# C/M Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 674
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** J. Writ A No. 8388 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-madarsa-arabiya-shamshul-uloom-sikariganj-ehata-nawan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52712
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Vashishtha Tiwari, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration

## Text

674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 674
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS MANJU RANI CHAUHAN,
J.

Writ A No. 8388 of 2025

C/M Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom
Sikariganj Ehata Nawan & Anr.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Brijendra Kumar Mishra, Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), Sunil Kumar
Tiwari, Vashishtha Tiwari, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
1. Effect of breach of government policy while
issuing
advertisement
for
appointment
in
Madarsa.
2.
Applicability
of
'reasonable
restriction'
provided under Article 30(1) of the Constitution
of India, which guarantee the fundamental right
to
establish
and
administer
educational
institution.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Selection - Post of
Assistant Teacher and Clerk in Madarsa -
Minority institution - Competence of
issuing
person,
the
respondent,
was
challenged on the ground that he was not
even a member of society - Policy adopted
in G.O. dated 20.05.2025 was alleged to
be violated - Effect :

Held : The advertisement has been issued
against the policy of the Government despite
notices to all, including the Manager of the said
institution,
therefore,
any
person
whose
appointment is made pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement cannot claim any legal right to
such an illegal appointment - The respondent
no. 4 has proceeded to issue an advertisement
in violation of the government policy and the
directions as passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
[Paras 23 and 29]

(B) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) -
Fundamental
right
to
establish
and
administer
educational
institution
-
Reasonable restriction - Applicability :

Held : Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India
undoubtedly guarantees to minorities the right
to
establish
and
administer
educational
institutions of their choice; however, this right
cannot be stretched to claim immunity from
reasonable
regulations
framed
to
ensure
academic excellence and maintain standards of
education. Thus, the issuance of advertisement
without waiting for the government to frame the
standards for qualification of teachers in the
madarsa is bad in the eyes of law and in
violation of the aforesaid article. [Para 28] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
SLP No. 8541 of 2024, Anjuman Kadri and
Others v. Union of India and Others, decided on
05.11.2024
;
P.U.
Joshi
and
Others
v.
Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others,
(2003) 2 SCC 632; Chandigarh Administration v.
Usha Kheterpal Waie and others, (2011) 9 SCC
645;
Fertilizer
Corporation
Kamgar
Union
(Regd.), Sindri v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC
568; Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v.
Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 737. -
referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 30(1); Society
Registration Act, 1860; Madarsa Education
Board Act, 2004 and U.P. Nongovernment Arabi
and Farsi Madarsa (Recognition, Administration
and Service) Regulations 2016.

List of Keywords
Post of Assistant Teacher and Clerk; Madarsa;
Nazim-e-Ala/Manager;
Committee
of
Management; Election dispute; General body of
society; Kamil and Fazil degree; Betterment of
student; Safety and security of teacher;
Requisition; Principle of estoppels; Right to
10 All. C/M Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawan & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
675
establish and administer educational institution;
Reasonable
regulation;
Standard
for
qualification of teachers; Guidelines.

Case Arising From
Impugned advertisement dated 29.04.2025 for
selection on the post of Assistant Teacher and
Clerk in Madarsa.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi, Brijendra Kumar Mishra
Advs. For the Respondent : Vashishtha Tiwari,
Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Hare Ram S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1.
Heard
Mr.
Narendra
Kumar
Chaturvedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, Mr. Vashishtha Tiwari, learned
counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Ashish
Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for
respondent no.5 as well as Mr. Hare Ram,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed
with the following prayers :-

"a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the impugned Advertisement
dated 29.04.2025 advertized by Nazime
Ala/Manager (Respondent No. 4) in daily
newspaper Aaj, Gorakhpur for selection of
05 posts of Assistant Teacher Tahtaniya
and 01 post of Clerk in Madarsa Arabiya
Shamshul
Uloom
Sikariganj
(Ehata
Nawab) Gorakhpur (Annexure No. 1 to this
writ petition).

b) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Nazime of Ala/Manager the institution
namely Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom
Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur
(respondent No. 4) not to proceed further
selection process in pursuance of impugned
advertisement dated 29.04.2025 in daily
newspaper Aaj, Gorakhpur."

