Ajay Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8405 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 26 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148853
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - A No. - 63580 of 2015
 
Court No. - 38
 
HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner, who is eligible and having minimum educational qualification to the post of lecturer, has made an application pursuant to the advertisement issued by the 5th respondent in newspaper on 25.08.2013 and 27.08.2013. Accordingly, 29 applications were received by the 5th respondent. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the 5th respondent has issued notices to all 29 candidates fixing date for interview on 08.12.2013. In response to the same, 28 candidates have participated before the selection committee on 08.12.2013. Based on merits and overall assessment, the selection committee has recommended name of the petitioner for appointment in the post fell vacant consequent to voluntary retirement of one Faheem Ahmed and the recommendation of the selection committee was accorded and the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 08.01.2014 by the 5th respondent - institution. Hence, he joined on 20.01.2024 and imparted education to the students.

3. As the 5th respondent - institution being minority institution is entitled to make selection as per Section 16 FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. (herein after referred to as "the Act, 1921"). Accordingly, the management has sent proposal to the 4th respondent to pass orders as per Section 16 FF (4) of the Act, 1921. When the said proposal was not considered by the 4th respondent, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.21054 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 16.04.2015 with the following directions:

"The National Inter College, Hazi Abfdul Aziz Road, Pilikothi, Varanasi which is a minority institution made advertisement for appointment of lecturer in Economics. The petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement in the newspaper on 25.8.2013. The petitioner was selected and the papers has now been forwarded to the DIOS for its approval on 18.2.2014. More than one year has passed but no decision as been taken so far.

The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the DIOS may pass appropriate order upon selection of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him."

4. When the said directions were not complied by the respondents, the petitioner pressed the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. After receipt of notice in the contempt proceedings, the respondents have passed the impugned order rejecting the approval of the appointment of the petitioner on irrelevant considerations.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Based on the above facts, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made his submissions mainly on the ground that the impugned order is contrary to Section 16 FF (4) of the Act, 1921. To support his contention, the said provision is extracted below:

"Section 16 FF (4) - The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this Section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible."

7. As per above said provision, the authorities are entitled to withhold the selection made by the minority institution only on the ground of not having qualification. Except that, the authorities cannot withhold appointment made by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner. In the instant case, the respondents without considering the eligibility and qualification to the post of lecture as prescribed in the Act, 1921, have passed the impugned order on several grounds mainly on the ground of non-compliance/non-placing material showing service of notice to the 29 candidates with registered post and also non-mentioning of registration and address of sending postal in the record. Further, it has also mentioned that medium of details with regard to information sent to the members of the selection committee by the management is also not placed. The management has placed list of the candidates who were interviewed, the quality points were not mentioned in that list. Hence, the 5th respondent has made several lapses in the selection process and the same is contrary to Section 16 FF and Regulation 17 (a) of Chapter II of the Regulations under the Act, 1921.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly stressed his argument that rejection order is based on some irregularities but when the Act, 1921 specifies and gives power to the respondents only on the ground of not having qualification and eligibility, they are entitled to withhold appointment of the petitioner. But in the instant case, the respondents have passed the rejection order only on the ground of pressing the provisions of the Contempt of the Courts Act by the petitioner for non-implementation of the earlier order passed in Writ-A No.21054 of 2015.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as per records placed by the 5th respondent, it clarifies that the 5th respondent has issued notice to all 29 candidates and it is also not in dispute that out of 29 candidates, 28 candidates were present in the interview which was held on 08.12.2013. Further, in fact Hon' ble Supreme Court has considered the very same aspect in the case of Manager, Corporate Educational Agency Vs. James Mathew and others (2017) 15 SCC 595 and observed that once the management of a minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority community to lead the institution, the right provided under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India is absolute.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further relied on the observations made by this Court in the case of Karunesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (4) AWC 3410 wherein this Court has held approval of the teacher who is qualified and eligible cannot be withheld. Section 16 FF (4) secures the guarantee under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India and is in consonance with the rights of the minority to be established and administer educational institution.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further relied on the judgment in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Manager Committee of Management Islamia Inter College 2022 (4) ADJ 531 (LB) (DB), more particularly on paragraph nos.13 and 15 which reads as follows:

"13. In furtherance of the aforesaid permission granted by the D.I.O.S., the Committee of Management held interviews of candidates on the 28.7.2009, in which various candidates appeared. In the subject Mathematics, the respondent No. t of 2 was placed at serial No. 1 of the merit list prepared after interviews and in subject General, the respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 1 of the merit list. Thereafter, the Committee of Management sent the requisite papers to the D.I.O.S. in for approval of their appointment vide letter dated 29.7.2009.

15. A perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921 indicates that the Inspector is prohibited from withholding approval of selection made under Section 16-FF where the persons selected possess the minimum qualification prescribed and are otherwise eligible. Thus the only ground on which the Inspector could withheld the approval for the selection, is that the person selected does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed or is otherwise ineligible."

12. Based on the above, the issue is clarified by various judgments that rights of the minority institution have been protected by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, the respondents ought to have considered the appointment of the petitioner only as per provisions of the Act, 1921, more particularly Section 16 FF (4) which specifies and gives power to the authorities to withhold appointment only on the ground of qualification and eligibility. But in the instant case, the respondents have failed to consider the case of the petitioner under the said provisions and passed the impugned order on irrelevant considerations. Hence, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has requested to set aside the same and direct the authorities approve appointment of the petitioner under Section 16 FF (4) of the Act, 1921.

13. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has made his submissions that the 5th respondent has not made selection as per Section 16 FF and Regulation 17 (a) of Chapter II of the Regulations under the Act, 1921. In this case, on the basis of record, there are several lapses in selection process. Apart from that, the authorities also pointed out that the certificates submitted by the petitioner are overlapping, more particularly experience certificate pertaining to 08.07.2006 to 08.09.2010 of Bal Vidhyalaya Secondary School Prahladghat, Varanasi. But surprisingly, the petitioner has also submitted one more experience certificate pertaining to 18.06.2010 to 10.07.2012 which clearly shows that the petitioner has worked in two institutions in that particular period. Hence, experience certificates may be forged.

14. Based on the above, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has further submitted that verified facts narrated in the impugned order also clearly reflects that the 5th respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated Section 16 FF (4) and Regulation 17 (a) of Chapter II of the Regulations under the Act, 1921. Hence, the respondents have rightly rejected approval of appointment of the petitioner under Section 16 FF of the Act, 1921.

15. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that though power is given to the authorities under Section 16 FF (4) to withhold appointment only on the ground of qualification and eligibility but surprisingly , there is no whisper in the impugned order about qualification and eligibility of the petitioner and the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner with regard to condition imposed in Section 16 FF (4). Apart from that, reasons mentioned in the impugned order are vague and irrelevant. As far as details of the registered post is concerned, in fact the 5th respondent has filed counter affidavit annexing all documents. As far as lapse mentioned in the impugned order is concerned, the same is not relevant to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 16 FF (4). Apart from that, the respondents have failed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to qualification and eligibility. Further, there is no mandatory condition of experience and also the petitioner has submitted experience certificates more particularly three certificates. Perusal of three certificates reveals only overlapping of three months i.e. from June 2010 to September, 2010 which is not mandatory requirement as per the Act, 1921, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration.

16. In view of the foregoing observations, as the impugned order dated 19.09.2015 has been passed by the 4th respondent on irrelevant considerations, the same is set aside, remanding the matter to the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner for approval strictly as per Section 16 FF (4) of the Act, 1921 as observed by this Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Manager Committee of Management Islamia Inter College 2022 (4) ADJ 531 (LB) (DB), within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed.

August 26, 2025

rkg