The case of ALAUDDIN AHMED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. was adjudicated by the Calcutta High Court on September 7, 2022. This landmark judgment addresses the contentious issue of remuneration alterations for guest teachers employed under an ad-hoc scheme initiated by the West Bengal government to mitigate acute teacher shortages in newly established upper primary schools. The petitioners, comprising retired teachers engaged as guest teachers, challenged the state's subsequent memorandum that reduced their remuneration, deeming it arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The High Court upheld the West Bengal government's authority to modify the remuneration of guest teachers through executive memoranda. It ruled that the original memorandum establishing the guest teacher scheme was an ad-hoc, temporary measure that did not confer any vested rights upon the teachers. Consequently, the state's subsequent decisions to reduce the remuneration were deemed legal and within its executive powers. The court dismissed the petitions, asserting that no rights were infringed under Articles 166 and 162 of the Constitution of India.

The court extensively referenced several precedents to substantiate its decision:

• Indu Prava Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (WP 953 (W) of 2006): Emphasized that temporary executive orders do not create vested rights.
• P. Thamilarasi v. Director of School Education (WP (MD) No. 2914 of 2012): Reinforced the principle that non-statutory executive measures are subject to modification.
• Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 395): Clarified that orders not issued in the name of the Governor can still be valid if properly communicated.
• R. Chitralekha v. State Of Mysore: Highlighted that compliance with Article 166 is directory, not mandatory.
• Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (AIR 2009 SC 705): Established that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate illegal orders.
• Haryana State Electricity Board v. Gulshanlal (AIR 2009 SC 231): Affirmed that equality under Article 14 does not compel the state to replicate previous illegal actions.

The High Court's reasoning hinged on several key legal interpretations:

• Nature of the Original Memorandum: It was deemed an ad-hoc, temporary executive order without statutory backing, aimed solely at addressing immediate teacher shortages.
• Absence of Vested Rights: Since the guest teacher scheme did not create any statutory or contractual obligations, the teachers could not claim any inherent rights to fixed remuneration.
• Executive Discretion: Under Articles 166 and 162 of the Constitution, the state executive possesses the authority to modify or terminate non-statutory schemes based on administrative convenience and budgetary constraints.
• Distinction from Statutory Rights: The court differentiated between statutory rights (which require legislative backing) and non-statutory, executive measures (which are more flexible and subject to change).
• Non-applicability of Precedents: The cited cases involved statutory rights like pensions or compensation, which differ fundamentally from the guest teacher scheme.

This judgment has significant implications for administrative law and state-executive relations:

• Affirms Executive Flexibility: States retain the authority to adjust, modify, or terminate ad-hoc schemes without legal repercussions, provided no statutory rights are implicated.
• Clarifies Rights Boundaries: Clearly demarcates the boundary between vested statutory rights and temporary executive measures, preventing misuse of constitutional provisions to claim non-existent rights.
• Precedential Value: Sets a precedent for future cases where individuals seek to enforce or extend rights not grounded in statutory or contractual agreements.
• Administrative Efficiency: Empowers state administrations to respond swiftly to emergent issues without being hampered by rigid legal constraints.

4.1 Article 166 of the Constitution of India

4.2 Vested Rights

4.3 Executive Orders vs. Statutory Rights

The Calcutta High Court's decision in ALAUDDIN AHMED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. underscores the paramountcy of executive discretion in managing non-statutory schemes aimed at addressing immediate administrative needs. By ruling that the guest teachers' remuneration adjustments were lawful, the court delineated the limits of constitutional protections concerning temporary executive measures. This judgment reinforces the principle that only rights conferred by statute or contract are immune from unilateral modifications by the state. Consequently, it provides clarity and confidence to state administrations in executing and modifying ad-hoc measures without undue legal constraints, ensuring operational efficiency in public service delivery.