Recently, the Allahabad High Court quashed an advertisement issued for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers and a Clerk at Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom, Gorakhpur, holding that the same was contrary to government policy and the directions of the Apex Court. The Court observed that any appointments made in violation of the government’s policy decision and binding directions “cannot confer any legal right upon the appointees.”
The dispute arose when an advertisement was published by the Manager of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom, Gorakhpur, inviting applications for five posts of Assistant Teachers and one post of Clerk. The petitioners challenged the advertisement, contending that it was issued without lawful authority and in contravention of government orders that had temporarily restrained fresh appointments in madarsas.
The petitioners further stated that the respondent who issued the advertisement was not even a valid member of the society managing the madarsa and had assumed charge by committing fraud. It was argued that despite clear directions from the State and the District Minority Welfare Officer prohibiting fresh appointments, the respondent proceeded with the selection process and even issued interview letters.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that, following the Apex Court’s decision declaring the Kamil and Fazil degrees unconstitutional, the State Government issued orders on 20 May 2025 restraining all madarsas from making new appointments until the eligibility and qualification standards for teachers were redefined. Despite these binding directions, the respondent unlawfully advertised the posts, violating both the government policy and judicial directions.
It was also submitted that earlier orders of the District Minority Welfare Officer had made it clear that the respondent was not a valid member of the society, and therefore, he lacked any authority to act as its Manager or issue recruitment advertisements.
In response, the counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent was duly recognized as the Manager of the institution and was, therefore, empowered to issue the advertisement. He further claimed that the selections had already been completed and the selected candidates had joined their posts, arguing that the petition was not maintainable.
The Court noted that the advertisement had been issued “against the policy of the Government despite explicit notices restraining such recruitment”, and therefore, any appointments made pursuant to it could not be deemed valid.
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh Administration v. Usha Kheterpal Waie, and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, the Court reiterated that the determination of qualifications, eligibility, and recruitment methods falls within the exclusive domain of the State and cannot be interfered with.
The Bench further emphasized that while Article 30(1) of the Constitution grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, “this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations framed to ensure academic excellence and maintain standards of education.”
The Court found that the advertisement had been issued in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions and subsequent government orders, which clearly restrained all new appointments in madarsas until the finalization of teacher qualification standards.
Holding that the recruitment advertisement dated 29 April 2025 was illegal and issued in defiance of government policy, the Court quashed the advertisement published by the Manager of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom for the posts of Assistant Teachers and Clerk.
It further clarified that “even if appointments have been made pursuant to such an illegal advertisement, the appointees cannot claim any legal right or protection.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Committee Of Management Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawab & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Writ - A No. - 8388 of 2025
Coram: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Brijendra Kumar Mishra, Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Vashishtha Tiwari, C.S.C.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
