Supreme Court Directs Verification of Madrasa Teacher Appointments: Snehasis Giri vs. Subhasis Mitra (2 February 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 February 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 78
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Dipankar Datta, J.

Can a court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, direct the release of salaries without verifying the legitimacy of the appointments? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a batch of contempt petitions arising from a previous judgment concerning the appointment of teachers in aided Madrasas in West Bengal. The core issue revolved around whether the appointments made by the Madrasas during the pendency of appeals, after the High Court declared certain provisions of the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008 unconstitutional, were valid and whether the teachers were entitled to salaries without verification of their appointments.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, delivered the judgment. The court clarified that while its previous judgment had validated certain appointments made during the pendency of the appeals, it did not negate the requirement for verification of these appointments as per the applicable rules and regulations.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding the validity of certain provisions of the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008, which regulated the appointment of teachers in aided Madrasas. The Calcutta High Court had initially declared some of these provisions unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment in *Shaikh Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Conti Rahamania High Madrasah & Ors* (2020 (6) SCC 689), overturned this decision, holding the provisions valid and constitutional.

During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, some Madrasas had made appointments. The Supreme Court, in its earlier judgment, had stated that appointments made by the Madrasas after the High Court’s decision would be considered valid. The present contempt petitions were filed by teachers who were appointed during this period, alleging that the respondents were not releasing their salaries and regularizing their services, despite the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Calcutta High Court had initially declared certain provisions of the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008 as unconstitutional. This decision led to appeals before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of these appeals, the Supreme Court issued interim orders directing the release of salaries to teachers appointed by the Madrasas. The Supreme Court, in its final judgment, upheld the validity of the Act. The current contempt petitions arose because the Madrasas were allegedly not complying with the Supreme Court’s orders to release salaries and regularize the services of the teachers appointed during the pendency of the appeals.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework is the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008. The Supreme Court had to consider the validity of Sections 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the Act, which regulate the appointment of teachers in aided Madrasas.

The Supreme Court, in its previous judgment, held these sections to be constitutional. The court emphasized that the Act aimed to ensure that a commission comprising experts would screen talent across the state, adopt a fair selection procedure, and select the best candidates based on merit, while also considering the interests of the minority institutions.

The court also noted that the composition of the Commission, with special emphasis on persons having profound knowledge in Islamic Culture and Theology, would ensure that the special needs and requirements of minority educational institutions would be taken care of.

The court referred to the judgement in *TMA Pai Foundation case* to hold that the provisions of the Act were not violative of the rights of the minority educational institutions.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment had validated their appointments, and they were entitled to salaries and regularization of their services. They relied on the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court, which directed the release of salaries to those appointed during the pendency of the appeals.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the Supreme Court’s judgment did not mandate the release of salaries without verifying the legitimacy of the appointments. They argued that the appointments had to comply with the rules and regulations, including those related to qualifications, experience, and the procedure for recruitment. They also relied on an earlier order dated 07.05.2018, which stated that no equity would be created on the arrangements made in the stop gap arrangement which would be subject to the final orders in the civil appeals.

The respondents further argued that the court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, cannot go beyond the scope of its original judgment. They cited *Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran* (2014) 3 SCC 373 to support their argument that the court cannot examine questions not decided in the original judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

• Whether the appointments made by the Madrasas during the pendency of the appeals were valid and entitled the appointees to salaries and regularization.
• Whether the Supreme Court, in its earlier judgment, intended to validate all appointments without any verification of compliance with rules and regulations.
• Whether the court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, could direct the release of salaries without verifying the legitimacy of the appointments.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appointments made by the Madrasas during the pendency of the appeals were valid only to the extent that they conformed to the concerned rules and binding norms. The court emphasized that its earlier judgment did not negate the need for verification of these appointments as per the applicable rules and regulations.

The court also held that it could not, in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, direct the release of salaries without verifying the legitimacy of the appointments. The court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to decide matters not part of the original judgment.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ *Shaikh Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Conti Rahamania High Madrasah & Ors* [2020 (6) SCC 689]: The court relied on its previous judgment to reiterate the validity of the Act but clarified that it did not negate the need for verification of appointments.

✓ *TMA Pai Foundation case*: The court relied on the principles laid down in this case to hold that the provisions of the Act were not violative of the rights of minority institutions.

✓ *Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran* [(2014) 3 SCC 373]: The court relied on this case to emphasize that contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to decide matters not part of the original judgment.

✓ *J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar* [(1996) 6 SCC 291]: The court referred to this case to explain the limited scope of contempt proceedings.

✓ *Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda* [(2006) 5 SCC 399]: The court cited this case to explain the limitations of a court exercising contempt jurisdiction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that appointments in educational institutions are made in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations. The court was also mindful of the limitations of its contempt jurisdiction and the need to avoid expanding its scope.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal considerations, particularly the limitations of contempt jurisdiction and the need to ensure compliance with rules and regulations. The factual aspects of the case, such as the specific appointments made by the Madrasas, were secondary to these legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Appointments made by Madrasas during the pendency of appeals are valid only if they comply with the applicable rules and regulations.
• ✓ The Supreme Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, cannot direct the release of salaries without verifying the legitimacy of the appointments.
• ✓ Contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to decide matters not part of the original judgment.
• ✓ A committee has been constituted to verify the claims of the petitioners and to ensure that appointments were made in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of following due process and ensuring that appointments in educational institutions are made transparently and in accordance with the prescribed rules. It also clarifies the limitations of contempt jurisdiction and the need to avoid expanding its scope.

Directions

The Supreme Court constituted a committee headed by Justice Debi Prasad Dey, retired Judge, Calcutta High Court, to verify the claims of the petitioners. The committee also includes a Principal Secretary ranking officer of the IAS and a retired Registrar of one of the State Universities in West Bengal.

The committee is directed to consider the following:

• (a) Whether the madrasa or its managing committee was recognized by the state government on the date on which the appointment was made?
• (b) Whether such appointments were made, of candidates who possessed the requisite prescribed qualifications and fulfilled the experience and other eligible conditions stipulated for the post concerned?
• (c) Whether such an appointment was made by following the recruitment procedure indicated in the Kolkata Gazette Notification dated 11-03-2015 and 04-03-2016?
• (d) Whether the appointments were made against vacancies that existed and whether the vacancies conformed to the staffing pattern for the concerned institution/ madrasas?
• (e) Whether after the appointments were made, the persons appointed actually worked on their respective posts?
• (f) Whether the appointments were actually made on the date of the appointment letter, or were backdated?

The committee is required to submit a report to the State Government within four months, and the State Government is required to pass appropriate orders within two months thereafter.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion about specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that appointments made by Madrasas during the pendency of appeals are valid only if they comply with the applicable rules and regulations. The Supreme Court clarified that its earlier judgment did not negate the need for verification of these appointments as per the applicable rules and regulations. The court also clarified that contempt jurisdiction cannot be expanded to decide matters not part of the original judgment. This judgment reinforces the importance of following due process and ensuring that appointments in educational institutions are made transparently and in accordance with the prescribed rules.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Snehasis Giri vs. Subhasis Mitra* clarifies that while appointments made by Madrasas during the pendency of appeals may be considered valid, they are subject to verification as per the applicable rules and regulations. The court also emphasized the limitations of contempt jurisdiction and the need to avoid expanding its scope. The constitution of a committee to verify the claims of the petitioners reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that appointments in educational institutions are made transparently and in accordance with the prescribed rules.