Appointment to teaching or non-teaching posts in aided minority madrasahs made without strict compliance with the prescribed statutory recruitment procedure—including sanctioned vacancy, public advertisement, competent selection process and approval requirements—is void in law and confers no enforceable right to approval, salary or regularisation. The Supreme Court's power under Article 142 cannot be exercised to legitimise such illegal appointments.

  Najma Khatun & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 INSC 691

The Supreme Court held that teachers and non-teaching staff appointed in aided minority madrasahs during the interregnum (after the High Court struck down the Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, but before and after the Act was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court) do not acquire any vested or enforceable right to service benefits merely because they were appointed during that period. Their appointments are valid only if they were made strictly in accordance with the governing recruitment rules and statutory notifications.

The Court further laid down the following principles:

1. Verification of appointments is mandatory. The Committee constituted by the Supreme Court in Snehasis Giri was competent to examine whether each appointment satisfied the prescribed legal requirements, notwithstanding the observations in Sk. Mohd. Rafique.

2. Compliance with recruitment procedure is mandatory, not directory. Requirements such as:

   • existence of a sanctioned vacancy,
   • open advertisement in State-level newspapers,
   • constitution of a valid Selection Committee,
   • communication to the District Inspector of Schools and other competent authorities, and
   • appointment by a duly competent Managing Committee,

   are essential conditions. Breach of these requirements renders the appointment illegal.

3. An illegal appointment creates no enforceable legal right. Persons appointed contrary to the statutory procedure cannot invoke Articles 14, 16, 21, or 32 to seek approval of service, salary, or regularisation.
4. Judicial review over the Committee's findings is limited. The Court will interfere only where the findings are shown to be manifestly perverse or arbitrary. It will not reappreciate disputed questions of fact in every individual case.
5. Article 142 cannot be used to validate illegal appointments. The power to do complete justice cannot override mandatory statutory recruitment requirements or protect appointments made in violation of law, particularly where public employment and educational standards are involved.

Ratio

Appointment to teaching or non-teaching posts in aided minority madrasahs made without strict compliance with the prescribed statutory recruitment procedure—including sanctioned vacancy, public advertisement, competent selection process and approval requirements—is void in law and confers no enforceable right to approval, salary or regularisation. The Supreme Court's power under Article 142 cannot be exercised to legitimise such illegal appointments.