3. Placing the brief facts of the case,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that a Society in the name of Anjuman
Islamiyan Arbia Shamsul Uloom Village &
Post-Sikariganj, Tehsil-Khajani, DistrictGorakhpur is registered under Society
Registration Act, 1860 on 19.05.1978. The
term of Committee of Management of
Society is three years. It has its own bylaws. The said society has been renewed
from time to time.

4. The said society runs an educational
institution
namely,
Madarsa
Arabia
Shamsul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab)
Gorakhpur. The last elections of the
Committee of Management of the Society
was held in the year 2014, in which the
petitioner no.2 was elected as Sarparast.
Thereafter, dispute arose in the society and
respondent
no.2
by
orders
dated
11/17.10.2019, declared the Committee of
Management of the Society time barred and
directed the respondent no.3 to hold the
elections under Section 25(2) of Society
Registration Act, 1860.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that in the aforesaid order, it had
been specifically stated that Sajjad Husain
was not a member of the society, therefore,
the elections as held on 29.9.2017 and
22.6.2018 were invalid. In the aforesaid
order as passed by respondent no.2, a list of
40 valid members was also placed.
Thereafter, three petitions were filed,
however, no interim order was granted in
any of the petitions and all the three
petitions were dismissed. Accordingly,
respondent no.3 pursuant to the orders
dated 11/17.10.2019, passed by respondent
no.2 declared the election programme but
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the election could not be held for one or the
other reason.

6. Challenging the aforesaid orders,
the petitioner no.2 along with four
members filed Writ-C No.17485 of 2021
(Nawab Rahmat Karim Khan And 4
Others vs. State Of U P And 2 Others),
whereas Writ-C No.43176 of 2019 (C/M
Anjuman Islamiya Arbiya Shamshul
Uloom And Another vs. State Of U.P.
And 4 Others) was filed by respondent
no.4-The
Committee
of
Management
through its Manager Sajjad Hussan. The
writ petition filed on behalf of the
Committee of Management was dismissed
on the ground of alternative remedy,
directing the Committee of Management to
approach the prescribed authority under
Section 25(1) of the Society Registration
Act, 1860 for redressal of their grievances,
whereas the petition filed by the petitioners
which was with a prayer to direct the
District Minority Welfare/Election Officer,
Gorakhpur for holding the elections of
Committee of Management of the Society
in
pursuance
of
the
orders
dated
11/17.10.2019, passed by respondent no.2
within fixed time frame was allowed by
order dated 5.1.2022, directing the election
process to be carried out to its logical
conclusion within a period of 15 days from
that date.

7. In view of the aforesaid order, as no
election
process
was
completed
by
respondent no.3, therefore, fresh election
programme was published, fixing the
election date as 6.7.2022. The respondent
no.3 did not hold the election on 6.7.2022
according to the provisions of by-laws of
the society and in the aforesaid elections,
Eid Mohammad was elected as Nazim-eAla/Manager along with other office
bearers.
A
list
of
Committee
of
Management for the year 2022-2023 was
registered by respondent no.2 on 6.8.2022.
The petitioner no.2 along with other
members filed Writ-C No.24910 of 2022
(Nawab Rahmat Karim Khan And 9
Others vs. State Of U.P. And 9 Others)
challenging the election dated 6.7.2022
before the Hon'ble Court. Although,
interim order dated 6.9.2022 was granted
but ultimately the said petition was
dismissed on 25.11.2024, for want of
prosecution.

8. Consequently, Eid Mohammad
published
the
advertisement
dated
14.6.2023, as modified by 21.6.2023, in
daily news paper "Aaj" for selection on 3
posts in Madarsa Arabiya Shamsul Uloom
Sikariganj
(Ehata
Nawab)
Gorakhpur
(hereinafter referred to as madarsa). As per
Clause 8 of the by-laws, the condition has
been mentioned as to who can be a member
of the society. The petitioners challenged
the above advertisement by means of filing
Writ-A No.11463 of 2023 (C/M Madarsa
Arbiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj And
Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)
and the Court by order dated 30.10.2023,
on the statement of Eid Mohammad (who
has issued the advertisement), mentioned
that the aforesaid advertisement was
subject matter of challenge in the writ
petition and the same has been withdrawn
by the respondents, therefore, the petition
has become infructuous. However, the
Court had granted opportunity to the
petitioners to approach the Court in case
any adverse action is taken, which means
that in case a fresh advertisement is issued,
the petitioners were given the liberty to
approach the Court. Accordingly, the writ
petition was consigned to records. He
further submits that without any elections
being conducted, a list of 27 members of
10 All. C/M Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawan & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
677
Committee of Management of the Society
was published.

