The Orissa High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the decision of the State Government to revoke/rescind the licenses issued in favour of serving teachers of government/aided schools to act as Registrars of Muslim marriages and divorces.
Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad was apprehensive about feasibility on the part of such teachers to give “absolute commitment” to teaching and thus, observed –
“They [the Registrars] have to maintain and update several Registers/Books. They have to examine parties and witnesses. At times, they have to travel to other places for the discharge of their duties. Rule 49 provides for their personal appearance along with Registers/Records, if the Courts summon them. That being the position, how will they be able to discharge their duty as teachers with absolute commitment in the Government Schools, is a big question.”
Briefly put, the petitioners, who are also government/aided school teachers, had been discharging statutory duties as 'licensees' under the Orissa Muhammedan Marriages and Divorces Registration Act, 1949 ('the 1949 Act') and the Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Rules, 1976 ('the 1976 Rules'). The government subsequently took a decision to revoke their licenses on the premise that they already being public servants ought not work as Registrars, which demands unique set of commitments.
The petitioners challenged the decision on the ground that there is no prohibition whatsoever in the 1949 Act or in any other statute, including the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 and therefore, such impromptu decision falls afoul of rights guaranteed to them.
For adjudging veracity of the claims, the Court perused the provisions of the 1949 Act as well as the 1976 Rules, which was promulgated as per Section 24 of the 1949 Act. Justice Shripad underlined that Section 3 of the Act employs the phrase “It shall be lawful for the State Government to grant a license to any person….” and therefore, it does not give any absolute right to the petitioners to get license. He further observed –
“Therefore, the serving Government servants, such as the petitioners cannot claim license as a matter of right. The Government has abundant discretion…The vehement submission of learned advocates appearing for the petitioners that their clients have been discharging the duties as Muhammedan Registrars of marriage/divorce since very long, does not create any vested right for renewal or extension. After all, a license of the kind does not create any interest in any office. It is more or less a matter of privilege.”
Further, as per Section 25 of the Act, every Muhammedan Registrar shall be deemed to be a public servant, and they are obligated to perform certain “onerous duties”. The Bench also took note of the fact that their functions have far reaching evidentiary consequences on the status of marriage/divorce of Muslims, and importantly, they also exercise quasi-judicial power.
Hence, the Court was anxious whether it would be possible on the part of the petitioners to discharge their primary role as teachers with full commitment alongside the mammoth duties assigned to them as Muhammedan Registrars.
“Teaching is a noble profession. It is teachers in general and primary/secondary school teachers in particular, who inculcate civilizational values & culture in the young minds. Therefore, our ancient scriptures chant “Guru Saakshaat Parabrahma” literally likening teacher to God. As such, the impugned decision of the Government, regardless of certain arguable defects therein, cannot be faltered.”
The Court also discarded the contention that as the OCA (CCA) Rules or 1949 Act or 1976 Rules do not prohibit government teachers from acting as Muhammedan Registrars, they cannot be barred from acting as such. It rather suggested that thousands of unemployed persons from Muslim community can be granted license to perform the aforesaid role.
“Such persons may be preferred for the grant of license to function as Muhammadan Registrars of marriage & divorce, so that a penny or two would fall into their pockets on discharge of duties. That would be consistent with the idea of distributive justice enacted in Article 39(b) & (c) of the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the batch of writ petitions was dismissed.
Case Title: Md. Usman Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 17429 of 2025 & batch
Date of Judgment: September 08, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. R.C. Jena & M. Padhi, Advocates; Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Md. Gulam Madani, Advocate; M/s. U.C. Mishra, A. Mishra, J.K. Mahapatra, D. Debadarshani & S. Dash, Advocates; M/s. P. Pattnaik, K.N. Muduli, D. Sahoo & S.K. Swain, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Saroj Kumar Jee, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 119
Click Here To Read/Download Order
