JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajat Rajan Singh and Sri Hari Om Singh for the appellants and Sri G.C. Verma for the respondents. 2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these three appeals, hence, they are being heard and decided together but mainly the arguments have been raised in Special Appeal No. 170 of 2006. 3. These appeals have been filed against a common order dated 2.2.2006 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7828 (S/S) of 2004 (Smt. Samana Zaidi v. Committee of Management Shia Inter College, Lucknow through its Manager and others) and Writ Petition No. 6362 (S/S) of 2004 (Smt. Kaneez Fatima v. Manager, Shia Inter College, Lucknow and others). 4. Smt. Samana Zaidi, the petitioner of writ petition No. 7828 (S/S) of 2004 and appellant of Special Appeal No. 171 of 2006 and Special Appeal No. 356 of 2006, was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in Social Science in Shia Inter College, Lucknow She was selected on the basis of interview which was held on 18.2.2004 while Kaneez Fatima the petitioner of writ petition No. 6362 (S/S) of 2004 was placed at serial No. 2 in order of merit. The controversy in both the writ petitions revolves around the selection and appointment. 5. Brief facts, so far they are relevant for the disposal of these appeals and which are not disputed, are as follows: Shia Inter College, Lucknow, in which this selection was held, is run and managed by opposite party No. 1 and is a recognized educational institution, within the meaning of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, hereinafter for purpose of brevity referred to as the ‘institution’ and is a minority educational institution, as envisaged under article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The internal management of the college is regulated and is done by a committee of management, elected under the Scheme of administration of the college. The committee of management is a juristic person can sue and be sued through its manager. The internal management of the college is regulated and is done by a committee of management, elected under the Scheme of administration of the college. The committee of management is a juristic person can sue and be sued through its manager. The procedure for selection of teachers in this institution is governed by Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as it is a minority institution but the terms and conditions of service of teachers and management of college is governed by the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter for purpose of brevity referred to as ‘the Act’) and the respondent Maulana Ali Nasir Saeed Abaquati alias Agaruhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Maulana’) was one of the members of the committee of management, of this Institution. 6. A vacancy for the post of Assistant Teacher in Social Sciences in the Institution occurred and for filling this post an advertisement as prescribed by the Act was duly issued. Both the petitioners of these two writ petitions applied for it. Samana Zaidi, the petitioner of writ petition No. 7828 (S/S) of 2004, was selected and was recommended for appointment by the management. She was appointed as Assistant Teacher, vide resolution, passed by the committee of the management on 20.2.2004. After approval of the management committee, the District Inspectors of Schools vide orders dated 31.8.2004 approved the selection and appointment of this petitioner on this post of Assistant Teacher and in pursuance of this approval she i.e. Samana Zaidi joined on the post on 31.8.2004. 7. The main dispute has arisen on account of this respondent ‘Maulana’, who admittedly was a member of committee of management, in which this selection and appointment was made. The case of the appellant Samana Zaidi and committee of management was that the committee of management in its meeting prior to approval and recommendation for selection on 20.2.2004 resolved by a resolution numbered as 5(a) that the membership of this Member, ‘Maulana’ will came to an end, under clause 24 of the Constitution, of the governing body of this college, he was removed from the membership and thereafter recommendation for appointment was made. It has not been disputed that petitioner Kaneez Fatima, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 6362 (S/S) of 2004 stood second in the merit of selection for the vacant post. 8. It has not been disputed that petitioner Kaneez Fatima, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 6362 (S/S) of 2004 stood second in the merit of selection for the vacant post. 8. It has also not been disputed, that the appellant Smt. Samana Zaidi, was the wife of the step-brother of the above ‘Maulana’ who was the member of committee of management. The case of the appellant Samana Zaidi and the management is that before committee recommended for appointment, the committee of management, in its meeting had passed a resolution that the membership of this member ‘Maulana’ was brought to an end under clause 24 of the Constitution of the governing body of this institution, hence the case was that when the committee of management had considered for approval of the appointment, ‘Maulana’ was no more a member of the committee having being removed by an earlier resolution. It has not been disputed that in the same meeting at the first instance a resolution was passed, by which the membership was brought to an end and thereafter recommendation was made. 9. The main contention on behalf of the college management and the petitioner/appellant Samana Zaidi is that the appointment cannot be challenged, as Section 16-GG does not apply in the case of the appointment made under Section 16-FF of the Act, the District Inspector of Schools had considered these facts and had approved the appointment of Samana Zaidi who was placed on No. 1. 