Zeeshan Ahmad Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

After hearing the parties and perusing the records, what comes out is that the appellants were appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Madarsa on 19.05.2024, as claimed by the then Committee of Management, a fact which is being disputed by the respondentpetitioners. Be that as it may, the said appointment was approved by the Registrar, Madarsa Board on 10.06.2024. Since then, they have been continuing as Assistant Teacher and receiving salary.

¶12

It is stated by learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners that some dispute was pending before various fora relating to Management of the Madarsa and there were rival claims in this regard. According to him, the respondent-petitioner, Committee of Management, is at present, in control of the Madarsa, a fact which is being disputed by the appellants before us. Be that as it may, the respondent-petitioners, Opposite Parties No. 5 & 6, filed Writ-A No. 2303 of 2026 seeking the following reliefs:-

¶13

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite party no. 3 to decide the representation dated 31.07.2024 and 20.02.2026 as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2.

¶14

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite party to restrain the District Minority Welfare Officer not to pay the salary

¶15

SPLA No. 166 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

to O.P. No. 5 & 6 during the pendency of the writ petition."

¶18

We have perused the representations dated 31.07.2024 and 20.02.2026. In the said representations, a challenge has been raised before the Registrar pertaining to selection and appointment of the appellants. However, instead of seeking relief for quashing of their selection and appointment or for declaring the same as illegal, void etc., as the case may be, in a round about manner, the relief was prayed, for disposal of the representation. Under which provision of law, the representation was given, is now known. May be, because the Registrar had approved the appointment, therefore, the respondent-petitioners moved a representation before him seeking its cancellation. Copy of the representation dated 31.07.2024 does not contain any receiving by the office of the Registrar, Madarsa. The other representation dated 20.02.2026 has been sent by registered post and photocopy of the proof of registry is annexed but there is no such proof annexed with regard to the representation dated 31.07.2024.

¶19

Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge, on the very first day, has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Registrar to consider the said representations and decide them as per law, of course, by a reasoned and speaking order and after hearing the opposite parties in the writ petition, who are appellants before us. We are of the opinion that in a matter where the person had been working for almost two years and no challenge had been raised in a Court of law to their selection or appointment, the question as to whether any representation, such as the one claimed to have been submitted on 31.07.2024 before the Registrar, had in fact been submitted or not, was also not gone into by the learned Writ Court. The least that was required was to give an opportunity to the opposite parties arrayed in the writ petition to come forth and place their version, as any such direction for disposal of representation wherein the selection and appointment is being challenged, may have serious consequences and may result in unnecessary harassment in a given case. The learned Single Judge ought to

¶20

SPLA No. 166 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

have confronted the respondent-petitioners as to why they have not approached the Court earlier.

¶23

Be that as it may, without proceeding any further on the issues which should have been considered by the Writ Court, we are of the opinion that a direction on the very first day to the Registrar for disposal of the representations, that too after noting the submission of the respondent-petitioners, may give an impression as if the Court has expressed some opinion, though it has not. Natural justice required issuance of notice purely in the facts of this case considering the subject matter of the writ petition. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Writ-A No. 2303 of 2026 stands restored and will be listed before the learned Single Judge as a fresh case on 05.05.2026. The writ petition shall be considered afresh. The appellants should put in appearance in the said writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

¶24

This appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

April 7, 2026 Lokesh Kumar

¶26

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Zeeshan Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeeshan Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S A.H. Wheeler and Company Private Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Satyendra Kumar Shukla vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and 4 Others

Amanat Ali and Another vs National Highways Authority of India Head Office New Delhi Thru. Its Chairman and 5 Others

Ram Jeet Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Uppsc) Thru. Its Secretary and Another vs Shiv Adhar Yadav and Another

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Km Ayushi Katheriya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others