# Mohd. Sajid Khan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 666
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-30
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7665 of 2022
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-sajid-khan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52711
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Adarsh Singh, C.S.C., Indra Raj Singh,
Kailash
Nath
Singh,
Kailash
Singh
Kushwaha, Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, Pranav
Mishra

Issue for Consideration

## Text

666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view of our conclusions regarding the
petitioner's claim under the existing state of
Rules.

30. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is
issued to the Director, Local Body, U.P.,
Lucknow, the Nagar Ayukt of the Nigam
and the Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak in
the office of the Nagar Ayukt of the Nigam,
to ensure amongst themselves, within six
weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
sanction and disbursement of family
pension to the petitioner together with
arrears and interest @ 6% per annum
simple; and, further ensure regular payment
of family pension to the petitioner in
accordance with her entitlement under the
Rules.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

32.
Let
this
judgment
be
communicated to the Director, Local Body,
U.P., Lucknow, the Nagar Ayukt of the
Nigam and the Mukhya Nagar Lekha
Parikshak in the office of the Nagar Ayukt
of
the
Nigam
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 666
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7665 of 2022
Connected with Writ A No. 11878 of 2022 and
other cases

Mohd. Sajid Khan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prabhakar Awasthi, Rajvendra Singh, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Adarsh Singh, C.S.C., Indra Raj Singh,
Kailash
Nath
Singh,
Kailash
Singh
Kushwaha, Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, Pranav
Mishra

Issue for Consideration
1. Legality of order revoking the appointment in
Madarsa on the ground that it was made during
non-existence
of
valid
Committee
of
Management.
2. Permissibility to claim ground of violation of
principle of natural justice, when the dispute
was with regard to jurisdiction of Manager to
appoint.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post of Teacher in
Madarsa - Appointment was made and
financial approval was also granted -
Subsequently, appointment was cancelled
on the ground of non-existence of valid
Committee on the date of appointment -
Validity challenged - No notice was issued
and hence violation of principle of natural
justice claimed - Permissibility :

Held : An argument of compliance of principle
of natural justice that petitioners were not
heard, has no legal basis since the dispute was
not
with
regard
to
any
qualification
of
petitioners. The dispute was with regard to
jurisdiction of Manager to appoint or to forward
the papers for financial approval - Between
20.01.2017 to 24.02.2018 there was no valid
Committee
of
Management
of
Madarsa
concerned,
therefore,
during
said
period,
alleged Manager has no power to appoint any
petitioners or to forward papers for financial
approval - There was no continuity of
Management to protect the acts of the then
Manager undertaken between 20.01.2017 to
24.02.2018. [Paras 16, 17 and 21] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
C/M Vidyawati Higher Secondary School v.
Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,
2005(2) AIILR 10; C/M A.K. College, Shikohabad
v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(1) AWC 792;
10 All. Mohd. Sajid Khan & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others,
2012(8) SCC 748 - referred to.

List of Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 4B.

List of Keywords
Madarsa,
Financial
approval;
Complaint;
Committee of Management; Contrary to law;
Revoke; Resolution; Madarsa Board; Contempt;
Notice; No continuity in Management; Effective
party; No lis to the dispute; Issue of locus;
Principle
of
natural
justice;
Mandatory
requirement; Jurisdiction; Selection Committee;
Litigation; State Exchequer.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 20.04.2022 of Chief
Secretary revoking the appointment of the
Petitioners.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Prabhakar Awasthi,
Rajvendra Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : Manish Goyal,
Additional
Advocate
General;
Rajeshwar
Tripathi, C.S.C.; A. K. Goyal, A.C.S.C.; Pranav
Mishra, Adarsh Singh, C.S.C., Indra Raj Singh,
Kailash Nath Singh, Kailash Singh Kushwaha,
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioners were appointed at
respondent
Madarsa
namely
Madarsa
Quraniya, Gopalpur Shahri, Jaunpur and
respective financial approval was also
granted by the Registrar, U.P. Madarsa
Shiksha Board (for short "Madarsa Board")
with few conditions. Relevant Conditions
No. 6 and 7 are quoted below :-

