Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.JAGMOHAN REDDY, S.OBUL REDDY
Mohd.Dilawar Ali - Appellant
Versus
A.P. Muslim Wakf Board - Respondent
Decided On : 08-16-66
WAKF BOARD - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE - DELEGATION OF POWERS - RATIFICATION - ESTOPPEL - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - VALIDITY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERRED - INTERPRETATION AND INFLUENCE ON COURT'S DECISION - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE - CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY OF JUDGEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Deputy Collector in the erstwhile Hyderabad State, was appointed as an Inspecting Officer in the Wakf Board. The Board appointed an Administrative Committee to handle administrative matters, which passed a resolution terminating the services of the appellant and others. The appellant challenged this termination, arguing that the delegation of powers to the Committee was ultra vires, the Committee was not properly constituted, and the subsequent ratification by the Board could not cure the defects.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delegation of powers to the Administrative Committee was invalid, as it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf Act. The Committee was also not properly constituted, as it included outsiders who were not members of the Board. The subsequent ratification by the Board could not cure these defects, as the Board did not consider the appellant's case individually before terminating his services. The court also held that the appellant was not estopped from challenging the termination of his services, as he had applied for a higher post in response to a notification issued by the Committee, which did not amount to an estoppel.
Issues: 1. Whether the delegation of powers to the Administrative Committee was valid. 2. Whether the Administrative Committee was properly constituted. 3. Whether the subsequent ratification by the Board could cure the defects in the Committee's acts. 4. Whether the appellant was estopped from challenging the termination of his services.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delegation of powers to the Administrative Committee was invalid, as it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf Act, which only allowed delegation to the Chairman, members, Secretary, or other officers or servants of the Board. 2. The Administrative Committee was not properly constituted, as it included outsiders who were not members of the Board. 3. The subsequent ratification by the Board could not cure these defects, as the Board did not consider the appellant's case individually before terminating his services. 4. The appellant was not estopped from challenging the termination of his services, as he had applied for a higher post in response to a notification issued by the Committee, which did not amount to an estoppel.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of termination of the appellant's services.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. , dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant on the ground that the order of the Administrative Committee of the Wakf Board was ratified by the Board, and that at any rate the appellant is estopped from denying the authority of the Administrative Committee having applied for being appointed to one of the posts advertised by the Board. The writ petition was filed by the appellant in the following circumstances:- The appellant who was a Deputy Collector in one of the Jagirs of the erstwhile Hyderabad State, namely Paigab, was appointed first in a temporary leave vacancy for one and a half months and subsequently in a vacancy caused by the termination of the services of one Gulam Mohiuddin, an Inspecting Officer, as a probationer and posted to Nizamabad in april, 1957. After that appointment there is nothing on record to show that his probation was declared. However, it is clear that his pay in May, 1961 was Rs. 92 in the grade of Rs. 80-4-100 which indicates that he had earned three increments. Thereafter the Wakf Board appointed an Administrative Committee on 26-3-1961 consisting of one member of the Board and four outsiders for attending to the administrative matters of the Board. There were several such committees appointed one of which was empowered on 13-5-61 to make appointments, dismissals or removal of the staff Pursuant thereto, this committee passed a resolution on 21-5-61 that all the then employees as well as other applicants could apply for appointment to the several posts enumerated by them in that resolution and that the services of any person who has applied and no selected would be deemed to be terminated. Pursuant to this resolution, the Secretary of the Board published a notification in various newspapers including the Siasat on 11-6-61 calling in applications for appointment to the various posts. Apart from this on 15-6-61, the Secretary of the Board wrote to the appellant as follows:- In accordance with the resolution of the Administrative Committee of the Board dated 21/05/1961 this is to inform you that unless you are selected by the selection Board following the advertisement of the posts in the press, your services will be terminated after one month from 20/06/1961, and that you should therefore, apply for the post you hold or desire and appear for interview by the Selection Board. " In compliance with this letter, the appellant made an application on 27-6-61 for the post of Chief Inspecting Officer or Assistant Secretary. It may here be reiterated that the appellant was holding the post of an inspecting officer and this application was made for post carrying higher emoluments than the post he was holding. The interviews were held on 11-7-61 but the applicant was not selected. On 18-7-61 the Administrative Committee passed a resolution terminating the services of the petitioner and others from 19-7-61. This resolution and all the other resolutions of the Administrative Committee were ratified by the Board on 15-10-61 after which the petitioner-appellants services were terminated.
( 2 ) BEFORE our learned brother several contentions were raised, some of which are, (1) that the delegation by the Board of its powers to the Administrative Committee was not valid it being ultra virus the powers conferred on the Board (2) that the Administrative Committee was not properly constituted and consequently all acts of that committee are void ab initio (3) and that the subsequent ratification by the Board cannot cure and validate the acts of the Administrative Committee which were illegal and void while the respondents contend that there is an estoppel by reason of the petitioner-appellant making an application to the Administrative Committee notwithstanding the fact that either the delegation or the act of the committee was ultra virus and void. On the first two contentions, our learned brother held th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
