Supreme Court rejects 350 Bengal madrasah staffers’ claims of wage arrears over recruitment violations

THe sublime margaret court on mon dismissed the claims of nearly 350 commandment and non-teaching faculty working in madrasahs in West Bengal for regularisation and payment of salary arrears, finding their recruitment to be in violation of state notifications.A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih passed the order while deciding on a batch of 49 petitions filed by the staff who were aggrieved by the findings of a statutory committee under the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act (MSC Act), 2008, which dismissed their claims for regularisation.Rather than examining the 350 cases individually, the court examined 13 individual cases selected by the lawyers appearing for the petitioners as the ones most deserving for recruitment.Upon examination, the bench held, “Since none of these 13 petitioners has set up any case for interference, we are not inclined to look into the claim of any of the other petitioners.”Dismissing the entire batch of 350 persons, the order said, “The appointments in question are a blot on the system; they must, therefore, be erased and not protected.”Since the matters were pending before several benches in the top court since 2024, some of the petitioners had obtained orders protecting their employment and a direction for release of salary till their matters are finally decided.Vacating the interim orders, the bench said, “Appointments not having been made either in accordance with Notification-I or Notification-II (of the state government), the state cannot be fastened with any liability to release payment.”It lifted the restraint on the state authorities from dislodging these petitioners from service and directing payment of salary and allowances, and said, “The vacant sanctioned posts may now be filled up as per the recommendations of the Commission.”The court had in November 2025 consolidated all the petitions to one bench to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The petitioners argued that the MSC Act, 2008, was invalidated by the Calcutta high court in December 2015 as it introduced the concept of selection for appointment on vacant sanctioned posts of teachers and non-teaching staff through an expert body—the Madrasah Service Commission. This was seen by the minority community as an interference in their rights to manage and administer institutions.The Act provided that the recommendation of the Commission is mandatory for any selection and warned that any selection in violation of the Act will have no effect in law. The high court decision was challenged in the top court, which authoritatively upheld the 2008 Act in Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah (2020). Later, in another round of contempt petitions decided in 2023, the top court reiterated its view.Meanwhile, the state government issued two notifications in 2015 and 2016 at the time when the matter was pending in the high court to ensure every recruitment to posts in madrasahs in the state are advertised and the selections are approved by the District Inspectors.On a combined reading of the notifications and the 2008 Act, the bench examining the 350 cases asked the petitioners to satisfy whether the madrasah where they got appointed enjoyed a valid recognition granted by WB Board of Madrasah Education and further, if the managing committee of such a madrasah were duly constituted under the rules prescribed by the said Board.If any of the petitioners cleared these twin thresholds, the court required them to satisfy on various counts— educational qualification, post to which they were selected, staff pattern at time of selection, details of advertisement issued, nature of examination given prior to selection, and whether approval of District Inspector was taken before and after the process of selection.Going through the 13 cases put forth as the best sample cases for consideration, the bench said, “Spurious claims have been raised by these 13 petitioners, which obviously are devoid of any merit…A wholesome consideration of the materials placed on record completely contradict the claims of the 13 petitioners that they were validly appointed in the madrasahs concerned.”The court wondered that if these 13 cases were the “worst victims” of arbitrary action, “one can only speculate as to what merit, if any, the cases of the others disclose to justify invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this court for relief.”Dismissing the entire batch of pleas as “misconceived”, the court took a lenient view and restrained from imposing costs as the petitioners would unnecessarily be burdened after being deprived of their arrears of salary and allowances.