"6. यह सुननजचचत कर लिया जाये
कक प्रबंि सलमनत एिं प्रिान के प्रनतबंचित
संबंिी नह है।

7. चयन/ननयुजक्त के समय प्रबंि
सलमनत अवििादित थी और ककसी न्यायािय में
प्रबंि सलमनत का काेेई प्रकरण िजम्बत नह
है।"

2. Admittedly a dispute of rival
Committee of Management of concerned
Madarsa has reached up to this Court
earlier and orders were also passed. Details
of same are mentioned in subsequent
paragraphs.

3. A complaint was made in regard to
appointments of petitioners in the month of
May, 2021 that between 20.01.2017 and
24.02.2018, when there was no Committee
of Management of concerned Madarsa,
therefore, any appointment or a process to
forward papers for financial approval
during said period would be illegal and
consequently orders of granting financial
approval were also illegal since said fact
was not brought into the notice of
concerned State-Respondent.

4.
An
inquiry
was
accordingly
conducted and a report dated 09.03.2022
was submitted by Madarsa Board that there
was no illegality in appointment of
petitioners. Meanwhile, a fresh complaint
was made to Chief Secretary, Minority
Welfare
and
Department
of
Waqf,
Government
of
U.P.
in
month
of
February/March, 2022 that appointment of
petitioners were contrary to law and by the
impugned order dated 20.04.2022 and upon
a detailed inquiry financial approval
granted to petitioners' appointment were
revoked mainly on above referred ground.
The said order is impugned in present writ
petitions. Committee of Management of
concerned Madarsa has not challenged the
same.

5. In writ petitions, Respondent-4 is
the
newly
constituted
Committee
of
Management.
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. For adjudication of present cases,
following dates and events would be
relevant :-

(i) The dispute of Committee of
Management of concerned Madarsa has
reached up to this Court, when a challenge
was made to a resolution that Afzal Ahmad
(the
then Manager)
was
unable
to
discharge his duties as Manager of said
Madarsa and was expelled as well as that
the then Deputy Manager and Vice
President
were
also
expelled
and
resolutions were approved by an order
passed by the Assistant Registrar.

(ii) This Court in Writ C No.
3156/2016 has set aside the above referred
impugned order vide judgment dated
16.02.2016 and relevant part thereof is
quoted below :-

"10. As noted above, a specific
finding has been entered in the impugned
order that the petitioners failed to prove
that Afzal Ahmad was incapacitated in
discharging duties attached to his office.
On the other hand, as a matter of fact, it
was found that he had been discharging his
duties as Manager. In such view of the
matter, in the opinion of the Court, the
Assistant Registrar was fully justified in
going into the question whether any
vacancy on the part of Manager came into
existence or not. On a specific query posed
by the Court to the counsel for the
petitioner as to whether there is any
provision under the bye-laws, whereunder
if an office bearer had fallen ill, it would
give rise to a vacancy or the same would
incur a disqualification, so as to warrant
his expulsion, he very fairly admitted that
there is no such provision. He has also not
assailed the finding recorded in the
impugned order that under the bye-laws it
is only the Manager who is competent to
issue agenda and convene a meeting. In
such view of the matter this court does not
find any illegality in the findings rendered
in the impugned order discarding the
proceedings set up by the petitioners as
sham or paper transaction.

11. The other aspect of the matter
is relating to the validity of proceedings set
up by the second respondent dated
25.4.2015,
whereunder
the
Deputy
Manager
and
Vice
President
were
allegedly
expelled
and
well
as
the
proceedings dated 5.5.2015 in which these
posts were filled up. A perusal of the
impugned
order
shows
that
after
considering the case of the petitioners, the
order concludes by directing that necessary
action be taken on the papers submitted by
the second respondent, without going into
the question whether the removal of the
second petitioner from the post of Deputy
Manager and that of Vice President was in
consonance with the provisions of the byelaws and whether a dispute of such nature
requires to be referred to the Prescribed
Authority. Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior
counsel very fairly conceded that in the
order impugned there is no such finding
and therefore suggested that the Assistant
Registrar may be permitted to pass fresh
order on the said aspect.