10. A dispute was raised before Hon’ble Single Judge to the effect that the appointment of Samana Zaidi cannot be challenged because it has been made under Section 16(FF) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. This question has been clearly dealt with by Hon’ble Single Judge, holding that the provisions of Section 16 (FF) of the Act are very much applicable to the institution in question. He has not disputed that the institution is a minority institution established and administered by a minority institution. Nonetheless, he has held that the only privilege of a minority institution with regard to appointment of teachers is to the effect that the selection committee is constituted by the committee of management. Simultaneously, he has held that except for this concession minority institutions do not have the license to violate any of the rules or provisions of the selection procedure. Simultaneously, he has held that except for this concession minority institutions do not have the license to violate any of the rules or provisions of the selection procedure. He has correctly held that the regulations regarding selection and appointment of a teacher, if are in conflict with other provisions and regulations framed under the Act in case they are not repugnant to the provisions of the Act and Section 16 (FF) also in regard to the appointment of teachers, would have full application even if the institution is a minority institution. 11. The crucial question in this case is to the effect that whether a candidate who is related and recommended by a member of the committee of management can be selected by the selection committee, especially, when the fact of relationship has been disclosed by the candidate herself. In view of Regulation IV of Chapter III appointment of near relative is barred so that favoritism and nepotism do not develop. Samana Zaidi was selected by the selection committee on 18.2.2004. The selection committee was constituted from the members of the committee of management. It is not disputed that brother of petitioner-Samana Zaidi’s husband, namely, ‘Maulana’ was at the time of interview a member of the managing committee. Eleven candidates including the petitioner were interviewed. Name of Samana Zaidi was placed in order of merits by the selection committee at serial No. 1 and Kaneez Fatima-the petitioner of other writ petition was placed at serial No. 2. It has been informed that after the selection was made the ‘Maulana’ was removed from the committee of management on 20.2.2004 by a resolution. The same day another meeting was held which cleared the name of Samana Zaidi who was related to the ‘Maulana’, who was removed a little time ago. The committee was itself conscious that the selected candidate was relative of the member of the managing committee. It is interesting that ‘Maulana’ filed writ petition against his removal and stay order was granted in his favour by the High Court. Thus, he came back to the committee of management after the recommendation was made in favour of his relative. 12. It is interesting that ‘Maulana’ filed writ petition against his removal and stay order was granted in his favour by the High Court. Thus, he came back to the committee of management after the recommendation was made in favour of his relative. 12. Considering all the facts and circumstances, Hon’ble Single Judge has observed and opined that he is not in doubt that ‘Maulana’ was removed by the committee of management only to show on record that he was not a member of the committee of management when exactly the name of Samana Zaidi was approved by the committee of management for final appointment. He has opined that this exercise was done to beat the provisions of Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the act. He has further opined that the illegality which has been committed could not have been cured by subsequent removal of the ‘Maulana’ after the selection but prior to approval by the committee of management. On the date when the selection was made ‘Maulana’ was very much a member of the committee of management. Smt. Samana Zaidi herself had shown the ‘Maulana’ as her relative who was in the committee of management. 13. An argument has been raised on behalf of the appellant that ‘Maulana’ is not directly related to Samana Zaidi. As such, it cannot be said that the relationship can be defined to be within the meaning of ‘Relatives’ as required under the Act. Presence of ‘Maulana’ in the committee of management will not vitiate the selection. It has been explained that ‘Maulana’ was not a member of the selection committee. He was not one of the experts who has selected Samana Zaidi. It has also been urged that approval has not been given by ‘Maulana’ because at the time of approval he had been ousted from the committee of management and the approval was given by the committee of management minus ‘Maulana’. 14. Much stress has been laid on the exact nature of relationship and an attempt has been made to carve out a space for Samana Zaidi. It has been stated that Smt. Samana Zaidi is the wife of step brother of ‘Maulana’ hence she is not directly related to the member of the committee of management. 14. Much stress has been laid on the exact nature of relationship and an attempt has been made to carve out a space for Samana Zaidi. It has been stated that Smt. Samana Zaidi is the wife of step brother of ‘Maulana’ hence she is not directly related to the member of the committee of management. In this regard learned counsel for Smt. Samana Zaidi has relied upon the case of Surjan Singh and others v. Harcharan Singh, AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 137. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment have been specifically referred. 15. We have carefully gone through the judgment on the whole and find that it will not help the petitioner-appellant in the present case. The judgment relates to Section 15 of Punjab Preemption Act, 1913. It was a matter of distribution of land amongst the brothers and step brothers. It has been explained as to who is real brother and who is step brother and likewise who is step daughter etc. For the reasons given by us in later paragraphs we find that this judgment is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. No specific ratio has been laid down and hence no benefit can be derived from this judgment. 16. Further, the case of Javed Rasool Bhat and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (1984) 2 SCC 631 has been cited. In this case a selection was held to be not vitiated although father of the candidate was Principal of the medical college in which the petitioner of that petition was a candidate. 