IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
I. Jainulabudeen – Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government – Respondent
W.P.Nos.21849, 19008 and 19526 of 2025 And W.M.P.Nos.24629, 24630, 21289, 21832, 49527, 46346 and 46350 of 2025
Decided On : 10-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for writs regarding completion of probation (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding employment practices and autonomy of wakf board (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. importance of following legal procedures for appointments (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. consequences of arbitrary decisions on long-serving employees (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final ruling against the impugned order (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
W.P.No.21849 of 2025 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent ending with Proc No.10773/E1/2006 dated 23.05.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to declare the completion of probation of petitioners and to disburse all the monetary and attendant benefits in light of the proceedings of the third respondent dated 26.07.2018 in Proc No.10773/ E1/2006-2.
2.W.P.No.19008 of 2025 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to the declare the completion of probation period of the petitioners with effect from 27.06.2018 in terms of its proceedings in ref: Proc.10773/E1/2006-2 dated 26.07.2018, being the appointing authority, in accordance with rule 10 of the Tamilnadu State Wakf Board Service Regulation, 1971 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
3.W.P.No.19526 of 2025 has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Proc.No.10773/E1/2006 dated 23.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to declare the probation of the petitioners and disburse all the service and monetary benefits strictly in conformity with the proceedings of the second respondent in Proc. No.10773/E1/2006-2 dated 26.07.2018, within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.
4.Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order.
5.The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Wakf Board is an autonomous body constituted as per the provisions of the Wakf Act , 1995 conferred with the power to appoint and engage its own staff and the terms and conditions of the service of the staff is governed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Service Regulations, 1971. The Wakf Board in order to fill the vacancies to the post of Junior Assistants invited applications through paper publication in every district from those enrolled in the employment exchange. Upon satisfaction of the educational qualification and the performance of the respective candidates, 17 persons were appointed as Junior Assistants, out of which, four persons were employed through employment exchange, 13 persons were employed through paper publication.
6.The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that in the year 2017, the Wakf Board sought for permission to fill up various posts in the Wakf Board and to regularize the persons who were already appointed during the years 2007 – 2010 and in response to the same, the Government vide proceedings dated 04.05.2017 informed that Wakf Board is an autonomous body and the appointing authority to the post of Junior Assistants in the Wakf Board and therefore it is for the Wakf Board to regularize the services and the Government to grant permission to regularize the services of the employees of the Wakf Board does not arise. Thereafter the Wakf Board passed a resolution dated 26.07.2018 for regularization of the services of the 13 persons who were employed through paper publication as Junior Assistants. Thereafter the Wakf Board once again sought for clarification from the Government and the Government in the year 2025, issued order as if the appointment of the petitioners is contrary to Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act , 1959.
7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.21849 of 2025 submi
The court emphasized that employment practices must provide equal opportunity and cannot unjustly disrupt established employment after a substantial period.
The Chief Executive Officer of a Wakf must issue notifications for appointments made by the Wakf Board unless serious allegations of moral turpitude are present against individuals selected.
The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the nomination to the Waqf Board as he failed to demonstrate any legal grievance, and the nomination complied with the Waqf Act's provisions.
Appointments in public service must adhere to constitutional mandates and established procedures; failure to do so renders such appointments void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of clear guidelines for the appointment of Mutawalli, leading to biased and arbitrary decisions by the Wakf Board, and the intervention of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules, and the rejection of an appointment must be in accordance with the applicable rul....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.