12. Accordingly, the impugned
order of the Assistant Registrar, in so far as
it fails to consider the validity of the
proceedings
set
up
by
the
second
respondent dated 25.4.2015 and 5.5.2015
and further directs for taking action on the
basis of the documents submitted by the
second respondent cannot be sustained and
is hereby quashed. The first respondent is
directed to re-consider the said aspect of
the matter after giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties.

13. The writ petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated above. No
order as to costs. "
10 All. Mohd. Sajid Khan & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669

(iii) In pursuance of above order,
Additional
Registrar,
Madarsa
Board
passed an order dated 19.12.2016 whereby
list
of
office
bearers
submitted
by
Management through the then Manager,
Afzal Ahmad for year 2016-17 was found
to be valid and an order was passed for its
registration.

(iv) Aforesaid order was challenged
before this Court in Writ C No. 3010/2017
and said order was set aside and writ was
allowed vide order dated 20.01.2017. For
reference, relevant part of order is quoted
below :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

Sri V.K.Singh, learned senior
counsel, assisted by Sri Kailash Nath Singh
has put in appearance on behalf of second
respondent.

The petition is directed against
the order dated 19 December 2016, passed
by first respondent, Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi,
whereby,
the
first
respondent
has
registered the respondent committee of
management.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the impugned order is a
cryptic order and has been passed without
hearing the petitioner. This fact is not
being disputed by the learned senior
counsel,
appearing
for
the
second
respondent.

It is sought to be urged that the
matter be remitted to the first respondent
for a decision afresh.

In regard thereto, the writ
petition is disposed of finally, on consent,
with direction to the first respondent,
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Varanasi to pass a fresh speaking
and
reasoned
order
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is
expected that the order shall be passed,
expeditiously,
preferably,
within
two
months from the date of filing of a certified
copy of this order.

The impugned order dated 19
December 2016 is set aside and quashed.

No costs."

(v) Consequence of above order would
be that w.e.f. 20.01.2017, there was no
Committee of Management of concerned
Madarsa, therefore, Afzal Ahmad the then
Manager has no power to appoint any
petitioner or to forward any paper for
financial approval subsequent to said date.

(vi) Subsequently, a fresh order was
passed by Registrar on 24.02.2018 whereby
the then Committee of Management
(Manager being Afzal Ahmad) was found
to be a legally elected committee and list of
office bearers was recognized. Relevant
part of order dated 24.02.2018 is quoted
below :-

"पत्रािि में उपिब्ि प्रपत्रों के
पर क्षण से पाया गया कक श्री फह म अहमि जो
कक संस्था के ककसी कोदट के सिस्य तक नह ं हैं,
स्ियं
एजेण्डा
जार
करते
हुए
दिनांक
24.05.2017 को चुनाि कराया जाना प्रिलशात
ककया है. जबकक उनकी कमेट आउटगोइंग
कमेट नह ं है और न ह िे संस्था के ककसी कोदट
के सिस्य ह है। जो व्यजक्त संस्था का सिस्य
तक नह ं है िह संस्था में सेक्रेटर / प्रबन्िक
कैसे हो सकता है? उनके द्िारा प्रस्तुत की गयी
चुनाि सम्बन्िी सार प्रकक्रयाएं अविचिक एिं
ननयमािि के विपर त होने के कारण
ग्राह्मयोग्य नह ं है और न ह उसे विचिमान्य
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ककया जा सकता है। ऐसी जस्थनत में श्री फह म
अहमि द्िारा प्रस्तुत चुनाि सम्बन्िी कायािाह
ननयमािि के अनुरूप न होने के कारण ननरस्त
ककये जाने योग्य है, जजसे ननरस्त ककया जाता
है।

