Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 390 (ALL)

Madarsa Faizanul Uloom v. State of U. P

2020-02-05

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 23.7.2015 and 13.8.2015 by which, the Government has issued a list of Madarsas to be taken under grant in aid by the Government in so far as it relates to the exclusion of the petitioner's Madarsa therefrom and also praying for quashing of the Minutes of the meeting of the State Level Committee alleged to have been held on 11.2.2016, 7.4.2016 and 15.9.2016, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant in aid again. Copies of such decisions being annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents, the second prayer has been added by way of amendment incorporated on Court's order dated 10.4.2019. A further prayer has been made to issue a direction to the respondents to appoint an independent agency to conduct an enquiry in the matter of bungling, corruption and malpractice adopted by respondent nos. 1 to 4 in the process of selection of Madarsas for the purpose of grant in aid to be extended to them. 2. Initially, when the writ petition was filed, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the Prayer no. 3 made in the writ petition was in the nature of a grievance raised in a public interest litigation and this Court should not undertake a roving and fishing enquiry on vague allegations made in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had agreed not to press Prayer no. 3, relating to bungling and initiation of an enquiry by an independent agency but has confined his arguments to the illegality committed by the respondents in not taking the petitioner's Madarsa under grant in aid. 4. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that it is Madarsa being run by a registered Society know as Muslim Welfare Society, Machhlishahar, Jaunpur, which was initially registered on 7.10.1989 and has been renewed every five years and its registration certificate is upto date. It has been submitted that the State Government had issued a Government Order on 27.2.2013 for taking 146 Madarsas upto Aliyaa Level, which had been permanently recognized upto 1998, in two phases on grant in aid list w.e.f. 2013-14. It has been submitted that the State Government had issued a Government Order on 27.2.2013 for taking 146 Madarsas upto Aliyaa Level, which had been permanently recognized upto 1998, in two phases on grant in aid list w.e.f. 2013-14. The aforesaid Government Order was amended by another Government Order issued on 21.5.2013, making changes in certain terms and conditions, relaxing the eligibility criteria for consideration of Madarsas recognized upto 2003. Two further Government Orders were issued on 9.10.2014 and 27.2.2015 further relaxing the eligibility conditions for consideration of Madarsas. 5. It has been submitted that the petitioner's Madarsa in response to the Government Order dated 21.5.2013 submitted its application through the District Minorities Welfare Officer, Jaunpur, respondent no. 4, on 28.6.2013. The application was complete in all respects and all requisite documents were also annexed. The respondent no. 4 forwarded the application of the petitioner and informed the petitioner of the same. 6. The petitioner's Madarsa was later informed that its application lacked in certain respects e.g. vacancies of three teachers and a Principal was shown. The petitioner filled up the vacancies of Principal and three teachers by issuing proper advertisement and conducting selection and making appointments on 8.11.2014. It thereafter submitted all requisite documents by its application dated 12.11.2014 to the Director, Minorities Welfare, U.P. respondent no. 2 and also forwarded the copy of the requisite papers to the Registrar, Madarsa Board, respondent no. 3, on the same day. 7. The Registrar, Madarsa Board after verifying the information submitted the same to respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2, for reasons best known to him, did not recommend the case of the petitioner and when the Government Order dated 23.7.2015 was issued, taking 75 Madarsas under grant in aid, the petitioner's Madarsa, which was recognized since 1989 and much senior to the Madarsas mentioned in the said Government Order, was not taken under grant in aid. 8. On enquiry, information was given by the respondent no. 4 that respondent no. 2 had informed that certain papers were missing from the application of the petitioner submitted earlier and such papers be annexed and fresh application be made latest by 20.8.2015. 8. On enquiry, information was given by the respondent no. 4 that respondent no. 2 had informed that certain papers were missing from the application of the petitioner submitted earlier and such papers be annexed and fresh application be made latest by 20.8.2015. The petitioner completed all formalities and submitted its application again, but before submission of such application and before the last date fixed in the letter sent by the Directorate, the Government Order 13.8.2015 was issued, taking 17 other Madarsas under grant in aid, which were very junior to the petitioner's Madarsa in terms of date of recognition, but leaving out the case of the petitioner. 