17. We have carefully gone through this judgment and we find that Principal, who was the father of the applicant, had intimated the government and asked and requested them to exempt him from the process of examination and interviews but the government did not make any such arrangement. When the selection was made the father excused out himself from the process of selection and she was interviewed by the other experts. In the facts and circumstances of the case Hon’ble Supreme Court found it to be a valid selection because the bonafides and intention of the father being Principal were found to be beyond doubt. When the selection was made the father excused out himself from the process of selection and she was interviewed by the other experts. In the facts and circumstances of the case Hon’ble Supreme Court found it to be a valid selection because the bonafides and intention of the father being Principal were found to be beyond doubt. Since the father had made a prior declaration about his relationship with the candidate who was his daughter hence, Supreme Court has observed that “The procedure adopted by the Selection Committee and the member concerned was in accord with the quite well-known and generally accepted procedure adopted by the Public Service Commissions everywhere....And, in fact, we find that as a result of her performance at the interview, she lost rather than gain some places.” 18. The facts of the case are entirely different in the present matter. ‘Maulana’ remained a member of the committee of management when the candidate applied. The candidature was screened and scrutinized by college while ‘Maulana’ remained at the helm of affairs. Smt. Samana Zaidi has herself declared that she is related to ‘Maulana’ in her application form. Despite this declaration ‘Maulana’ did not choose to disassociate himself from the committee of management. He did not offer to resign from the said post prior to the date of application by Smt. Samana Zaidi. The selection committee was also constituted with concurrence of the committee of management. The influence cannot be denied. It is on this point that the present case is different from the case of Javed Rasool Bhat (supra) as mentioned before. 19. The interesting feature of this case is that after the selection was made and approval was to be granted ‘Maulana’ was removed from the committee of management and immediately thereafter approval was granted to the selection of Smt. Samana Zaidi. 20. Another judgment rendered in the case of Dist. Basic Education officer and another v. Dhananjai Kumar Shukla and another, 2008 AIR SCW 1224 has been cited before this Court. For convenience emphasis has been laid on paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment, which are quoted as under: - “13. As basic foundational fact stands admitted before us, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. For convenience emphasis has been laid on paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment, which are quoted as under: - “13. As basic foundational fact stands admitted before us, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appointment of Respondent No. 1 being contrary to the mandatory provisions as contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, the same was a nullity. An appointment which was per se illegal could not have been directed to be legalised only because the appellant did not file its counter affidavit. It did not admit the respondent’s claim. The question involved in the writ petition was a legal question. As indicated hereinbefore, the foundational facts are undisputed. 14. Rules of pleading contained in the Code of Civil Procedure do not cover questions of law. If a fact stands admitted the same in terms of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act need not be proved. Only because such a question was not allegedly raised before the High Court, this Court could not shut its eyes to the legal position. Yet again only because an illegality has been committed, this Court would not allow its perpetration. Respondent’s father was on leave for a temporary period. He thereby did not cease to be the Manager of the school. It is apparent that he went on leave only for defeating the statutory provisions. Such an act amounts to fraud on the administration.” 21. One more judgment in the matter of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and another, (1996) 4 SCC 479 has been placed before us. For the reasons explained above, we do not find that any benefit can be given to the appellants. 22. We are of the considered opinion that the question involved in this case is not to decide whether or not the petitioner/appellant was real brother of the member of the committee of management or she was the wife of the step brother of member of the committee of management, the crucial question is whether the selection was held fairly with bonafide intentions or the action of the opposite parties have been set up to camouflage the process and tried to give it a sanctity by subsequent removal of ‘Maulana’ from the committee of management when the whole exercise of selection has been completed. If the argument of the petitioners/appellants is to be accepted that she was not directly related to the ‘Maulana’ there was no need for the ‘Maulana’ to get removed from the committee of management subsequently. Subsequent removal cannot validate an action which was invalid ab-initio. All these questions have been properly dealt with by learned Single Judge. 23. We find that the observations and conclusions drawn by Hon’ble Single Judge are absolutely correct and cogent reasons have been given for reaching the conclusion by learned Single Judge. The judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge is quite exhaustive and every fact, law and argument has been dealt with much sufficient clarity of mind. We have no hesitation in observing that there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge. It is not necessary to narrate full contents of the judgment in order to show our satisfaction with the conclusion drawn by him. 24. We feel that the conclusion drawn by Hon’ble Single Judge do not warrant any interference at all by this Court. The special appeals against the order dated 2.2.2006 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge, are misconceived and lack merit. They are accordingly dismissed. The order of Hon’ble Single Judge is upheld.