IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Imtiyaz Ahamad – Appellant
Versus
The State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A No. 11509 of 2023
Decided on : 31-10-2023
The Court held that the fifth respondent, Shoeb Ahmad Khan, was not eligible to be appointed as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of the institution in question as he did not possess the relevant eligibility. The Court set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur dated 6.6.2023, which had approved the appointment of the fifth respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Imtiyaz Ahamad, challenged the appointment of the fifth respondent, Shoeb Ahmad Khan, as an Officiating Principal of an Intermediate College recognized and governed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner claimed that the fifth respondent did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Principal of a recognized Intermediate College as per the qualification prescribed in Appendix-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The fifth respondent, on the other hand, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Committee of Management as well as District Inspector of Schools to make payment of salary to him in the grade of Principal of a recognized aided Intermediate College as admissible in law as a consequence to his appointment as Officiating Principal of the Institution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the fifth respondent did not possess the relevant eligibility for being appointed as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of the institution in question. The Court held that the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur dated 6.6.2023, which had approved the appointment of the fifth respondent, was liable to be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the fifth respondent, Shoeb Ahmad Khan, possessed the relevant eligibility for being appointed as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of the institution in question? 2. Whether the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur dated 6.6.2023, which had approved the appointment of the fifth respondent, was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the fifth respondent did not possess the relevant eligibility for being appointed as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of the institution in question as he did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Principal of a recognized Intermediate College as per the qualification prescribed in Appendix-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur dated 6.6.2023, which had approved the appointment of the fifth respondent.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, Sri Naushad Alam, learned counsels for the writ petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for the State official respondents as well as Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel, who appears for the respondent nos.4 and 5.
2. Since a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the rival parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with their consent the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that there is an institution by the name of S.M. National Inter College Machhati, District Ghazipur, fourth respondent, which is a minority institution conferred with certain protection and benefits under Article 30 of the Constitution of India recognised and aided under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (In short 1921, Act) and the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 stands applicable. As per the writ petitioner the said institution has his own approved scheme of administration. The writ petitioner herein claims to be working as Lecturer (Physics) in the institution in question since 1997. It is the case of the writ petitioner that seniority list was published on 3.2.2021 wherein the name of the writ petitioner found place at serial no.2 as whereas the name of the fifth respondent is at serial no.8.
4. Records reveal that one Sri Subhanullah Khan was appointed as the Principal of the institution in question however six months before his superannuation he proceeded on medical leave resulting to the fact that a vacancy stood arisen and one Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan was handed over the officiating charge of the Principal in question and her signatures were also attested 16.3.2021. One Sri Quamaruddin who claimed himself to be the senior most Lecturer in the seniority list challenged the appointment of Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan as Officiating Principal while filing a Writ-A No.6467 of 2021 which was dismissed on 16.7.2021.
5. It has come on record that Sri Subhanullah Khan superannuated on 31.3.2022. Thereafter, Smt. Farhat Mirza Khan resigned on 6.5.2022, Committee of Management proceeded to resolve to grant the charge as Officiating Principal of the institution in question to the fifth respondent, Shoab Ahamd Khan and he was accorded joining and signatures were attested on 17.6.2022.
6. The writ petitioner herein questioned the officiation of the fifth respondent as a Principal in the institution in question while filing Writ-A No.13591 of 2022, Imtiyaz Ahamad vs. State of U.P. & 4 others as whereas the fifth respondent, preferred Writ-A No.21404 of 2022, Shoeb Ahmad Khan vs. State of U.P. and 3 others for a mandamus directing the Committee of Management as well as the District Inspector of Schools to accord payment of salary to him in the grade of Principal and not to interfere in his functioning. Both the writ petitions were consolidated together and were decided by a common order on 14.3.2023 which is quoted herein under :
2. Mr. Khan who happens to be the petitioner
Ashok Kumar Malhotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2018 (8) ADJ 511.
All Saints High School v. Govt. of A.P. [(1980) 2 SCC 478]
Mohd. Ayub Khan vs. State reported in 2008 (10) ADJ 477
Sindhi Education Society & Anr Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors
SK. MD. Rafique vs. Managing Committee
Secretary Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T. Jose and others (2007) 1 SCC 386
The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers Society & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr
The eligibility criteria for appointment as an Officiating/Incharge Principal of an Intermediate College recognized and governed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the right of a religious minority to administer an educational institution of its choice, including the appointment of a Headmaster, is of....
Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 applies to minority institutions, mandating prior approval from the DIOS for non-teaching staff appointments to ensure compliance with stat....
Linguistic Minority Institutions are entitled to administer appointments autonomously under Article 30 of the Constitution, and the designation must be upheld in light of administrative integrity and....
The state has the authority to regulate the qualifications and service conditions of teachers in minority institutions to ensure educational standards, and the identification of surplus teachers is a....
Minority institutions have the right to select staff but must ensure fair opportunity for all eligible candidates, aligning with constitutional principles.
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.