The Supreme Court rejected the state salary appeals of more than 350 West Bengal madrasa teachers

More than 40 petitions were filed by 361 petitioners claiming that they were appointed to various madrasas in the state after the West Bengal Madrasa Service Act, 2008 was declared unconstitutional and upheld by the Calcutta High Court. File | Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13, 2026) dismissed the appeals of over 350 teachers and non-teaching staff seeking regularized appointments and state-funded salaries in recognized madrasas in West Bengal under the grant-in-aid scheme.

A bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta said none of the petitioners could convince the court about the merits of their respective cases.

More than 40 petitions were filed by 361 petitioners who claimed they were appointed to various madrasas in the state after the West Bengal Madarasa Service Commission Act, 2008 was declared unconstitutional and upheld by the Calcutta High Court.

The case went to the Supreme Court with questions including whether the madrassas in which the petitioners were appointed were validly recognized. Another question was whether these madrasahs were run by valid management committees.

Also Read: Move to Madrasahs, Alienation of Muslims

The court held that appointments made after March 14, 2016 (when the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s verdict) without obtaining the express approval of the Supreme Court were ex facie illegal and unsustainable. In 2014, the Calcutta High Court struck down the law, a decision upheld by its division in 2015.

However, the Supreme Court postponed the verdict in March 2016. In February 2023, the Supreme Court appointed a committee to determine the validity of the appointments made after the 2015 Calcutta High Court verdict.

A three-member panel submitted a report declaring the appointment invalid. The aggrieved employees challenged the committee’s findings in the Supreme Court.

“The Board conducted a painstaking exercise 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,” the Bench said in its judgement.

Published – 13 Jul 2026 12:03 IST