Supreme Court | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566/2024, Najma Khatun v. State of West Bengal, 2026 INSC 691 | Date of judgment 13 July 2026 | UPSC / PCS Mains: GS-II (Constitution, judiciary, education, governance) | Prelims: Articles 14, 16, 30(1), 32, 141, 142
Background and Context
When an institution runs posts on government aid, by which tests should the manner of appointment to those posts be examined? The litigation running since 2014 over West Bengal's aided madrasas turns on this question. The Supreme Court's judgment of 13 July 2026 divides into three different questions: whether the appointments of the 13 selected petitioners were valid, whether appointments made after the stay of 14 March 2016 stand, and what the court said about the clause carrying a 10% management quota. This article keeps every question separate, with the judgment's own words.
What is the news?
On 13 July 2026, in a judgment written by Justice Dipankar Datta, the Supreme Court dismissed 49 petitions of madrasa employees of West Bengal. The court examined the 13 selected claims separately and cancelled them, called appointments made without permission after 14 March 2016 "ex facie illegal", refused back wages, and spoke of filling the vacant posts through the Commission's recommendations. While examining one appointment, the court called the 10% management quota clause of NOTIFICATION-I "wholly unconstitutional", with the words "though not challenged".
Key facts and figures
| The case and the bench | Najma Khatun & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566/2024 and connected petitions, 2026 INSC 691; date of judgment 13 July 2026, New Delhi; author of the judgment Justice Dipankar Datta; below the signature lines at the end of the judgment the names of Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih are printed; 52 pages; "REPORTABLE". The line "Signature Not Verified" is printed on the first page of the judgment. |
|---|---|
| The petitions | 49 petitions under Article 32, with more than 350 petitioners (para 2), who claim to be teaching and non-teaching staff of West Bengal's madrasas (para 3). Their shared grievance is being deprived of their service benefits. |
| The chain of background | The provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 (MSC Act) were held illegal by a single bench of the Calcutta High Court on 12 March 2014 and by a division bench on 9 December 2015. Two state notifications: NOTIFICATION-I (9 February 2015) and NOTIFICATION-II (4 March 2016). The Supreme Court stayed the division bench's judgment on 14 March 2016. In Sk. Mohd. Rafique (6 January 2020), the Supreme Court upheld Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the MSC Act. In Snehasis Giri (contempt, 2023), a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Justice Debi Prasad Dey. |
|---|
| The committee and the hearing's scope | According to the judgment, the committee examined the claims of "a little less than 500" claimants and did not hold anyone's claim established (para 5p). The petitioners were asked to put forward the most serious cases of a maximum of 10 teachers and 5 non-teaching staff (order of 19.11.2025). The court heard the petitions "essentially as appeals against the findings of fact", but said not every claim would be looked into (para 13). In the end, the claims of 13 petitioners were examined: 10 and 3 (our count: 10 + 3 = 13). |
|---|
| The two notifications' conditions | Clause 5 of NOTIFICATION-I: advertisement of the vacant post in at least two state-level dailies, "to satisfy the provision of equality of opportunity as enshrined in Art. 16"; clause 7: the selection committee and intimation to the District Inspector of Schools (DIoS) and the Director. Clause 4 of NOTIFICATION-II: advertisement in two state-level dailies (one in Bengali), with a reference to "Article 16"; clause 17: no financial liability of the state for an appointment made contrary to the rules. |
|---|
| The thirteen claims: separate reasons | The court examined every claim separately. Samples of the reasons recorded in paras 23 to 35: the scope of the court-appointed ad hoc committee limited to "day-to-day administration" (nos. 1, 11); the approved post having lapsed (no. 2); no advertisement in two dailies or no compliance with clause 7 (nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12); a walk-in interview (no. 9); reliance on an order that was in another madrasa's petition (no. 6); a finding of "manifest fraud" over documents of an earlier date (no. 10); the 10% management quota (no. 13). In no. 5 the court refused to invoke Article 142 (para 27). No. 9's prayer for regularisation was also rejected (para 31). The numbers are of the judgment's order; names are not given. |
|---|
| Clause 6: the 10% management quota | Clause 6 of NOTIFICATION-I: "Not more than 10% of the total sanctioned posts ... may be kept reserved and to be filled up from the members of the minority organization to which the educational institution belongs. No separate advertisement will be required." Para 35(f): this clause "effectively negated merit-based selection at least in respect of 10% of the sanctioned posts". Para 35(h): "Even otherwise, though not challenged, clause 6 of NOTIFICATION-I is wholly unconstitutional." Para 35(j): "Appointment without facing any competition being the anti-thesis of Articles 14 and 16, a complete exemption from competition is indefensible once Government aid is received. Aid without accountability is constitutionally unsustainable. Minority right under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution does not and cannot include the right to burden the exchequer with appointments made through a non-competitive, opaque process." |
