SC dismisses pleas of 360 Bengal madrassa teachers, staff seeking regularisation

New Delhi, Jul 13 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a batch of petitions filed by about 360 teaching and non-teaching staff of madrassas in West Bengal, challenging the denial of regularisation and payment under the state government's grant-in-aid scheme. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih delivered the judgment after examining the cases of 13 petitioners out of more than 350 such employees to see whether any case was made out for grant of relief. Pronouncing the verdict, the bench said, “We proceeded on the basis that if any one of these 13 petitioners persuaded us to hold in his or her favour, we would examine the remaining cases as well. Unfortunately, none of the 13 petitioners could impress us.” Dismissing all the petitions, the bench said, “Consequently, 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.” The top court added that the state cannot be fastened with any liability to release payments where appointments were not made in accordance with law. “Orders passed on the writ petitions restraining the respondents from dislodging these petitioners from service and/or directing payment of admissible salary and allowances stand vacated forthwith,” it said. The top court also said it holds that any appointment made in any madrassa after March 14, 2016, (when the apex court stayed the operation of a high court verdict) without obtaining express permission of this court is also ex facie illegal and cannot be sustained. “For the reasons aforesaid, the entire batch of writ petitions fails and are, hereby, dismissed,” the bench ordered, adding that since the interim orders have been vacated, the vacant sanctioned posts may now be filled up as per the recommendations of a commission formed under the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act. It said a wholesome consideration of the material placed on record completely contradicts the claims of the 13 petitioners that they were validly appointed in the madrassas concerned. “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,” the bench held. It said the writ petitions being thoroughly misconceived, the court would have been justified in imposing costs. The bench, however, said that since it has not directed for release of arrears of salary and allowances and also taken a lenient view, the court refrains from burdening the petitioners with costs. About 360 teaching and non-teaching staff employed in different madrassas of West Bengal filed around 49 petitions before the top court with a singular grievance relating to alleged deprivation of their legitimate service benefits by the state government. The original cause of dispute relates to the vires of certain provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, which created a statutory commission to recommend appointments of teachers in recognised madrassas. While the challenge to the enactment attained finality by virtue of the court’s ruling in 2020, the present dispute stemmed from subsequent proceedings instituted to enforce the court's orders. In 2014, the Calcutta High Court struck down the Act, a decision upheld by its division bench in 2015. However, the Supreme Court stayed the verdict in March 2016. In February 2023, the top court constituted a committee to determine the validity of appointments made after the Calcutta High Court's 2015 verdict, but before the apex court's 2020 decision upholding the 2008 Act. The three-member committee submitted its report that found such appointments invalid. The aggrieved employees then challenged the committee's findings before the top court. The bench said that the committee was set up to filter claims and parties were put on notice and those petitioners who presented themselves before the committee were heard. “A painstaking exercise was undertaken by the committee, which revealed that not a single claim met the threshold of a valid appointment. No claim was found to be genuine on individual assessment, and the rejection was on merits and not on technicalities. “Petitioners, who suffered rejection of their claims upon due consideration, now seek to reagitate issues of fact which have been settled by the committee,” it said. PTI MNL ARI