9. Despite the said fact that the
respondent no.4 was not declared as
member of the general body of the society
by the respondent no.2 in his orders dated
11/17.10.2019 and the writ filed by
respondent no.4 being Writ-C No.43176 of
2019 (C/M Anjuman Islamiya Arbiya
Shamshul Uloom And Another vs. State
Of U.P. And 4 Others), challenging the
aforesaid order for his membership was
also dismissed by order dated 5.1.2022, the
respondent no.2 registered the list of
Committee of Management of the Society
for the year 2024-2025 on 1.2.2025 with
respondent no.4 as Manager. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that
respondent no.4 is not even a member of
the general body of the society and by
playing fraud he has become Manager of
the Society.

10. As per the Government Order
dated 20.5.2025, direction was issued with
regard to selection of teachers in madarsa,
pursuant to which a letter was issued on
21.5.2025 by Director, Minority Welfare,
U.P. and on 30.5.2025 by respondent no.3,
in which it was specifically mentioned that
the direction issued by the Government has
to be strictly complied, while making
appointments in madarsa. Despite the
aforesaid, the respondent no.4 advertised 5
posts of Assistant Teachers Tahtaniya and
1 post of Clerk on 29.4.2025 in daily news
paper "Aaj", Gorakpur. Eid Mohammad
filed
Writ-C
No.16024
of
2025,
challenging the advertisement as he was in
collusion with respondent no.4 and the
same was dismissed as withdrawn by order
dated 20.5.2025. The aforesaid writ petition
was filed just to mislead the petitioners.
The
petitioners
by
the
letter
dated
16.5.2025
has
taken
the
power
of
Committee of Management of the Society
and the papers have been forwarded to the
respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Despite the
aforesaid, the respondent no.4 is not
restraining the selection process and has
issued interview letter dated 28.5.2025,
fixing 14.6.2025 as the date for interview.
As there was urgency in the matter, the
petition was filed during summer vacations.
The respondent no.4 who is not even the
member of the society, in collusion with
Eid
Mohammad,
playing
fraud
has
assumed himself to be Manager of the
Society, which was registered in January
2025, just for the purpose of issuing
advertisement for selection on the post of
Assistant Teachers and Clerk in the
institution, despite directions of the State
Authorities
and
Government
Orders,
retraining such selections in madarsas.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that when once a Government
Order
has
already
been
issued
on
20.5.2025, in view of the policy decision as
taken by the authorities concerned as
mentioned
in
the
presentation
dated
25.4.2025, restraining appointments till
finality of the terms and conditions
regarding eligibility and qualification of
teachers in such institutions, the respondent
no.4 who was not even a member of the
society as is clear from the orders dated
11/17.10.2019, passed by respondent no.2,
did not have any right to issue the
advertisement. He further submits that such
an advertisement issued as against the
government policy which is illegal and
needs to be quashed.

12. The learned counsel for respondent
no.3 has placed the presentation dated
25.4.2025 as Annexure No.(CA-4) to the
counter affidavit, wherein it has been
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clearly mentioned that the Kamil and Fazil
degree has been declared unconstitutional
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore,
appointments in the madarsa will be done
only after the eligibility and qualification is
decided. The Government Order dated
20.5.2025
mentioning
about
the
presentation dated 25.4.2025 has also been
annexed as Annexure No.(CA-5) to the
counter affidavit, wherein a direction has
been issued which is as follows :-

"3 - अतएि एतिद्िारा ननिेलशत
ककया जाता है की कृपया उपरोक्तानुसार
अपेक्षक्षत कायािाह सुननजचचत कर शासन को
अिगत कराने का कष्ट करे तथा लशक्षकों की
योग्यता का विषयिार कक्षािार पुनननािाारण
करने के उपरान्त ह नई ननयुजक्तयां की जाय।"

13. The same has already been
clarified in the letter dated 21.5.2025 as
issued by the Director which is as follows
:-

"अतएि एतिद्िारा ननिेलशत ककया
जाता है कक कृपया उपरोक्तानुसार अपेक्षक्षत
कायािाह सुननजचचत कर शासन को अिगत
कराने का कष्ट करें, तथा लशक्षकों की योग्यता
का विषयिार कक्षािार पुनननािारण करने के
उपरान्त ह नई ननयुजक्तयों की जाय।"