|---|
| Appointments after 14 March 2016 | Paras 39 to 41: the difference between a stay and the quashing of a judgment, with a reference to Shree Chamundi Mopeds. According to the court, after the stay "a vacuum" was created; "a stream cannot rise above its source". The conclusion: "any appointment made in any madrasah after 14th March, 2016 without obtaining express permission of this Court is also ex facie illegal and cannot be sustained". |
|---|
| The order | Paras 42 to 46: the claims of all petitioners rejected; no question of back wages; the old orders of status quo on salary and post revoked at once; the whole chain of petitions dismissed. The vacant sanctioned posts can now be filled through the Commission's recommendations (para 44). No costs were imposed, because back wages are not being given and a soft stance was taken (para 45). |
|---|
| What is not found printed in the judgment | A mention of any petition or prayer challenging clause 6 (the court itself wrote "though not challenged" in para 35(h)); an examination of the remaining petitioners' individual claims (in para 38 the court refused to look at them). |
|---|
Analysis: one judgment, three separate questions
First, the three questions do not rest on each other. A separate deficiency is recorded in each petitioner's appointment among the 13 claims. The basis for the appointments after 14 March 2016 is the effect of the stay. The comment on clause 6 arose from para 35's examination of the very appointment made under that clause. The judgment itself keeps them in separate para numbers.
Second, advertisement and Article 16. Both notifications demand advertisement in state-level dailies and cite Article 16 in their text. The court called notices put up locally "localised advertising" (para 30) and commented on the placement of an advertisement printed in an English daily (para 28(n)). This comment is on the facts of that particular case.
Third, the difference between a stay and the quashing of a judgment. According to the judgment, quashing restores the earlier position, while a stay means only that the order will not operate further (para 40). On this basis the court said the madrasas should have taken guidance from the Supreme Court after the stay. The conclusion is limited to that extent: an appointment after 14.03.2016 without the court's permission.
Fourth, clause 6 and Article 30(1). The court said in para 35(f) that clause 6 "effectively negated" merit-based selection for 10% of the posts. In para 35(j) it said: "Aid without accountability is constitutionally unsustainable" and the Article 30(1) right "does not and cannot include the right to burden the exchequer with appointments made through a non-competitive, opaque process". These are the court's words; no general rule beyond them has been added in this article.
Fifth, Article 142 and regularisation. Article 142 was invoked in one claim; the court said "Protecting the service of an ineligible teacher cannot be at the cost of the future of students" (para 27). On the demand for regularisation, the court said the lenient approach taken in Jaggo and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee should be read "confined to its own facts", and Umadevi (3) and Dayanand are binding under Article 141 (para 31).
Sixth, reliance on a line of an earlier judgment. One counsel argued from para 64 of Sk. Mohd. Rafique that all intervening appointments be treated as valid. The court described Snehasis Giri's direction as binding and called this argument "to mistake a whisper for authority" (para 17).
Seventh, the evidence for a claim and the committee's record. The court gave "due weight" to the committee's findings but said it is not bound by them and would make an independent assessment (para 22). In some cases the court even held one of the committee's findings (para 25(b), the 50%-marks condition) wrong, yet cancelled the claim for other reasons.
Way Forward: unanswered questions
- On what timeline will the vacant sanctioned posts be filled through the Commission's recommendations? The judgment has no time limit.
- What will be the practical effect on employees still working in appointments made after 14.03.2016? The judgment only withdraws the orders of status quo on salary and post.
- Are conditions like clause 6 present in other states' notifications or not? No mention of this is found in the judgment.
- Action after 13.07.2026 has not been checked.
Exam-useful points
Prelims: Articles 14, 16, 30(1), 32, 141, 142; T.M.A. Pai Foundation; State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3); stay versus quashing of a judgment. Mains: equality of opportunity in appointments to posts run on public money; the rights of minority institutions and their limits; transparency in the appointment process; the use of Article 142; judicial review of committees' findings of fact.
Sources
Source limit: the text is taken from the copy hosted on LiveLaw, not from the Supreme Court's own website; the first page of the copy carries the lines "Signature Not Verified" and "Digitally signed by MANIK KUMAR, Date: 2026.07.13 17:28:37 IST". No information on any order or compliance after 13.07.2026 is included.
Remember: three separate questions: the individual reasons in the 13 claims, the appointments after 14.03.2016, and clause 6. With "wholly unconstitutional" on clause 6, "though not challenged" is also printed. This is a case about the appointment process in government-aided posts, not reservation. "Blot on the system" is about the 13 petitioners' appointments.
Download This Article: PDF