9. It has been further submitted that in the list of Madarsas notified on 23.7.2015 and 13.8.2015, several Madarsas did not fulfill the eligibility criteria at all, but they were selected for extraneous consideration. Although in the writ petition, reference has been made to several such Madarsas and the serial numbers in the list respectively have also been given, at the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner had emphasized the case of respondent no. 14-Madarsa Salfia Siraj-ul-Uloom, Parva Narayanpur, Pratapgarh and the case of respondent no. 84-Madarsa Jamia Momina, Lilabnaat Sipah, Jaunpur, saying that such Madarsas were taken under grant in aid list because they fulfilled the demands made by the then Director, Minorities Welfare, U.P., Sri Faizur Rehman, later arrayed as respondent no. 97 in his personal capacity. 10. With regard to respondent no. 84, it was stated that the post of Principal in the said institution was vacant even on 13.8.2015. The Madarsa claims to be situated at Jamia Nagar, Sipah, Jaunpur, but the khatauni of Village Chachakpur, Pargana Saremau, Jaunpur showed the aforesaid Madarsa situated in a different village altogether. The very existence of the Madarsa on the land in question was doubtful, but it was taken under grant in aid as it agreed to appoint Smt. Sheeza Khatoon daughter in law and Ms. Shama Parveen, a relative of respondent no. 97 as a teacher after being taken under grant in aid. 11. With regard to respondent no. 14 the Madarsa situated at Narainpur, Pratapgarh, it was also stated that the Madarsa had land recorded in its name ad-measuring 40 x 40 square feet only. Shama Parveen, a relative of respondent no. 97 as a teacher after being taken under grant in aid. 11. With regard to respondent no. 14 the Madarsa situated at Narainpur, Pratapgarh, it was also stated that the Madarsa had land recorded in its name ad-measuring 40 x 40 square feet only. In the Government Order, three rooms of 10 x 15 square feet and 8 rooms of 15 x 20 square feet were required to be constructed. Obviously, the Madarsa could not have constructed 11 rooms of the area as mentioned in the Government Order on a land measuring 40 x 40 feet, but the respondent no. 97 by manipulation in the records and documents had recommended the taking of the said Madarsa under grant in aid because the son of respondent no. 97 Nabeel-ur-Rehman was appointed as teacher in the said Madarsa with effect from a back date. 12. A personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Ms. Monika S. Garg was filed in response of this Court's order dated 17.7.2017. The Principal Secretary in her affidavit, on the basis of orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the petition and on the basis of complaints being made by the petitioner and several other Madarsas, stated that the State had constituted Three Members Committee for each District to inquire into 26 Madarsas who had allegedly been taken under grant in aid for extraneous considerations. The copies of such orders issued on 24.7.2017 were filed as Annexures to the said personal affidavit. 13. In the rejoinder affidavit to the personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary, the petitioner has alleged that respondent no. 97 submitted an incorrect, misleading and undated report of the Committee of Five Members constituted of officers subordinate to him through his letter dated 4.2.2016, which report was relied upon by the State Level Committee to reject the case of the petitioner again. 14. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 wherein it was brought on record that initially on the declaration of the Chief Minister in 2013, a decision was taken for taking 146 Madarsas under grant in aid. The Government Orders were issued in this regard giving the criteria for selection and the procedure of selection. The files were sent to the Director, Minorities Welfare for examination by a Committee constituted at the Directorate Level. The Government Orders were issued in this regard giving the criteria for selection and the procedure of selection. The files were sent to the Director, Minorities Welfare for examination by a Committee constituted at the Directorate Level. The report of the Committee was sent through letter dated 13.3.2015. The Committee had reported that the post of Principal and three teachers were vacant in the petitioner institution. The Government took a decision on 4.5.2015 through a State Level Committee meeting in pursuance of which, a list of 75 Madarsas was issued initially on 23.7.2015 and a list of 17 Madarsas was issued on 13.8.2015. After the Government Order dated 23.7.2015 and the Government Order dated 13.8.2015 were issued, a proposal for taking under grant in aid 194 Madarsas recognized upto 2003 was again sent by the Registrar, U.P. Madarsa Education Board, respondent no. 3, verifying the papers submitted by the respective District Minorities Welfare Officers, their proposal is pending. Later on, in compliance of this Court's orders in various writ petitions, 6 Madarsas were taken under grant in aid on 20.3.2015 and two Madarsas were taken under grant in aid on 19.11.2015. Thus, a total of 100 Madarsas had been taken under grant in aid. 15. In the supplementary counter affidavit, mention has been made of one writ petition bearing no. 56346 of 2014 being filed by the Muslim Welfare Society through its Secretary before this Court at Allahabad regarding the dispute of Committee of Management of the Madarsa, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.10.2014, directing the Prescribed Authority to take a decision after hearing all concerned within a period of three months. It has been submitted that appointments of Principal and three teachers were made in the institution during the managerial dispute being pending before this Court and before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority had finally decided the dispute only on 18.2.2018 under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. The Madarsa's Managerial Committee being in dispute, any appointments made during the time of such dispute in the Management were illegal. 