Article 30(1) Can’t Be Stretched To Claim Immunity From Reasonable Regulations: Allahabad High Court Quashes Advertisement Issued By Madarsa Manager
The petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the quashing of the impugned Advertisement issued by the Nazime Ala/Manager of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, Allahabad High Court
While quashing an advertisement issued by the Nazime of Ala/Manager of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur for the selection of Assistant Teachers and Clerk, the Allahabad High Court has held that Article 30(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the impugned Advertisement issued by the Nazime Ala/Manager (fourth Respondent) for the selection of 5 posts of Assistant Teacher Tahtaniya and 1 post of Clerk in Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur.
The Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India undoubtedly guarantees to minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; however, this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations framed to ensure academic excellence and maintain standards of education.”
Advocate Brijendra Kumar Mishra represented the Petitioner while Advocate Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi) represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A Society in the name of Anjuman Islamiyan Arbia Shamsul Uloom Village runs an educational institution, namely, Madarsa Arabia Shamsul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur. The last elections of the Committee of Management of the Society were held in the year 2014, in which the second petitioner was elected as Sarparast. Thereafter, a dispute arose in the society and the Committee of Management of the Society was declared as time-barred. The third respondent was directed to hold the elections under Section 25(2) of Society Registration Act, 1860.
It was the case of the Petitioner that Sajjad Husain was not a member of the society, and the elections held in 2017 and 2018 were invalid. No interim order was granted in any of the petitions, and all three petitions were dismissed. Accordingly, the third respondent declared the election programme, but the election could not be held. Later, one Eid Mohammad was elected as Nazim-e-Ala/Manager along with other office bearers. A list of the Committee of Management for the year 2022-2023 was registered. The second petitioner, along with other members, filed a Petition challenging the election, but the same was dismissed for want of prosecution.
As per a Government Order dated May 20, 2025, a direction was issued about the selection of teachers in madarsa, pursuant to which a letter was issued by Director, Minority Welfare, U.P. in which it was specifically mentioned that the direction issued by the Government had to be strictly complied with, while making appointments in madarsa. Despite the aforesaid, the respondent advertised posts of Assistant Teachers Tahtaniya and 1 post of Clerk. The Petitioners claimed that when once a Government Order was issued on May 20, 2025, in view of the policy decision as taken by the authorities concerned, restraining appointments till finality of the terms and conditions regarding eligibility and qualification of teachers in such institutions, the fourth respondent who was not even a member of the society did not have any right to issue the advertisement.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the advertisement had been issued against the policy of the Government despite notices to all, including the Manager of the said institution. As per the Bench, any person whose appointment was made pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement could not claim any legal right to such an illegal appointment.
The Bench observed that Article 30(1) cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations. “Thus, the issuance of advertisement without waiting for the government to frame the standards for qualification of teachers in the madarsa is bad in the eyes of law and in violation of the aforesaid article”, the Bench said.
The Court found that the fourth respondent had proceeded to issue an advertisement in violation of the government policy and the directions as passed by the Apex Court, pursuant to which, guidelines, directions, letters and notices had already been issued to the Principal and Manager of the institutions, restraining them from making any fresh appointments till finality of the rules and regulations regarding qualification & eligibility as already discussed above.
“In view of the above discussion, the advertisement dated 29.04.2025, advertized by Nazim-e-Ala/Manager (Respondent No. 4) in daily newspaper Aaj, Gorakhpur for selection of 05 posts of Assistant Teacher Tahtaniya and 01 post of Clerk in Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur, is quashed”, it ordered.
Allowing the Petition, the Bench clarified that even if the persons have been appointed pursuant to an advertisement which is illegal per se, they have no right to be heard and cannot raise any objection when they have been selected pursuant to an advertisement which has been issued illegally and is against the policy decision taken in view of the directions as issued by the Apex Court.
Cause Title: Committee Of Management Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawab v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:186442)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Brijendra Kumar Mishra, Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi
Respondent: Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Vashishtha Tiwari, C.S.C.