IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Vivek Chaudhary, Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
Anshuman Singh Rathore - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Edu. New Delhi and Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 6049 of 2023, WRIT - A No. - 29324 of 2019, WRIT - A No. - 3735 of 2012, WRIT - A No. - 5548 of 2014, WRIT - A No. – 3615, 481 of 2020
Decided On : 22-03-2024
JUDGMENT :
| (A) | Reference Order And Introductory Facts |
| (B) | Submissions Of Parties |
| (C) | Preliminary Objection |
| (D) | History Of Madarsas In State Of U.P. And Relevant Provisions Of Madarsa Act And Regulations |
| (E) | Grounds Of Challenge: |
|
| (I) Violative Of Secularism Article 14 |
|
| (II) Violative Of Articles 21 And 21-A |
|
| (III) Conflict Of Madarsa Act And U.G.C. Act |
| (F) | Conclusion |
(A) REFERENCE ORDER AND INTRODUCTORY FACTS
1. A Single Judge Bench hearing Writ A No. 29324 of 2019 (Mohammed Javed versus State of U.P. and others), passed the following order on 23.10.2019: -
2. Sri Alok Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notices on behalf of opposite party no.1 and 3, Sri Afzal Siddiqui, learned counsel has accepted notices on behalf of opposite party no.2.
3. Issue notice to opposite party no.4 returnable at an early date.
4. Petitioner has filed present writ petition claiming that he was appointed as part-time assistant teacher in the year 2011 for the primary Section of respondent no.4 Madrasa Nisarul Uloom Shahzadpur, Akbarpur Post Office, District Ambedkar Nagar on a fix salary of Rs.4,000/- per month, subject to 8% annual increment. He prays that no regular appointment should be made by respondent no.1 to 3 i.e. the State Government, the Madarsa Shiksha Parishad and District Minority Welfare Officer and his service should be regularized. Further prayer is that he should be paid salary as is being paid to the regular teachers.
5. Petitioner places reliance upon the provisions of U.P. Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madarsa Act, 2004) and the regulations framed thereunder. At the time of hearing, perusal of the Madarsa Act, 2004, Section 2(h) defines:-
“Section 2(h):-Madarsa-Education” means education in Arbic Urdu, Parsian, Islamic- studies, Tibb Logic, Philosophy and includes such other branches of learning as may be specified by the Board from time to time.”
6. For the purposes of Madarsa education, a Board is constituted under Section 3 of the Madarsa Act, 2004 which reads :-
“Section 3(3) The Board shall consist of the following members, namely:
(a) a renowned Muslim educationist in the field of traditional Madarsa-Education, nominated by the State Government who shall be the Chairperson of the Board;
(b) the Director, who shall be the Vice-Chairperson of the Board;
(c) the Principal, Government Oriental College, Rampur;
(d) one Sunni-Muslim Legislator to be elected by both houses of the State Legislature;
(e) one Shia-Muslim Legislator to be elected by both houses of the State Legislature;
(f) one representative of National Council for Educational Research and Training;
(g) two head of institution established and administered by Sunni-Muslim nominated by the State Government;
(h) one head of institution established and administered by Shia-Muslim nominated by the State Government;
(i) two teachers of institutions established and administered by Sunni-Muslim nominated by the State Government;
(j) one teacher of an institution established and administered by Shia-Muslim nominated by the State Government;
(k) one Science or Tibb teacher of an institution nominated by the State Government;
(l) the Account and Finance Officer in the Directorate of minority Welfare, Uttar Pradesh;
(m) the Inspector;
(n) an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director nominated by the State Government, who shall be the member Registrar;
7. From perusal of the same, following questions arise for consideration:-
(i) Since the Madarsa Board is constituted for education in ‘Arbic, Urdu, Parsian, Islamic-studies, Tibb Logic, Philosophy and includes such other branches of learning as may be specified by the Board from time to time’, how come persons of a particular religion are provided to be member of the same? It does not talks about exponence in the aforesaid fields, for the purposes of which the Board
Annamalai University, Represented by Registrar versus Secretary to Government
Aruna Roy and others versus Union of India and others (2002) 7 SCC 368
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
Ashutosh Gupta versus State of Rajasthan and others (2002) 4 SCC 34
Bal Patil and another versus Union of India and others (2005) 6 SCC 690
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar
D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab
Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another versus State of M.P. and others (1999) 7 SCC 120
Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai versus Roshan Kumar
Kalyani Mathivanan versus K.V. Jeyaraj and others (2015) 6 SCC 363
Kerala State Toddy Shop Contractors Association versus T.N. Prathapan
Kesavananda Bharati case, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Krishna Iyer in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India
R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay
Rex v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, (1981) 2 WLR 722
S.R. Bommai and others versus Union of India and others (1994) 3 SCC 1
S.S. Sharma and others versus Union of India and others (1981) 1 SCC 397
State of A.P. v. K. Jayaraman, State of A.P. v. K. Jayaraman
State of Haryana v. State of Punjab
State of Kerala and others versus Shibu Kumar P.K. and another
State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute
State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder
Subramanian Swamy versus Director
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others versus State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC 481
Union of India and others versus Manjurani Routray and others (2023) 9 SCC 144
Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd.
University of Delhi v. Raj Singh
Vinoy Kumar versus State of U.P. and others (2001) 4 SCC 734
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari versus Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others (1976) 2 SCC 17
The Madarsa Act, 2004 violates the secular principles of the Constitution and the right to quality education, rendering it unconstitutional.
(1) Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 is not un constitutional – However, provisions of Madarsa Act which seek to regulate higher-education degrees, such as Fazil and Kamil are uncon....
Point of Law : Income from affiliation fees and the examination fees as the term 'fee' itself indicates something that is charged for rendering the service in respect of those two items which is a so....
The fixation of government seat quotas in unaided minority institutions is unconstitutional and violates their fundamental right to autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The right of minority institutions to establish and administer educational institutions includes the right to appoint staff, which cannot be restricted by government regulations.
State-imposed conditions for educational affiliation that contradict AICTE approval undermine institutional autonomy and are unconstitutional.
Point of Law : Law could not be deemed to be unreasonable unless it was totally destructive or annihilative of the right under Art.30(1).
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.