16. Reference has also been made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 1.8.2019 of the enquiry instituted earlier by the Government Order dated 24.7.2017 with respect to 26 Madarsas, which were claimed by the petitioner and others to be ineligible for grant in aid, yet having been included in the list. 16. Reference has also been made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 1.8.2019 of the enquiry instituted earlier by the Government Order dated 24.7.2017 with respect to 26 Madarsas, which were claimed by the petitioner and others to be ineligible for grant in aid, yet having been included in the list. It was submitted that an on the spot inspection was made of such Madarsa and it was reported that they fulfilled the criteria for taking under grant in aid. After such submission of report, the Government had directed the respondent no. 2 to make available a report regarding the petitioner and the Director then constituted a Five Members Committee which made its recommendations again for rejecting the case of the petitioner. It has been submitted in such affidavit that at present a total of 100 Madarsas are being run under grant in aid. The remaining 93 proposals sent by the Directorate are yet to be examined and the Government had not yet taken any decision with respect to taking such Madarsas under grant in aid. The details of all the Madarsas taken under grant in aid had been uploaded on the Madarsa Portal of the Registrar, U.P. Madarsa Education Board and the details with regard to such Madarsas have been based on the enquiry report of all such Madarsas submitted by the Enquiry Committee. 17. In the supplementary counter affidavit of the Secretary, Minorities Welfare filed on 8.3.2017, reference has been made to the State Level Committee meeting being held on 11.2.2016, 7.4.2016 and again on 15.9.2016 in which, the case of the petitioner Madarsa was also considered with all other Madarsas on the basis of 133 files sent with 133 representations by respondent no. 2, but since the petitioner institution did not fulfil the criteria, the case of the petitioner was rejected. The reasons given for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner were that appointments were made of teachers and Principal during the period when dispute regarding Committee of Management was pending before the Court and that the Sale Deed with respect to one plot of land was in the name of Faizur Rahman Junior High School. 18. The reasons given for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner were that appointments were made of teachers and Principal during the period when dispute regarding Committee of Management was pending before the Court and that the Sale Deed with respect to one plot of land was in the name of Faizur Rahman Junior High School. 18. On the basis of such averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit, the prayer clause of the writ petition was amended, challenging the minutes of the State Level Committee meeting of 11.2.2016, 7.4.2016 and 15.9.2016 also in so far as they related to the petitioner's Madarsa. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner having repeatedly emphasized the role played by respondent no. 97 in depriving the petitioner of its legitimate right to be considered for being taken under grant in aid, this Court, on the objections being raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, had directed by its order dated 27.5.2019 to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file a written note, specifically stating the paragraphs of the pleadings i.e. the writ petition, the rejoinder affidavit and several affidavits filed by the petitioner thereafter, containing the allegations made against the respondent no. 97, the then Director of Minorities Welfare. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted a written note, which was taken on record during the course of the argument. In such written note, the petitioner has relied upon Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the writ petition, saying that the then Director, Minorities Welfare has deliberately and mischievously sent a letter dated 8.5.2015 to the respondent no. 4, pointing out the shortcomings in the application of the petitioner's Madarsa and when such letter was communicated by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner's Madarsa completed all formalities again and submitted its application along with requisite documents and the Manager of the petitioner's Madarsa also met the respondent no. 2 on 24.8.2015 to enquire from him as to why the documents already submitted on 12.11.2014 were again demanded and as to why the petitioner's Madarsa was not selected. The respondent no. 2 (now respondent no. 97) did not give any satisfactory reply, but got infuriated and threatened the Manager of the petitioner that he would ensure that petitioner's Madarsa is not selected. 21. The respondent no. 2 (now respondent no. 97) did not give any satisfactory reply, but got infuriated and threatened the Manager of the petitioner that he would ensure that petitioner's Madarsa is not selected. 21. Certain paragraphs of the rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit have also been mentioned i.e. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 thereof, saying that respondent no. 2/97 had issued a letter on 5.8.2015 to the respondent no. 4, giving time upto 20.8.2015, but without waiting for the last date, the Government Order dated 13.8.2015 was issued, selecting 17 more Madarsas and ignoring the case of the petitioner. It was specifically stated that respondent no. 97 throughout manipulated the process of selection to harm the petitioner. 22. In the rejoinder affidavit to the main counter affidavit filed on 16.11.2015 by respondent nos. 1 and 2, again the petitioner in Paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 has stated that the Madarsas, which were taken under grant in aid did not fulfill the criteria mentioned in the Government Orders and that even repeated representations of the petitioner to respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not yield any results. 23. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner on 22.3.2017 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, specific allegation was made against respondent no. 97 that he prepared a false report and got the undated signature of the members of the Committee which he constituted at the Directorate Level of his subordinates and this time, showed a different reason for not recommending the case of the petitioner. Initially the reason shown in rejection of the case of the petitioner was that the post of Principal was vacant. Thereafter by a letter dated 5.8.2014, respondent no. 97 pointed out that the post of Principal and three teachers was vacant. Later on, a new ground was taken that the Committee of Management of the Society running the institution was disputed as one Mohd. Hasan son of Mohd. Israil claiming to be the Secretary of the Committee of the Society had filed a writ petition at Allahabad with regard to conduct of election of the Society. It was stated that the application for impleadment moved by Mohd. Hasan in the writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 5313 (MS) of 2015 was a device invented by respondent no. It was stated that the application for impleadment moved by Mohd. Hasan in the writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 5313 (MS) of 2015 was a device invented by respondent no. 97 to create a hurdle in the way of the petitioner seeking justice from this Court. This Court on 8.2.2017, after hearing the parties by a detailed and reasoned order, rejected the impleadment application of Mohd. Hasan. 24. It was also stated that the State Level Committee in its subsequent meeting was also influenced by respondent no. 97, who prevailed there and submitted recommendation to reject the case of the petitioner. 25. In the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 97 to the writ petition, respondent no. 97 has stated that the process for taking the Madarsas under grant in aid list was initiated much before respondent no. 97 took over as Director Minorities Welfare on 25.2.2014. The Directorate had submitted a report against the petitioner even before the respondent no. 97 became the Director. Moreover, respondent no. 97 retired on 30.11.2015. The subsequent incumbent on the post of Mr. M.P. Pandey also submitted a report on 14.9.2017, not recommending the case of the petitioner. The application of the petitioner dated 26.8.2013 was processed by the predecessor of respondent no. 97 one Sri Abrar Ahmad. 26. It has further been stated in the affidavit filed by Sri Faizur Rahman that Sri Nabeel-ur-Rehman son of respondent no. 97 had been appointed on 26.8.2013 in Madarsa Salfia Siraj-ul-Uloom, Parva Narayanpur, Pratapgarh much before the date of decision taken by the State Level Committee and it was also stated that Smt. Sheeza Khatoon was issued appointment letter on 25.8.2015 in Madarsa Jamia Mominat Lil-Banat, Sipah, Jaunpur, much after the issuance of Government Order dated 13.8.2015, taking the said institution under grant in aid. Moreover, respondent no. 97 had no knowledge or information about the appointment of his daughter in law, Smt. Sheeza Khatoon wife of Jamil-Ur-Rehman, his other son, in the said institution. Moreover, Ms. Shama Parveen who has been alleged to be a female relative of respondent no. 97 and has been appointed in the said Madarsa only to please respondent no. 97, was not a relative of the Director and that the allegations made in this regard by the petitioner are baseless. 27. Mr. Moreover, Ms. Shama Parveen who has been alleged to be a female relative of respondent no. 97 and has been appointed in the said Madarsa only to please respondent no. 97, was not a relative of the Director and that the allegations made in this regard by the petitioner are baseless. 27. Mr. Z. Jilani, who appeared for the opposite party no. 97 had pointed out from the short counter affidavit filed by the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 that the State Government had constituted a Four Members Committee of which the Director of Minority Welfare was only one Member. This Committee had met and finally decided about the eligibility of the Madarsas on 31.03.2015. The State Government had approved such recommendations on 19.05.2015. On the basis of said recommendations the orders were issued for taking on grant-in-aid 75 + 17 i.e. 92 Madarsas in the first phase. A letter was issued on 28.07.2015 to the Director of Minority Welfare by the State Government asking for additional documents from those Madarsas who could not be considered because of incomplete papers. It is apparent that after calling for additional papers on 05.08.2015 by the Office of the Director of Minority Welfare no further decision had been taken finally. The Government had initially taken a decision to take 146 Madarsas under grant-in-aid. Only 92 were approved in the first phase, remaining 54 are yet to be considered. The petitioner is one amongst the many, who were rejected, initially but can still qualify when the State Government considers taking on grant-in-aid 54 Madarsas as proposed earlier by it. 28. It has further been submitted that the report submitted by the Office of the Director of Minority Welfare during the tenure of opposite party no. 97 was also confirmed in the subsequent reports submitted twice to the Government and it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 97 was so influential as to prejudice the decision of all superior officers to eliminate the petitioner alone. 29. It has been submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 97 on 12.05.2019 that the opposite party no. 97 had no concern with the Department of Minority Welfare and Waqf till 24.04.2014. On 25.04.2014 the opposite party no. 97 joined initially as Chief Executive Officer of Sunni Central Waqf Board. 29. It has been submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 97 on 12.05.2019 that the opposite party no. 97 had no concern with the Department of Minority Welfare and Waqf till 24.04.2014. On 25.04.2014 the opposite party no. 97 joined initially as Chief Executive Officer of Sunni Central Waqf Board. He became the Director of Minority Welfare thereafter on the same day, working on additional charge. Sri Jilani, has also submitted that there is a difference in the allegation that the Director of Minority Welfare acted to give the benefit to others and that the Director of Minority Welfare acted deliberately for causing harm to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be said to have been eliminated deliberately as 54 Madarsas are yet to be selected and the Government will consider the case of the petitioner's Madarsa alongwith other eligible applicants at a later on point in time. Out of 146 Madarsas to be selected only 92 had been selected and there was no dearth of opportunities that would require malafide action on the part of Opposite party no. 97, to take active steps to eliminate the petitioner from such consideration. 30. Referring to the additional counter affidavit dated 27.05.2019, it has also been submitted that the Director submitted the Report to the Four Member Committee which held its Meeting on 30.03.2015 and the Constitution of the Committee was such that the Director of Minority Welfare being the lowest official in rank could not have influenced higher officials of the Government, only to eliminate the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not mentioned the names of other officials in the Office of the Director of Minority Welfare to indicate as to who others had demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner, although in the writ petition and in the Rejoinder affidavit and in the written note submitted later on, the petitioner has alleged bias on the part of the other officials of the Directorate as well. Learned counsel for the Opposite party no. 97 has placed reliance upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court with regard to how malice in fact can be proved by a litigant on the part of the Committee which takes a collective decision i.e. AIR 1980 SCC 104: 1991 Supplement (1) SCC 313. 31. Learned counsel for the Opposite party no. 97 has placed reliance upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court with regard to how malice in fact can be proved by a litigant on the part of the Committee which takes a collective decision i.e. AIR 1980 SCC 104: 1991 Supplement (1) SCC 313. 31. Shri Z. Jilani, has also pointed that an erroneous decision has been distinguished from a malafide decision. Even if same report was submitted erroneously by the Directorate it would not mean that it was submitted by a malafide intention of excluding the petitioner's institution. 32. During the course of argument, since it had been submitted before this Court that the decision is yet to be taken in respect of remaining Madarsas being taken under grant in aid, as initially the policy was to take 146 Madarsas under grant in aid but only 92 of them were taken by the list circulated on 23.7.2015 and 13.8.2015, time was granted to the Additional Advocate General Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, to seek instructions from the Government whether there is any such decision pending before it and whether the case of the petitioner can still be considered. 33. It was submitted on the basis of instructions by Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General that there was no proposal to take the remaining Madarsas under grant in aid. In case this Court finds the petitioner's institution eligible for being taken under grant in aid, an appropriate order may be passed and the Government shall comply with such orders of the Court. He had referred to various Madarsas being taken under grant in aid on the basis of Court's order earlier also. 34. Sri Syed Husain, in his reply to the arguments of counsel for the respondents, stated that as is evident from various affidavits filed by the State respondents as well as respondent no. 97, the petitioner's Madarsa in response to the two Government Orders had submitted its application through proper channel i.e. through the office of respondent no. 4 much before the last date. The application being complete in all respect was verified and forwarded to respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 3. Later on, on relaxation of eligibility criteria, the petitioner was again informed and it submitted the required documents with regard to appointment of one Principal and three teachers along with its application dated 12.11.2014. 