Dismissed¶29

MD Ejazul Haque v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2024WPC/307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madarsa Kamrul Hoda Ghutti Mahgaman Godda; managing committee; Donor Member; legal heir of original land donor Late Mohammad Ibrahim; recruitment advertisement dated 18.12.2022 Annexure-6; Fazil Head Maulvi; Alim; Maulvi; Hafiz; I.A. Trained Teacher; Matric Trained; fresh order letter No.JAC/MADARSA/1109/4633/22 dated 23.12.2022; Secretary Jharkhand Academic Council; Article 30 of the Constitution of India; disputed questions of facts; writ jurisdiction; competent court of civil jurisdiction; writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved; W.P.(S) No. 307 of 2023; decision dated 04.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail his remedy as may be permissible under law, including recourse to the competent court of civil jurisdiction in respect of any claim connected with the Madarsha or his land. ¶29

MD Ejazul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's grievances — his exclusion from the Management Committee of Madarsa Kamrul Hoda notwithstanding his claimed descent from the original land donor, and the recruitment advertisement dated 18.12.2022 flowing therefrom — can be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction.

¶27

Court's answer

The genesis of the case/dispute is based on disputed questions of facts which cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction; accordingly, the Court is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner has any claim in connection with the Madarsha or in connection with his land, he may avail his remedy through the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

¶27

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed as such, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail his remedy as may be permissible under law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; W.P.(S) No. 307 of 2023 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) — dismissed on 04.03.2024. The petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of the original land donor (Late Mohammad Ibrahim) of Madarsa Kamrul Hoda, Ghutti, Godda, sought (i) a direction to respondents nos. 6–8 not to proceed with the recruitment advertisement dated 18.12.2022 (Annexure-6) — inviting applications for Fazil (Head Maulvi), Alim, Maulvi, Hafiz, I.A. Trained Teacher and Matric Trained posts — issued by respondent no.7 after a fresh order from respondent no.6 (Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council) vide letter No.JAC/MADARSA/1109/4633/22 dated 23.12.2022, alleging the Management Committee was contrary to Article 30 of the Constitution of India, and (ii) his inclusion as Donor Member of the Management Committee. Holding: the genesis of the dispute lies in disputed questions of facts incapable of resolution through writ jurisdiction; any claim regarding the Madarsha or the petitioner's land is to be pursued before a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Petition dismissed with liberty reserved to seek remedies permissible under law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 307 of 2023

¶3

Md. Ejazul Haque aged about 32 years son of late Md. Hadish, resident of village – Ghutti, P.O. Ghutti, P.S. Mahgaman, District – Godda (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶7

The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (T), District – Godda (Jharkhand)

¶9

The District Education Officer, Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (T), District – Godda (Jharkhand)

¶10

The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶11

The Secretary, Management Committee, Madarsa Kamrul Hoda, Ghutti, P.O. Ghutti, P.S. Mahgaman, District – Godda (Jharkhand)

¶12

The Head Maulvi, Madarsa Kamrul Hoda, Ghutti, P.O. Ghutti, P.S. Mahgaman, District – Godda (Jharkhand).

¶13

… … Respondents

¶14

--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

--For the Petitioner : Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate : Mrs. Pinky Shaw, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC VI : Ms. Ruby Yadav, AC to SC VI ---

¶16

07 /04.03.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶17

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶18

“That the petitioner invokes the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the issuance of a writ (s) / order(s)/direction (s) commanding upon the respondents concerned:

¶19

(i) “For a direction to the respondents concerned especially the respondent no.6 to 8 to not to proceed further in the Advertisement dated 18.12.2022 (Annexure – 6) whereby the respondent no.7 has invited application from the eligible candidates for appointment in the post of (i) Fazil (Head Maulvi); (ii) Alim; (iii) Maulvi; (iv) Hafiz; (v) I.A. Trained Teacher and (vi) Matric Trained after getting fresh order from the respondent no.6, Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council vide letter No.JAC/MADARSA/1109/4633/22 dated 23.12.2022, when the Management Committee is a fake Committee comprising most of the members of the Committee from a single family, which is against the mandate of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Even, the Original Donor / present petitioner has been excluded from the Management Committee.

¶20

¶21

(ii) For a direction to the respondent no.6 to 8 to include the name of the present petitioner as Donor Member in the Management Committee, who is the legal heir of the original land donor Late namely Mohammad Ibrahim of the present Madarsa i.e. Madarsa Kamrul Hoda, Ghutti, Mahagaman, Godda. And / or

¶22

(iii) For any other order/orders for which petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Madarsa was initially established on the land in which the ancestor of the petitioner was the donor and by virtue of such donation, the petitioner / his family members were entitled to be a part of the managing committee. The learned counsel submits that the respondents have now shifted the Madarsha to some other location and have changed the managing committee of the Madarsha and there is no required permission for establishing Madarsha at the new location. The learned counsel submits that as the petitioner has been ousted from Madarsha, therefore, the advertisement by which the recruitment process has commenced is also under challenge in the present proceeding.

¶24

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while opposing the prayer has submitted that the claim of the petitioner to be a part of the managing committee is itself a disputed question of fact. He has also submitted that there are numerous claimants in connection with the present Madarsha and such dispute cannot be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction and essentially the dispute in connection with the constitution of the managing committee of the Madarsha is a civil dispute which need not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.

¶25

5. The learned counsel for the respondent no.6-Jharkhand Academic Council has submitted that as per the records, the Madarsha is located at a different location and such land does not belong to the petitioner or his ancestor and, therefore, the petitioner does not have any locus standi. She also submits that on account of the dispute being raised by the petitioner, the recruitment in Madarsha cannot be disturbed. She submits that recruitment arising out of the advertisement involved in the present case is already completed and recruited persons have already joined the concerned Madarsha.

¶26

¶27

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of dispute/grievance being raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that genesis of case/dispute is based on disputed questions of facts and such dispute cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. If the petitioner has any claim in connection with the Madarsha or in connection with his land, the petitioner may avail his remedy through the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

¶28

7. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may also have a remedy before Jharkhand Academic Council.

¶29

8. This writ petition is dismissed as such and liberty is reserved with the petitioner to avail his remedy as may be permissible under law.

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

Saurav/

MD Ejazul Haque v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Ejazul Haque v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranju Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogesh Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munna Sao Alias Munneshwar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development

Govind Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand