Rajjab Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 505 of 2026

Rajjab Ali

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: G.A., Mohammad Ali	Ausaf
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Avnish Kumar Rai, Maurya Kushwaha, Kushwaha, Rajeshwar	C.S.C., Mahima Mukesh Kumar Tripathi

¶8

Court No. - 32

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶10

Counter affidavit filed by respondents are taken on record.

¶11

On the basis of record available with this writ petition, it is not disputed that petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 on the post of Assistant Teacher (Alia) and has worked on same post till 2023 when he was appointed as Principal of Madarsa Arabia Madinatul Ilm, Peer Khanpur, Bhadohi though a fresh selection process and its approval was also granted.

¶12

Now petitioner's earlier approval granted on post of Assistant Teacher (Alia) granted in 1995 was withdrawn on a ground that from 1990 to 2004, single operation was in force on basis of an order passed by this Court since dispute in regard to management of Madarsa was pending before Prescribed Authority which was ultimately decided in favour of Committee of Management in the year 2004.

¶13

The respondents has now held that appointment of petitioner was made during period when single operation was in force, therefore, Committee of Management was not empowered to take any decision which may have financial effect including appointment of petitioner.

¶14

Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.A. Ausaf, learned counsel for petitioner submits that during period from 1990 to 2004, as many as more than 10 teachers were appointed, however, action

¶15

WRIA No. 505 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

has been taken only against petitioner. This statement is made on the basis of instructions since no supportive document is available on record.

¶18

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for Committee of Management has supported aforesaid submissions on basis of instructions and submits that appointment of petitioner was made by a valid Committee of Management.

¶19

Learned Senior Advocate also submits that by impugned order, financial approval granted to petitioner on post of Assistant Teacher (Alia) is withdrawn. However, till date no adverse order is passed so far as financial approval granted to petitioner's appointment on the post of Principal is concerned.

¶20

I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

¶21

Petitioner's appointment is now disputed after a period of more than 31 years. Even it is considered that from 1990 to 2004, there was an order of single operation in force, still, there is no material on record that for a long period of 14 years and without any specific bar, Committee of Management war barred to appoint any teacher, even circumstances so warrant.

¶22

Otherwise also, it is stated that about more than 10 teachers were appointed between said period and his financial approval has not been disturbed, therefore, impugned order is arbitrary also.

¶23

Court also takes note of judgment of Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024(1) ADJ 714 (SC) that in such cases, long period of service can be protected if there are some irregularities but employee has not committed any fraud.

¶24

Court also takes note of a judgment of this Bench in Dr. Samir Kumar Biswas vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:227487 wherein a similar view was taken.

¶25

In aforesaid circumstances, even it is considered that appointment of petitioner was bad in law, still since he has worked for more than 3

¶26

WRIA No. 505 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

decades which can be protected as there is no allegation that petitioner has committed any fraud since there is no reference of fraud in operative part of impugned order as well as allegations of arbitrariness is not specifically denied.

¶29

Otherwise also, Court takes note that petitioner's financial approval on the post of Principal has not been disturbed, therefore also, Court finds that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction that impugned order has no legal consequence as well as that since petitioner has already been appointed on the post of Principal through a substantive appointment process and he is left with only 3 years of service, therefore, in such circumstances, let the petitioner work on post of Principal and be paid salary of Principal in accordance with law.

¶30

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of .

¶31

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

¶32

February 3, 2026 N. Sinha

¶33

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajjab Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjab Ali v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenakshi Arya vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajab Singh vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Girish Chandra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Sanjay Agarwal vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anuj Kumar Chauhan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others