Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, JJ.
Rehan Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 769 of 2023
Decided On : 13-05-2024
INTRA COURT APPEAL - DISMISSAL OF TEACHER - U.P. Madarsa Education Board Act, 2004; Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016 - The court discussed the provisions of the U.P. Madarsa Education Board Act, 2004, particularly Section 22(5), which outlines the authority of the Madarsa Education Board in approving the Scheme of Administration. The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must adhere to the approved Scheme, and any actions taken without proper authority are void. The court also highlighted the importance of natural justice and the need for reasoned decisions in administrative actions, which influenced its decision to set aside the Registrar's order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Assistant Teacher at Madarsa Sayeedul-Uloom, was dismissed after failing to prove the authenticity of his 'Hafiz Certificate.' The dismissal followed disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Committee of Management after the certificate was deemed non-existent by the issuing institution. The appellant challenged the dismissal, leading to a series of legal proceedings, including a writ petition that resulted in his reinstatement, which was later contested by the Committee of Management.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar's order reinstating the appellant was fundamentally flawed as it did not consider the eligibility criteria based on the date of application submission and failed to address the issues of natural justice and the authenticity of the 'Hafiz Certificate.' The court determined that the Registrar had overlooked critical legal principles and thus set aside the reinstatement order, remanding the matter for a fresh decision.
Issues: The primary issues included the validity of the 'Hafiz Certificate,' the authority of the Registrar to approve the Scheme of Administration, and whether the disciplinary actions taken by the Committee of Management were lawful under the U.P. Madarsa Education Board Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that eligibility for teaching positions must be assessed based on the qualifications at the time of application submission. It emphasized that any disciplinary action must comply with the approved Scheme of Administration and that decisions must be reasoned and adhere to principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to set aside the Registrar's order and remanding the case for a fresh hearing, allowing all parties to present their arguments.
JUDGMENT :
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
1. The instant intra Court Appeal has been filed by the appellant-respondent no. 4 under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of the Court, 1952), against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Writ-A No. 11817 of 2023 (Committee of Management Madarsa Sayeedul-Uloom (Behka) Post Office Puramufti, District- Allahabad through its Manager and another versus State of U.P. and others), by means of which the Hon’ble Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management, Madarsa Sayeedul-Uloom (Behka) Post Office Puramufti, District- Allahabad through its Manager Mohd. Ishaq (hereinafter referred to as ‘Committee of Management’).
2. Facts that are culled out from the pleadings and the material available on record before this Court that the appellant herein was appointed as Assistant teacher in Tahtaniya (Class 1 to 5) in the Madarsa Sayeedul- Uloom (Behka) Post Office Puramufti, District- Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Madarsa’) on 25.03.2005, based upon his eligibility for the post i.e. the ‘Hafiz Certificate’ said to have been issued in the year 1992 by the Madarsa Islahul Muslemeen, Alipurjeeta, District Kaushambi, as claimed by the appellant. It has not been disputed by the contesting parties in the present case that the appellant has been working as an Assistant Teacher in the Madarsa (respondent no. 4) since the date of his appointment.
3. The District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj vide letter dated 22.02.2022 directed the Madarsa concerned to furnish a report as desired by the Registrar, U.P. Board of Madarsa Education, Lucknow vide his letter dated 14.02.2022 in respect of the teachers appointed on the basis of the ‘Hafiz Certificate’ that from which institution the said certificate was issued and about the issuing authority, for its onward transmission to the Registrar (respondent no. 2). During the said process, the appellant herein was required to provide the aforesaid ‘Hafiz Certificate’ in original but he failed to produce the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the Committee of Management (respondent no. 4) is that upon verification from the Madarsa Islahul Muslemeen, Alipurjeeta, District Kaushambi (respondent no. 6) from where the appellant claimed to have obtained the ‘Hafiz Certificate’, but the said Madarsa (respondent no. 6) denied the issuance of the said ‘Hafiz certificate’. As a consequence of the same, the Committee of Management of the Madarsa (respondent no. 4) initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Accordingly the appellant was placed under suspension and a show cause notice was issued, to which he duly replied and since the reply filed by the appellant was not found to be satisfactory, a Charge-Sheet dated 05.08.2022 was issued by the Committee of Management (respondent no. 4). The appellant submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet on 29.08.2022 and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 06.09.2022 holding therein that the appellant could not prove the genuineness of the ‘Hafiz Certificate’. On the basis of the said enquiry report, a resolution by the Committee of Management (respondent no. 4) is stated to have been passed on 17.09.2022 for the dispensation of the services of the appellant and consequently the order of dismissal from service was communicated to the appellant on 21.09.2022.
4. Against the aforesaid dismissal, the appellant herein preferred a writ petition being Writ-A No. 19669 of 2022 (Rehan Ahmad versus Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education and others), which came to be disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2023 in the wake of the fact that there existed an alternative remedy available in terms of paragraph no. 11 of the ‘Scheme of Administration’. The operative portion the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ-A No. 19669 of 2022 is quoted herein-below:
Disciplinary actions in educational institutions must comply with established legal frameworks and principles of natural justice, and any actions taken without proper authority are rendered void.
Disciplinary proceedings against educational staff require an approved Scheme of Administration; absence of such approval renders termination orders void.
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 ....
Long-standing appointments cannot be invalidated without evidence of wrongdoing, emphasizing stability in employment.
An appointment secured through fraudulent means, such as a forged educational certificate, is void ab initio, and the individual is not entitled to any employment benefits or protections under the la....
The judgment establishes that allegations of fraud and forgery must be supported by evidence, and impugned orders lacking such evidence are bad for want of authority of law.
The withdrawal of engagement must follow the proper procedure as outlined in the relevant government order, and the principle of res-judicata applies to writ petitions.
Appointments obtained through forged documents are void ab initio, and failure to comply with verification processes undermines claims to employment despite long service, reaffirming minority institu....
Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, where it is established that appointment is obtained by fraud, cannot allow fraud to perpetuate by accepting a plea of a person t....
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
