Minority Educational Institutions Like Madarsa Not Immune From Reasonable Regulations Of State Ensuring Academic Standards: Allahabad HC

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that right of minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India must be exercised within reasonable regulations and frameworks of the State Government for ensuring academic excellence and maintaining standards of education.

Quashing the advertisement issued by Nazime of Ala/Manager of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur for appointment of Assistant Teachers and a Clerk which was issued without any guidelines from the Government, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India undoubtedly guarantees to minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; however, this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations framed to ensure academic excellence and maintain standards of education. Thus, the issuance of advertisement without waiting for the government to frame the standards for qualification of teachers in the madarsa is bad in the eyes of law and in violation of the aforesaid article.”

Initially, there was dispute regarding the election of the Committee of Management of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) Gorakhpur. Eid Mohammad was appointed as the Manager and challenge to his election was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, he published an advertisement for appointments on 3 posts (unnamed) in accordance with the qualifications mentioned in the by-laws.

Though this advertisement was challenged before the Court, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court again if any adverse action (publication of a fresh advertisment) was taken by Eid Mohammad.

A fresh list of general body members was published for the Committee of Management in which Sajjad Hussan's name was not present. However, his name was present in the registered list. It has been pleaded that he played fraud to become the Manager.

It has been pleaded that the Government Order regarding directions for selection of teachers in madarsa was issued on 20.5.2025 and the advertisement under challenge was issued on 29.4.2025. It was pleaded that despite representations, the selection process was not being stopped and was being continued in terms of the advertisement rather than following the Government Order.

The Court observed that pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjuman Kadri and Others vs. Union of India and Others, the Ministry of Minority Welfare and Waqf Department vide its notification dated 14.5.2025 and Government Order dated 25.04.2025 had instructed to redetermine the qualifications for Teachers. Pursuant to this, Secretary, U.P. issued a direction dated 20.5.2025 which was forwarded by the Registrar, U.P. Madarsa Education Board vide its order dated 23.5.2025 to halt the appointment of Teachers in madarsas till fresh directions are issued. This was also forwarded to all Principal/Manager of the institutions to comply with the directions

“The advertisement has been issued against the policy of the Government despite notices to all, including the Manager of the said institution, therefore, any person whose appointment is made pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement cannot claim any legal right to such an illegal appointment,” held the Court.

Holding that right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India was subject to the reasonability, the Court held that the Manager had acted in contravention of the order of the Supreme Court and government policy and quashed the advertisement.

The Court held that if any appointments were made in pursuance of the advertisement, they were per se illegal and such appointees did not have a right to raise objections or be heard.

Case Title: Committee Of Management Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawab And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8388 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order