RAJJAB ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - A No. - 505 of 2026

Rajjab Ali
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

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

Court No. - 32
             HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed by respondents are taken on record.

2. 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.

3. 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(Alia) granted in 1995 was withdrawn on a ground that from 1990 to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.

4. 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.

5. 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
                                                        WRIA No. 505 of 2026
                               2


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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. In aforesaid circumstances, even it is considered that appointment of
petitioner was bad in law, still since he has worked for more than 3
                                                                                               WRIA No. 505 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    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.

                                    14. 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.

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



                                                                               (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    February 3, 2026
                                    N. Sinha




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