Remanded

C/M Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaqiya and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2019WRIA/14087/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court vacated an order setting aside a suspension of assistant teachers in a minority madarsa. The court held that the impugned order violated natural justice due to lack of opportunity of hearing but granted liberty to the petitioner to file an objection with a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The order impugned dated 27.8.2019 abounds. Petitioner granted liberty to file objection within three weeks. Board to decide within one month after hearing. No coercive action for seven weeks.

C/M Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaqiya and Another… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14087 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaqiya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ali Ausaf,Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adarsh Bhushan,Arvind Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

The learned counsel for the Respondents does not propose to file counter affidavit, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being decided.

¶6

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohammad Ali Ausaf, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the StateRespondents and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

¶7

The petitioner No.1 claims to be the Committee of Management of Madarsa known as Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaquya, Purani Chakiya, Chandauli. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Madarsa and are working as Assistant Teachers.

¶8

It appears that on account of some irregularity and misconduct on the part of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, the petitioner passed an order dated 21.7.2019 suspending the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Against the suspension order, the

¶9

Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 approached the Respondent No.2the Inspector/Registrar, Board of Madarsa Education, U.P. Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow challenging the order of suspension on the ground that the order of suspension is in contravention to Regulation 16 of Uttar Pradesh NonGovernmental Arbic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016. The Respondent No.2 set aside the order of suspension of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 by order dated 27th August, 2019 on the ground that since there is no scheme of service and administration approved by Board of Madarsa, therefore, the suspension order having been passed in violation of Regulation 16 is not sustainable.

¶10

Challenging the said order, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri Vijay Kumar Singh firstly submitted that the order impugned has been passed in violation of Principal of Natural Justice and without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; and secondly, the Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter of disciplinary proceeding in the institution of the petitioner being a minority institution.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Respondents could not dispute the fact that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Since the order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition is decided only on short question of opportunity of hearing.

¶12

As the order impugned reflects that it has been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the

¶13

petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law being in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶14

Thus, in the facts of the case it is desirable in the interest of justice that the petitioner may be given liberty to file objection before Respondent No.2 with the certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today against the impugned order dated 27.8.2019. In case any fresh representation is filed by petitioner, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same within a period of one month thereafter by reasoned and speaking order after affording full opportunity of hearing to all the concerned party.

¶15

The order impugned in the writ petition shall abide by the order passed by Respondent No.2 on the objection of the petitioner.

¶16

For a period of seven weeks from today or till the disposal of objection of the petitioners, which ever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.11.2019 Manish Tripathi

C/M Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaqiya and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaqiya and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Archana Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yashllok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrasen Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharam Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arshad Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Amrita Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others