Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Madarsa ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5351 of 2022
Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Madarsa Jamia Ahle Sunnat Fakhrululoom Thru.Manager Noorul Haq Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.Of Minority Welfare And Wakfs And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Kumar Tiwari,Ghulam Mohammad Kamil
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui,Anil Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure - 1) whereby the orders have been granted by the Registrar permitting respondent no.5 to discharge his duties as Principal and the order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure - 2) whereby directions have been issued to handover the charge of the institution to respondent no.5.
Facts, in brief, are that respondent no.5 was posted as a Principal of Madarsa Jamia Ahle Sunnat Fakrul Uloom, Balrampur and on account of certain complaints been made against him, an agenda was drawn on 12.12.2020 with a proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings for the alleged misconducts. It is further claimed that in the General Body of the Committee of Management held on 26.12.2020 it was unanimously decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondent no.5. It is stated that in pursuance to the resolution passed by the committee, a decision was made to take over the charge of Principal from respondent no.5 till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the same was handed over to the senior most teacher of the institution. It is further stated that subsequently an Inquiry Committee was also constituted, however, despite notices respondent no.5 never appeared and co-operated with the disciplinary proceedings. Several instances of respondent no.5 refusing to co-operate in the disciplinary proceedings have been highlighted in the petition. It is stated that respondent no.5 instead of moving an application approached the Registrar by filing a representation on which the impugned orders have been passed.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Registrar has no jurisdiction/power to pass the order of the nature as passed and impugned in the present writ petition. He further argues that on the one hand respondent no.5 is not co-operating with the disciplinary proceedings and on the other hand, orders have been passed directing for handing over the charge to him as a Principal, which is self contradictory and thus, is liable to be set aside.
He has placed reliance on judgment dated 24.01.2017 of this Court in the case of C/M Madarsa Hanfiya Ziyaul Quaran & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. - Writ Petition No.1753 (SS) of 2017 wherein this Court had considered the scope of Rule 34 of the Rules known as U.P. Ashaskiya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarso Ki Manyata Niyamawali.
Learned counsel for respondent no.5 on the other hand argues that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reliefs as claimed; he argues that the conditions of services of the principal and the teachers are governed by the rules known as U.P. Ashaskiya Arbi Aur Farsi Madarsa Manyata, Prashashan Aur Sewa Viniyamawali, 2016. He argues that in terms of the said Rules of 2016, it is incumbent upon any management to take prior permission for carrying out any disciplinary proceedings against an employee as provided under Rule 16. He argues that no such permission was sought for carrying out disciplinary proceedings by the committee of management, and places before this Court the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by District Minority Welfare Officer, Balrampur wherein on the basis of Rules 16 of the 2016 Rules, an order has been passed holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending against respondent no.5 are non est, contrary to law and void.
He argues that in the light of the said order dated 16.08.2021, which has neither been challenged nor agitated in the present writ petition, the question with regard to disciplinary proceedings against respondent no.5 has attained finality. He further argues that once the disciplinary proceedings have been held to be non est and void, the committee of management is not authorized or empowered to not permit respondent no.5 who was admittedly discharging the duties of principal prior to the decision of the committee of management as highlighted in the writ petition. He argues that the orders impugned in the writ petition are only a consequence of the order dated 16.08.2021, which has attained finality.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that order dated 16.08.2021 is without jurisdiction. As regards not challenging the said order, he argues that orders (Annexures - 1 & 2) have been passed on the same analogy as contained in the order dated 16.08.2021, as such, the same need not be challenged by the petitioner and the petitioner is well within his rights to agitate and challenge the order dated 29.06.2022 on its own merits.
Considering the fact that the sole foundation of the writ petition is pendency of disciplinary proceedings against respondent no.5, the said foundation vanishes in view of the order dated 16.08.2021 wherein the disciplinary proceedings against respondent no.5 have been held to be void. Once the said order is not challenged, the same has attained finality in between the parties.
In view of the fact that the very foundation for filing a writ petition stands vanished, no good ground for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition lacks merit at this stage and is accordingly dismissed.
This Court has not gone into the validity of the order dated 16.08.2021 in the present writ petition and the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the said order, if so advised.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022
nishant
