFICATION-II (4th March 2016): Prescribed recruitment procedures for aided madrasahs, replacing NOTIFICATION-I.
• A 3-member Committee was constituted by the Supreme Court in Snehasis Giri v. Subhasis Mitra to verify the validity of appointments made during the interregnum (post-High Court judgment but pre-Supreme Court stay). The Committee rejected all claims, leading to the present writ petitions.

Procedural History

• 12th March 2014: Single Judge of Calcutta High Court strikes down Sections 8 and 10-12 of the MSC Act.
• 9th December 2015: Division Bench upholds the Single Judge’s decision.
• 14th March 2016: Supreme Court stays the Division Bench’s judgment.
• 6th January 2020: Supreme Court upholds the MSC Act in Sk. Mohd. Rafique.
• 2nd February 2023: Supreme Court constitutes a Committee in Snehasis Giri to verify appointments.
• 7th February 2024: Review petition against the Committee’s report dismissed.
• 22nd March 2024: Supreme Court directs disclosure of the Committee’s report.
• 19th November 2025: Supreme Court orders petitioners to identify the 10 most glaring cases of injustice.
• 17th December 2025: Hearing on selected cases.
• 13th July 2026: Present judgment dismissing all writ petitions.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

1. Validation of their appointments as made during the interregnum.
2. Approval of their services by the State authorities.
3. Payment of salary arrears and other consequential benefits.
4. Quashing of the Committee’s report rejecting their claims.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether appointments made in aided madrasahs during the interregnum (between the High Court’s judgment striking down the MSC Act and the Supreme Court’s stay order) were valid if they complied with NOTIFICATION-I or NOTIFICATION-II, or whether such appointments were illegal for having been made without the Court’s express permission during the pendency of the stay.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

1. The Committee’s wholesale rejection of all claims was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Appointments made during the interregnum were valid as they complied with NOTIFICATION-I or NOTIFICATION-II.
3. The observation in Sk. Mohd. Rafique that appointments made post-High Court judgment were "deemed valid" should be interpreted as conclusive validation.
4. The Court should invoke Article 142 to do complete justice by regularizing services where appointments were made in good faith.

For the Respondents

1. The Committee’s mandate was factual verification, and its findings revealed no valid appointments.
2. NOTIFICATION-I and NOTIFICATION-II were issued post-High Court judgment and could not operate during the stay of such judgment.
3. Appointments made without the Court’s permission during the stay were illegal and could not confer any rights.
4. The petitioners failed to prove compliance with recruitment procedures, including advertisements, merit-based selection, and DIoS approval.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed examination of the claims of 13 selected petitioners, representing the "most glaring cases of injustice." The analysis centered on compliance with NOTIFICATION-I and NOTIFICATION-II, which prescribed strict recruitment procedures