अतः इस सम्बन्ि में शासन के पत्र
दिनांक 20.05.2025 की प्रनत संिग्नकर प्रेवषत
करते हुए आपको ननिेलशत ककया जाता है कक
शासन के ननिेशों का कडाई से अनुपािन
सुननजचचत करें। संिग्नक - यथोपरर।"

14. In the counter affidavit, the
reference has been given to the order
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated
5.11.2024 in SLP No.8541 of 2024
(Anjuman Kadri and Others vs. Union of
India and Others), wherein the degree of
Kamil and Fazil has been declared as
unconstitutional for which need arose to
issue such notification, restraining fresh
appointments in madarsas. Pursuant to the
aforesaid order as passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the Ministry of Minority
Welfare and Waqf Department vide its
notification
dated
14.5.2025
and
Government Order dated 25.04.2025, has
passed the following instructions which are
as follows :-

".....कालमि एंि फाजजि की डडग्री
को
माननीय
सिोच्च
न्यायािय
द्िारा
असंिैिाननक घोवषत ककए जाने के आिोक में
मिरसा के लशक्षकों की योग्यता का पुनः
ननिाारण अननिाया है। लशक्षकों की योग्यता का
विषयिार कक्षािार पुनः ननिाारण ककया जाए।
ननिाारण के बाि ह नयी ननयुजक्त की जाये।

मिरसे में कायारत लशक्षकों को कक्षा
1-5 अथिा 6-8 में उपयोग करने की व्यिस्था
बनाई जाएं। कायारत लशक्षकों की विषयिार
योग्यता को चचदहन्त कर उन्हें प्रलशक्षक्षत ककया
जाय। त्रब्रज कोसा कराकर लशक्षकों को आिुननक
विषयों से जोडा जाय।"

15. The Secretary, U.P. issued a
direction dated 20.5.2025 which is as
follows :-

".....कालमि एंि फाजजि की डडग्री
को
माननीय
सिोच्च
न्यायािय
द्िारा
असंिैिाननक घोवषत ककए जाने के आिोक में
10 All. C/M Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawan & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
679
मिरसा के लशक्षकों की योग्यता का पुनः
ननिाारण अननिाया है। लशक्षकों की योग्यता का
विषयिार कक्षािार पुनः ननिाारण ककया जाए।
ननिाारण के बाि ह नयी ननयुजक्त की जाये।

मिरसे में कायारत लशक्षकों को कक्षा
1-5 अथिा 6-8 में उपयोग करने की व्यिस्था
बनाई जाएं। कायारत लशक्षकों की विषयिार
योग्यता को चचदहन्त कर उन्हें प्रलशक्षक्षत ककया
जाय। त्रब्रज कोसा कराकर लशक्षकों को आिुननक
विषयों से जोडा जाय।" इसके अनतररक्त
ननिेशक,
अल्पसंख्यक
कल्याण
उ०प्र०,
िखनऊ द्िारा यह िी ननिेलशत ककया गया कक
शासन के ननिेशो का कडाई से अनुपािन
सुननजचचत ककया जाये तथा लशक्षकों की
योग्यता का विषयिार / कक्षािार पुनननिाारण
के उपरान्त ह नई ननयुजक्तयां की जाए।"

16. The aforesaid direction has also
been issued by the Registrar, U.P. Madarsa
Education Board vide its order dated
23.5.2025. Accordingly, Principal/Manager
of the institutions have been directed to
comply with the letters dated 20.5.2025 and
23.5.2025 as issued by the District
Minority Welfare Officer.

17. In compliance with the letters
dated 20.5.2025 and 23.5.2025, the District
Minority Welfare Officer vide its letter
dated
30.5.2025
has
directed
all
Principal/Manager of the institutions to
comply with the aforesaid directions and
restrain
from
making
any
fresh
appointments
in
madarsas.
Recommendations have also been made to
make appropriate amendments in the
Madarsa Education Board Act, 2004 and
U.P. Non-government Arabi and Farsi
Madarsa (Recognition, Administration and
Service) Regulations 2016 for betterment
of students and safety & security of the
teacher and also for making changed in
rearranging the syllabus for the students of
Class 9th to 12th.

