MOHD ASLAM Vs. INSPECTOR ARABIC MADARSAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Mohd. Aslam, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Registrar/Inspector, Arabic Madrasas, U.P., Allahabad/Lucknow respondent No. 1 filed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. He further seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the salary to the petitioner without any further delay and make the payment of salary month to month whenever its falls due and also to grant financial accord to the petitioner on the post of Alia grade teacher upon which the petitioner was appointed.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that there is a Madrasa known as Madrasa Jamiya Arabiya Ziyaul Uloom, situate at Varanasi which is duly recognised by the Board of Arabic and Parsian Examination, U.P., Allahabad and is on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. Its employees and teachers get the payment of salary through the State Government from the Public Exchequer. On 31.3.96 the Committee of Management of the Madarsa issued an advertisement which was published in Daily newspaper Urdu 'Roznama Awaz-e-Mulk' in which the vacancy in Alia grade was advertised. The petitioner applied for being appointed as teacher in Alia grade. According to the petitioner, he was selected and he joined the Madarsa. It appears that the Committee of Management submitted a list of teachers and employees to the concerned authority at the time when the Madarsa was to be brought under the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The name of the petitioner was duly included in the said list. However, the respondent No. 1 while approving the list of teachers and employees of the Madarsa made a remark that the petitioner does not hold the necessary qualification of optional subject. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4946 of 1998 which was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 15.7.99 with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider, decide and dispose of the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within a period of three months. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in the aforementioned Judgment the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 20.4.2000 had rejected the representation made by the petitioner. The order dated 20.4.2000 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri N.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashoke Khare, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K. Murari on behalf of the respondents No. 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.