श्री अफजाि अहमि बतौर सेक्रेटर /
प्रिन्िक की हैलसयत से अपने आिेिन पत्र के
साथ चुनाि की कायािाह दिनांक 25-05-2017,
चुनाि अचिकार ननयुक्त करने सम्बन्िी
प्रस्ताि, चुनाि के सम्बन्ि में सिस्यों को
सूचना िेजे जाने सम्बन्िी प्रमाण पत्र यथा
पोस्ट आकफस के रसीि की छायाप्रनत, समाचार
पत्र में प्रकाशन की प्रनत, चुनाि में सािारण
सिा के जीवित 86 सिस्यों में से 54 सिस्यों ने
िाग लिया है, जजनके हस्ताक्षर की छायाप्रनत
एिं चुनाि कायािाह दिनांक 25-05-2017 के
साथ सािारण सिा के सिस्यों की सूची एिं
प्रिन्ि सलमनत की सूची िषा 2017-18 प्रस्तुत
करते हुए पंजीकृत करने का अनुरोि ककया।
संस्था में ननविािादित प्रबन्ि सलमनत का
वपछिा चुनाि दिनांक 25-05-2012 को हुआ था,
जजसमें श्री अफजाि अहमि की प्रबन्ि कमेट
चयननत हुई थी, जजसका कायाकाि 05 िषा था।
कायाकाि समाप्त होने पर अगिा चुनाि कराने
का अचिकार आउटगोइंग कमेट श्री अफजाि
अहमि को है और उन्ह ं के द्िारा संस्था के
प्रबन्ि सलमनत का अगिा चुनाि दिनांक 2505-2017 को संस्था के पंजीकृत ननयमािि के
अनुसार कराकर चुनाि सम्बन्िी सारे प्रपत्र
कायाािय में प्रस्तुत ककये गये हैं।

पत्रािि पर उपिब्ि अलििेखों के
अनुसार कायाािय आिेश दिनांक 09-09-2016
को ककसी के द्िारा िी, कह ं कोई चुनौती नह ं
ि गयी है। माननीय उच्च न्यायािय के आिेश
दिनांक 16.02.2016 तथा कायाािय आिेश
दिनांक 09.09.2016 के अऩुपािन में ननिााचन
दिनांक 25.05.2017 में चयननत प्रबंिक श्री
अफजाि अहमि के संस्थआ प्रबंिक होने का
तथ्य पुजष्टत होता है।

अतः पत्रािि में उपिब्ि प्रपत्रों एिं
चुनाि सम्बन्िी प्रपत्रों के पर क्षण करने पर
पाया गया कक श्री अफजाि अहमि द्िारा
प्रस्तुत चुनाि सम्बन्िी प्रपत्र संस्थआ के
ननयमािि के अनुरूप होने के कारण स्िीकार
योग्य है। सा०रजज०एक्ट की िारा 4क के
अन्तगात श्री अफजाि अहमि द्िारा प्रस्तुत
प्रपत्रों पर ननयमानुसार कायािाह ककये जाने के
आिेश
दिये
जाते
है।
माननीय उच्च न्यायािय, इिाहाबाि में
योजजत या०सं० 3010/2017 में पाररत आिेश
दिनांक 20.01.2017 के अऩुपािन में प्रकरण का
ननस्तारण ककया जाता है।"

(vii) The effect of above order would
be that the Committee of Management as
existing
before
20.01.2017
became
operative
w.e.f.
24.02.2018,
however,
admittedly
between
20.01.2017
and
24.02.2018, there was no valid committee.

(viii) In the impugned order, on basis
of above reference and factual findings,
appointment of petitioners and order to
grant financial approval of petitioners were
found illegal.
10 All. Mohd. Sajid Khan & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671

7. This Court vide a detailed interim
order dated 19.05.2022 has granted stay of
impugned order with a direction that
petitioners shall be paid their respective
salaries.
Contempt
proceedings
were
initiated on a ground that referred order
was not complied.

8. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned
counsel for petitioners has not disputed
above referred facts i.e. order dated
16.02.2016 passed by this Court, order
dated 19.12.2016 passed by Registrar,
Madarsa Board, order dated 20.01.2017
passed by this Court and order dated
24.02.2018 passed by Registrar, Madarsa
Board.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners has
submitted that petitioners were effective
parties, therefore, they were required to be
heard but undisputedly, no notice was
issued to them before the impugned order
was passed.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners
further submitted that in earlier inquiry
conducted by Registrar, Madarsa Board,
same complaint was found baseless and
appointment of petitioners and order of
financial approval were found to be legal,
therefore, there was no legal justification to
take a contrary view in fresh inquiry.

11.
Once
the
Committee
of
Management
(Manager
being
Afzal
Ahmad) who has appointed petitioners and
has send papers for financial approval were
found
subsequently
to
be
a
legal
Committee, therefore, it's effect would be
that it would be deemed to be remained in
operation
between
20.01.2017
and
24.02.2018 and any act done in between
would also be justified. Learned counsel
has placed reliance on Committee of
Management,
Vidyawati
Higher
Secondary
School
Vs.
Assistant
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits
reported in 2005(2) AIILR 10.

12. Per contra, Sri Manish Goyal,
learned
Senior
Advocate/Additional
Advocate
General
assisted
by
S/Sri
Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned C.S.C., A.K.
Goyal, learned Additional C.S.C. appearing
for Respondents - 1, 2, 3 and 5 as well as
Sri
Pranav
Mishra,
Advocate
for
Respondent-4,
have
supported
the
impugned order.

13. They have submitted and also
mentioned
in
written
submissions
submitted by the State that:-

(a) The Selection Committee was
not validly constituted particularly in view
of the fact that there was no Manager in the
Institution and as per the Rules no
substitution on the post of Manager is
permissible. Moreover, the person claiming
himself to be the Manager and who in fact
signed
as
Manager
unequivocally
represented to the Inspector/Registrar,
U.P. Madarsa Education Board, Lucknow
by filing an affidavit on 10.03.2017 stating
that he is Manager and there is no dispute
relaing to the managerial affairs of the
Institution i.e., pending before any Court.

(b) There is no continuity in the
Management once the dispute has traveled
up till this Hon'ble Court and the matter
has been remitted not once but twice and
was
pending
consideration
with
the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Varanasi at the time of the
appointment of the petitioners. As such the
case law relied upon by the petitioner in
the matter of Committee of Management,
Vidyawati Higher Secondary School Vs.
Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chits reported in 2005(2) AIILR 10 will
not be applicable.

(c) The reliance placed upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
decision of Committee of management
A.K. College, Shikohabad Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2000(1) AWC 792 is
distinguishable
inasmuch
as
it's
Paragraph-35 clearly states that Office
Bearers of the Committee of management
does not continue indefinitely.

(d) In the present matter the list
of Office Bearers remained in dispute on
account of which the Committee of
Management came in dispute which means
orders cannot be executed and policy
decision could not be taken. Moreover, the
decision of this Court in A.K. College
(Supra) does not address the issue in hand
as it does not deal with the consequences
and impact of Section 4B of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. Section 4B came on
the Statute Book by U.P. Act No. 23 of
2013.

(e) They have relied upon the
decision in the matter of Jainendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(8) SCC
748 wherein the Supreme Court after
taking into account various precedents has
clarified the law by formulating the
cardinal principles on the order of
appointment
obtained
fraudulently
or
through suppression of facts.

14. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the material available
on record.

15. In the present cases, petitioners,
who are Teachers, appointed in Madarsa
concerned and financial approval was also
granted, are before this Court.

16. The reason assigned in impugned
order to set aside the financial approval was
that at relevant time there was no valid
Committee of Management of Madarsa
concerned. The effective party who could
show that the findings were incorrect or
wrong was the Committee of Management.
However, they have not approached this
Court. Probably petitioners have no lis to
the dispute since it is between Committee
of Management and concerned respondents
who have passed orders as well as it would
be outcome of orders passed by this Court
in earlier round of writ petition. Still since
an interim order is passed, therefore,
ignoring the issue of locus, the Court has
proceeded to decide these matters on merit
with observation that an argument of
compliance of principle of natural justice
that petitioners were not heard, has no legal
basis since the dispute was not with regard
to any qualification of petitioners. The
dispute was with regard to jurisdiction of
Manager to appoint or to forward the
papers for financial approval, therefore,
there was no mandatory requirement to
hear the petitioners before the impugned
order was passed.

17. In the preceding paragraphs of this
judgment some dates and events are
mentioned elaborately and without any
doubt the Court can conclude that between
20.01.2017 to 24.02.2018 there was no
valid
Committee
of
Management
of
Madarsa concerned, therefore, during said
period, alleged Manager has no power to
appoint any petitioners or to forward papers
for financial approval. It could not be a
case that the then Manager of Committee of
Management was not aware about the said
orders and that he has no power or
jurisdiction to appoint any petitioners or to
forward their papers for financial approval
between said period.

18. In entire writ petition there is no
averment or any document is placed on
10 All. Mohd. Sajid Khan & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
673
behalf of petitioners that their appointments
were made by a duly constituted selection
committee and it cannot be disputed that
the concerned rule prescribed that there
shall be a selection committee consisting of
President and various Members including
two Educationalists. Even there is no
averment in writ petitions in that regard.

19. The only argument which can be
considered
is
that,
whether
due
to
subsequent
order
dated
24.02.2018
whereby the earlier committee was found
to be a legal committee, the act undertaken
between 20.01.2017 to 24.02.2018 would
be deemed to be valid on ground that
Committee
of
Management
can
be
considered to be continued, i.e., there was a
continuity in Management once the dispute
was settled by order dated 24.02.2018
passed by Registrar.

20. The aforesaid argument may have
some legal value if Management has done
something
prior
to
said
date
and
consequential orders were passed by
Registrar concerned but in the present cases
undisputedly
the
then
Manager
of
Committee of Management of Madarsa
concerned despite having knowledge that
the committee was not longer in existence
and by order dated 20.01.2017 this Court
has set aside the order dated 19.12.2016
whereby the list of office bearers submitted
by Management through the then Manager
was found to be valid, therefore, w.e.f.
20.01.2017 the order to approve the list of
office bearers was set aside as such there
was no valid committee w.e.f. 20.01.2017
and the then Manager had knowledge of
same since he was the party in aforesaid
litigation before this Court and despite
knowledge
of
said
fact
and
legal
consequence of order passed by this Court,
without any authority and jurisdiction the
then
Manager
proceeded
to
appoint
petitioners or to refer the documents for
financial approval.

21. In view of above, the Court is of
the opinion that there was no continuity of
Management to protect the acts of the then
Manager undertaken between 20.01.2017
to 24.02.2018.

22. The objection of State is also valid
since it is the State who has to pay salary to
petitioners from State Exchequer and,
therefore, the conditions mentioned in
order of financial approval would also
become relevant, specifically the conditions
no. 6 and 7, which have already been
mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

23. As referred above, undisputedly
when selection was conducted or papers
were sent for financial approval, there was
a dispute of Committee of Management,
rather there was an order whereby
recognition of office bearers of Committee
of Management of Madarsa concerned was
set aside and matter was remitted to
Registrar to pass fresh order. Therefore,
there was clear violation of said condition
and State was within its jurisdiction on
basis of report to take action, i.e., to set
aside the financial approval. I, therefore,
find no illegality in impugned orders.

24. The writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

25. However, it is made clear that this
order will not come in way if present
Committee of Management proceed to
initiate
process
for
appointment
of
Teachers in accordance with law through a
selection committee in which petitioners
will have liberty to participate, if they
fulfill the conditions.
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