Orissa High Court Rejects Petition Challenging Decision To Revoke Licenses Granted To Teachers To Register Muslim Marriage & Divorce

The petitions before the High Court were filed by the teachers of Government/Aided Schools, against the decision of answering OPs in revoking/rescinding licenses granted to them for registering Muslim marriage/divorce and for maintaining certain official records in that connection, as provided under the provisions of Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1949 and Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Rules, 1976.

The Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad held, “The expression “to any person” is of a wider expanse and choice lies with the Government. Rule 3 of 1976 Rules accords preference to exKazis, Muslim Government pensioners, Maulavies, Khandkars & Mullas. Therefore, the serving Government servants, such as the petitioners cannot claim license as a matter of right. The Government has abundant discretion. Of course, the same has to be exercised in accordance with Rules of Reason and Justice.”

Advocate R.C. Jena represented the Petitioner while Addl. Government Advocate S.K. Jee represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that the impugned action was unsustainable, in as much as they were discharging the statutory duties, as licensees under the 1949 Act read with 1976 Rules, since years without compromising their duties as teachers. It was their case that there is absolutely no prohibition either in the 1949 Act or in any other statute, including the Conduct Rules. It was claimed that the impugned decision in cutting short their rights needed to be avoided.

The opposite parties resisted the petitions on the ground that petitioners were civil servants of the State holding public office of teacher, and they were drawing salary in the prescribed pay scales. Thus, the registration of Muslim marriages & divorces and maintaining the official records in that connection would affect discharge of their duties as teachers and in turn, would make adverse impact on the interest of pupils.

Reasoning

Referring to Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1949, the Bench explained that Section 3 of the Act does not give any absolute right to get license and thereby become Muhammedan Registrar of marriages/divorces.

The Bench explained that the expression “to any person” is of a wider expanse, and choice lies with the Government. Noting that Rule 3 of 1976 Rules accords preference to ex-Kazis, Muslim Government pensioners, Maulavies, Khandkars & Mullas, the Bench stated, “Therefore, the serving Government servants, such as the petitioners cannot claim license as a matter of right. The Government has abundant discretion. Of course, the same has to be exercised in accordance with Rules of Reason and Justice.”

The Bench further stated, “The vehement submission of learned advocates appearing for the petitioners that their clients have been discharging the duties as Muhammedan Registrars of marriage/divorce since very long, does not create any vested right for renewal or extension. After all, a license of the kind does not create any interest in any office. It is more or less a matter of privilege.”

The Bench further explained that the Government is the appointing authority for the posts of teacher in its schools, and the Government is empowered to grant a license to become Muhammedan Registrars.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioners are admittedly civil servants and they are in permanent employment with settled families. They are drawing salaries regularly in attractive pay scales. “On the other side of the spectrum, they have been thousands of persons in the Muslim Community, who do not have employment or that they are underemployed. Such persons may be preferred for the grant of license to function as Muhammadan Registrars of marriage & divorce, so that a penny or two would fall into their pockets on discharge of duties. That would be consistent with the idea of distributive justice enacted in Article 39(b) & (c) of the Constitution of India”, it noted.

Finding the petitions to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed them.

Cause Title: Md. Usman Khan v. State of Odisha (Case No.: WP(C) NO. 17429 OF 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate B. Bhuyan, Advocate Gulam Madani

Respondent: Addl. Government Advocate S.K. Jee

Click here to read/download Order