18. Learned counsel for respondent
no.3 submits that no requisition has been
submitted by the Manager of the institution
with regard to appointment of the staff. On
a complaint as made by Mohd. Asif Khan,
who pointed about the fraud being played
by the alleged Manager Sajjad Husain for
making appointments over the post of
Assistant Teacher by issuing advertisement
dated 29.4.2025 in Hindi and Urdu
newspapers, he has been sent letters
mentioning about the relevant government
orders and directions, asking him not to
make
any
appointment
and
if
any
appointment is made by the Management
of the institution, then the responsibility of
the same will be with the Manager of the
institution. The letters so issued to the
Manager are dated 30.5.2025, 11.6.2025,
24.6.2025 & 3.7.2025 and earlier also
letters have been issued to all the Principal
and Manager of the institutions informing
about the decision as taken by the State
Government in view of the orders passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

19. Learned counsel for respondent
no.4
has
taken
objection
regarding
maintainability of the writ petition, as the
same is barred by principle of estoppel as
earlier a writ petition, challenging the same
advertisement was dismissed as withdrawn.
Secondly, the President of the Society is
not empowered to file a writ petition
without
resolution
of
Committee
of
Management.

20. While answering the aforesaid
objections,
learned
counsel
for
the
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners submits that liberty had been
granted to the petitioners to approach the
Court in case any adverse action is taken as
the earlier advertisement, which was issued
under the signatures of Eid Mohammad
was withdrawn, therefore, the petition on
this very ground is maintainable, as the
same has been filed as per the liberty
granted by the Court by order dated
30.10.2023 passed in Writ-A No.11463 of
2023 (C/M Madarsa Arbiya Shamshul
Uloom Sikariganj And Another vs. State
Of U.P. And 3 Others).

21. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.4 submits that the respondent no.4 was
duly accepted as Manager of the institution
and, therefore, he has all the rights to issue
the advertisement. Mentioning about the
details of the writ petitions filed, he
submits that the advertisement has been
issued in accordance with law and there is
no illegality in the aforesaid. He further
contends that the selections have already
been made and the persons have joined
services.

22. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

23. The advertisement has been issued
against the policy of the Government
despite notices to all, including the
Manager of the said institution, therefore,
any person whose appointment is made
pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement
cannot claim any legal right to such an
illegal appointment.

24. In the case of P.U. Joshi and
Others
Vs.
Accountant
General,
Ahmedabad and others, (2003) 2 SCC
632, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"10. ... Questions relating to the
constitution,
pattern,
nomenclature
of
posts,
cadres,
categories,
their
creation/abolition,
prescription
of
qualifications and other conditions of
service including avenues of promotions
and criteria to be fulfilled for such
promotions pertain to the field of Policy is
within
the
exclusive
discretion
and
jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course,
to the limitations or restrictions envisaged
in the Constitution of India and it is not for
the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct
the Government to have a particular
method of recruitment or eligibility criteria
or avenues of promotion or impose itself by
substituting its views for that of the State.
Similarly, it is well open and within the
competency of the State to change the rules
relating to a service and alter or amend
and vary by addition/substraction the
qualifications, eligibility criteria and other
conditions of service including avenues of
promotion, from time to time, as the
administrative exigencies may need or
necessitate."

25. In Chandigarh Administration
Vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others,
(2011) 9 SCC 645, the Supreme Court in
paragraph 22 observed:-

"22. It is now well settled that it is
for the rule-making authority or the
appointing authority to prescribe the mode
of selection and minimum qualification for
any recruitment. The courts and tribunals
can neither prescribe the qualifications nor
entrench upon the power of the authority
concerned so long as the qualifications
prescribed by the employer is reasonably
relevant and has a rational nexus with the
functions and duties attached to the post
and are not violative of any provision of the
Constitution, statute and rules. [See J.
Rangaswamy vs. Govt. of A.P. (1990) 1
SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant
10 All. C/M Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawan & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
681
General (2003) 2 SCC 632]. In the absence
of any rules, under Article 309 or statute,
the appellant had the power to appoint
under its general power of administration
and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it
is
considered
to
be
necessary
and
reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said
that
the
prescription
of
Ph.D.
is
unreasonable."

