Constitution of India – Articles 30(1), 32 & 142 – West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 – Appointment of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff in Recognised Aided Madrasahs – Verification Committee – Whether appointments made during the interregnum after the High Court declared the Act unconstitutional and before the Supreme Court upheld its validity automatically confer a right to approval and service benefits? – Held, No.
The petitioners, comprising teaching and non-teaching staff of various recognised aided Madrasahs in West Bengal, claimed approval of their appointments and consequential service benefits on the ground that they had been appointed during the period when the High Court had declared certain provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 unconstitutional. Pursuant to the decision in Snehasis Giri, this Court had constituted a Committee headed by a former High Court Judge to verify the legality of such appointments. The Committee, after examining each individual claim, found that none of the appointments satisfied the prescribed statutory requirements. The petitioners challenged the Committee's report under Article 32, contending that the appointments stood protected by the earlier decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique and that the Committee had arbitrarily rejected all claims. Whether appointments made during the interregnum automatically acquire validity and entitle the appointees to approval and service benefits irrespective of compliance with the prescribed recruitment procedure? – Held, No.
The Supreme Court held that the observations in Sk. Mohd. Rafique did not dispense with the requirement of verifying whether appointments had been made in accordance with the governing recruitment notifications and statutory procedure. The Committee constituted in Snehasis Giri was specifically entrusted with examining the legality and genuineness of each appointment, including the existence of sanctioned vacancies, validity of the Managing Committee, prescribed qualifications, publication of proper advertisements, constitution of the Selection Committee, observance of recruitment procedure, and actual appointment against approved posts. Judicial review over such factual findings is limited and interference is warranted only upon demonstration of manifest perversity or arbitrariness. On an independent examination of the representative cases projected by the petitioners, the Court found repeated violations of the mandatory recruitment procedure, including appointments by incompetent authorities, absence of sanctioned vacancies, non-publication of advertisements in State-level newspapers, failure to follow prescribed selection norms, appointments after the stay granted by this Court, and appointments made contrary to statutory notifications. Since none of the selected cases established a legally valid appointment, the petitioners acquired no enforceable right to approval, salary or continuation in service. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
Appointments to recognised aided Madrasahs made during the period when the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 was under challenge do not automatically become valid merely because they were made in the interregnum. Every appointment must independently satisfy the mandatory statutory recruitment procedure, including appointment against a sanctioned vacancy by a competent authority through a transparent selection process. Findings of a Court-appointed Verification Committee rejecting such claims, after individual scrutiny, are not liable to be interfered with in judicial review absent manifest perversity or patent illegality. 2026 INSC 691
No comments:
Post a Comment