IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the strict adherence to the statutory time limit for approving a Madarsa administration scheme and clarified the jurisdiction of the Committee of Management and the Registrar in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Dixit learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 & 4, Mr. Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 5.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.05.2023 so far as it relates to petitioner, 09.11.2023 and 01.01.2024. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of petitioner in administrating in the institution in question has also been sought.

3. Vide impugned order dated 20.05.2023, the Registrar has stayed earlier approval granted to petitioner’s scheme of administration, vide order dated 09.11.2023 the order passed by petitioner terminating services of opposite party no. 5 have been held to be without jurisdiction and vide order dated 01.01.2024, the District Minority Welfare Officer has imposed single hand operation in the institution in question since petitioner was not including the name of opposite party no. 5 in the salary bills.

4. It has been submitted that the opposite party no. 5 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question on probation vide order dated 31.07.2021 for a period of one year which was thereafter extended on 30.07.2022 for a further period of one year. The services and conduct of opposite party no. 5 not having been found satisfactory, his services were thereafter terminated vide order dated 30.07.2023 by petitioner whereafter the impugned orders have been passed.

5. It has been submitted that since opposite party no. 5 was continuing only on probationary basis, his termination would be referable to Rule 11 of the U.P Non Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016 whereunder petitioner was only under an obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the probationer, which has been done in the present case whereafter finding his services dissatisfactory, his services have been terminated.

6. It is submitted that Rule 11 does not provide any power or jurisdiction to the Registrar to interfere with an order of termination or discontinuance of a probationary teacher once issued by the management of the institution.

7. It is further submitted that earlier petitioner institution had submitted its scheme of administration which was forwarded vide letter 07.08.2021. The State Government had passed order dated 07.01.2022 stipulating that in cases where scheme of administration is pending approval before the U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Board, all proceedings undertaken by the Management of institutions concerned pertaining to disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissals would be without jurisdiction. It is submitted that thereafter the Registrar vide order dated 28.04.2022 approved the scheme of administration of petitioner institution which has thereafter been stayed by means of the impugned order dated 20.05.2023 purportedly in exercise of power under Section 22 (5) of the U.P. Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. It is submitted that once approval has been accorded to the scheme of administration of an institution, there is no provision under law whereby such approval can be stayed by the Registrar. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 20.05.2023 has been passed without jurisdiction.

8. Similarly it has been submitted that since the services of opposite party no. 5 had been terminated in terms of Regulation 11 of the Regulation of 2016, the same were beyond purview of being interfered with by the Registrar and therefore the said order also is without jurisdiction.

9. It has been further submitted that even if assuming that the power exercised by the Registrar by means of order dated 09.11.2023 was under Section 16 of the Regulations, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C/M Madarsa Muhammdiya Faiz-E Rasool and Ano