26.
In
Fertilizer
Corporation
Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri vs Union
of India, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 568, it
was also observed:-

"35. ....We certainly agree that
judicial
interference
with
the
administration cannot be meticulous in our
Montesquien system of separation of
powers. The court cannot usurp or
abdicate, and the parameters of judicial
review must be clearly defined and never
exceeded.
If
the
directorate
of
a
government company has acted fairly, even
if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court
cannot, as a super auditor, take the Board
of Directors to task. This function is limited
to testing whether the administrative action
has been fair and free from the taint of
unreasonableness and has substantially
complied with the norms of procedure set
for it by rules of public administration."

27. Reference may also be made to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. Vs.
Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors., reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 737, where the Apex Court
held as follows:-

"16. The scope of judicial review
of governmental policy is now well defined.
Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness,
suitability and appropriateness of a policy
nor are courts Advisors to the executive on
matters of policy which the executive is
entitled to formulate."

28. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of
India undoubtedly guarantees to minorities
the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice;
however, this right cannot be stretched to
claim
immunity
from
reasonable
regulations framed to ensure academic
excellence and maintain standards of
education.
Thus,
the
issuance
of
advertisement without waiting for the
government to frame the standards for
qualification of teachers in the madarsa is
bad in the eyes of law and in violation of
the aforesaid article.

29.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case, this
Court finds that the respondent no.4 has
proceeded to issue an advertisement in
violation of the government policy and the
directions as passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, pursuant to which, guidelines,
directions, letters and notices have already
been issued to the Principal and Manager of
the institutions, restraining them from
making any fresh appointments till finality
of the rules and regulations regarding
qualification & eligibility as already
discussed above. The details as given by
respondent no.3 also supports the case of
the petitioners.

30. In view of the above discussion,
the
advertisement
dated
29.04.2025,
advertized
by
Nazim-e-Ala/Manager
(Respondent No. 4) in daily newspaper
Aaj, Gorakhpur for selection of 05 posts of
Assistant Teacher Tahtaniya and 01 post of
Clerk in Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul
Uloom
Sikariganj
(Ehata
Nawab)
Gorakhpur, is quashed.
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

31. Even if the persons have been
appointed pursuant to an advertisement
which is illegal per se, they have no right to
be heard and cannot raise any objection
when they have been selected pursuant to
an advertisement which has been issued
illegally and is against the policy decision
taken in view of the directions as issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court.

32. Accordingly, the present writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 682
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI,C J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ A No. 9462 of 2025
Connected With Writ A No. 6670 of 2025

Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
Pundarikaksh Dev Pathak & Anr.
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Devesh Kumar Sharma, Pankaj
Kumar Gupta

Issue for Consideration
1. Legality of termination order of cryptic in
nature, passed without considering the reply.
2. Effect of non-disclosure of pendency of
criminal case, took place while the applicant was
juvenile.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Termination - Applicant
was selected and appointed on the post of
P.G.T.
(Mathematics)
in
Jawahar
Navodaaya Vidyalaya, and also paid two
months salary - Charge of concealment of
pendency of criminal case was leveled - At
the time of lodging F.I.R., the applicant
was
aged
about
17
years
-
Reply
submitted
by
applicant
was
not
considered - Effect - Cryptic nature of
termination
order
was
passed
-
Permissibility - Central Administrative
Tribunal set aside the termination order -
Validity challenged :

Held : Considering the cryptic nature of the
order of termination, we are of the opinion that
the authority was bound to examine each and
every aspect of the matter including the defence
put forth by the respondent as per the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Avtar Singh, that was existent
since 2016 and was binding on the department
at the time when services of the respondent
were hurriedly terminated in the year 2021.
Having not done so, we find that the
department has failed to discharge lawful duty
cast on it and, therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal whereby
it has set aside the order of termination. [Para
11]

(B) Service law - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - S.
19 - Termination - At the time of lodging
F.I.R., the applicant was aged about 17
years - Non-disclosure of pendency of
criminal case, how far fatal - Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
while
setting
aside the termination order, remanded the
matter back for fresh consideration -
Validity challenged :

Held : A bare perusal of Section 19(1) of the
Act makes it clear that it starts with a 'nonobstante clause' excluding the applicability of
any other law in the matter of a juvenile and
clearly provides that a juvenile who has
committed an offence and has been dealt with
under the provisions of the Act, shall not suffer
disqualification attaching to a conviction of an
offence under such law. It means that even if a
juvenile is convicted for an offence committed
by him, his conviction would not be treated as a
disqualification - Even conviction of a juvenile