Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Farooque vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 16 January, 2023
Bench: Manoj Misra, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 541 of 2021
Appellant :- Mohammad Farooque
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Raees Ahamad,Arti Raje,Manish Kumar Pandey,Vijay Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Shyam Prajapati,Mohammad Ali Ausaf
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Sri Ajay Shyam Prajapati for the Committee of Management (respondent no.2).
In Re : C.M. Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2021.
By this application, the appellant has prayed for condonation of 496 days delay in filing the intra-court appeal against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 13.02.2020 in Writ A No.17984 of 2013.
As per the office report, the appeal was within time up to 14.03.2020. It be noted that in between lock-down was imposed and by order of the Apex Court the running of limitation remained suspended for some time. In between this appeal was presented on 26.07.2021. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The office to assign regular number to the appeal.
In Re : Appeal
By this intra-court appeal, the appellant who was seventh respondent in the writ petition has questioned the order of learned single Judge dated 13.02.2020 passed in Writ A No.17984 of 2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management was allowed and the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Registrar Board Madarsa Education, U.P., Lucknow was quashed as being without jurisdiction and liberty was given to the seventh respondent (appellant herein) to take such steps as he may be advised, if he be aggrieved by the order of termination.
A perusal of the record would reveal that the Committee of Management of the Madarsa concerned terminated the services of the seventh respondent (appellant herein). The Registrar Board Madarsa Education, U.P. Lucknow while exercising his powers under clause 34 of the applicable Rules disapproved the order of termination against which the Committee of Management filed Writ A No.17984 of 2013. Learned single Judge upon perusal of the relevant Rule came to the conclusion that it did not confer power upon the Registrar concerned to disapprove disciplinary action taken against an employee/teacher/principal of the Madarsa. Learned single Judge accordingly quashed the order dated 20th March, 2013 as being without jurisdiction and left it open to the seventh respondent to take recourse to such other remedy as may be available to him under law against the order of termination, if he be aggrieved therewith.
Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the Registrar had no power to disapprove the disciplinary action taken by the Committee of Management. He, however, submits that the learned single Judge had come to a conclusion that the Registrar could possibly tender advise/suggestion and therefore a direction be issued upon the Registrar concerned to tender advise or such suggestions as he may deem appropriate.
As order of the learned single Judge has been passed in the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management (second respondent herein) it would not be appropriate for us to issue any such direction as has been prayed for by the appellant who was seventh respondent in the writ petition. In such circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal.
The appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed off.
Order Date :- 16.1.2023.
Rks.