4 much before the last date. The application being complete in all respect was verified and forwarded to respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 3. Later on, on relaxation of eligibility criteria, the petitioner was again informed and it submitted the required documents with regard to appointment of one Principal and three teachers along with its application dated 12.11.2014. With regard to the conditions mentioned in the Government Orders relating to the Management of the institution being undisputed, only a certificate was required under Condition no. 2 from the Deputy Registrar, Chits, firms and Societies that the Management was not disputed. Such a certificate was given by the Deputy Registrar to the Management of petitioner's institution. Condition nos. 5 and 6 related to the land of Madarsa being recorded in its favour in the khatauni, and its building being complete in all respects and the infrastructure being proper. The petitioner's Madarsa had purchased land through four Sale Deeds and the land was recorded in the name of the Madarsa. One plot of land which was recorded in the name of Faizanul Uloom Junior High School, Machhlishahar, Jaunpur was completely unrelated to the petitioner's Madarsa as the Junior High School was situated in a different campus in a different locality/Mohalla in the city of Jaunpur. It has been submitted that a misleading report was submitted by the Directorate, saying that the land of Madarsa was recorded in the name of Faizanul Uloom Junior High School under the influence of respondent no. 97. Under the Government Orders, giving the criteria for eligibility, only one Headmaster, one Clerk, one Class-IV employee, four teachers for Classes 9th and 10th, and three teachers for Classes 6th, 7th and 8th, and five teachers for Classes 1st to 5th were prescribed. 35. Sri Syed Husain has submitted that the petitioner's institution possessed the requisite teaching and non teaching staff. The objections taken by the respondents for rejecting the case of the petitioner was that such appointment of one Headmaster and three teachers was done on 8.11.2014, when the Management of the institution was in dispute and, therefore, the appointments were illegal and the post would be deemed vacant, is against the law. The appointments have not yet been set aside nor declared illegal. The teachers are still working. 36. The appointments have not yet been set aside nor declared illegal. The teachers are still working. 36. Moreover, when this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the rival Committee of Management by its order dated 29.10.2014 leaving it open to the writ petitioner therein to file a Reference before the Registrar to be referred in turn to the Prescribed Authority, such Reference was made in December, 2014 much after the appointments were made of one Headmaster and three teachers on 8.11.2014. 37. It has been submitted that the State Level Committee appointed for consideration of the applications on 30.3.2015 took a decision on 4.5.2015 by which date, the petitioner's application complete in all respects with regard to appointments of four teaching staff dated 12.11.2014, had already been forwarded by the office of respondent no. 3 through his letter dated 12.12.2014. The complete application was deliberately not placed by the respondent no. 2 before the Committee for consideration. 38. It has been argued that no prudent man would act in the manner as alleged in the counter affidavit that he would repeatedly filed applications for being taken under grant in aid list without annexing relevant documents thereto. In fact the Registrar had sent through his letter dated 12.12.2014, the applications of 23 other Madarsas, and several of them were taken under grant in aid, whereas the petitioner's case was ignored. 39. It has been submitted that the elections of the Committee of Management of the year 2007 were initially disputed by Sri Mohd. Hasan. The Registrar had rejected such objections made by the rival Committee of Management. The matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority passed an order, rejecting such objections again. Such order of Prescribed Authority was challenged by the rival Committee of Management of Mohd. Hasan before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter to it to consider afresh. The claim of the rival Committee of Management was again rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The rival Committee of Management again approached the High Court and the High Court by its judgment and order dated 29.10.2014, again rejected the claim of the rival Committee of Management, with regard to the dispute of elections of 2007. The claim of the rival Committee of Management was again rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The rival Committee of Management again approached the High Court and the High Court by its judgment and order dated 29.10.2014, again rejected the claim of the rival Committee of Management, with regard to the dispute of elections of 2007. The Court noted in its judgment that in the meanwhile, elections were held in 2010 and again in 2015 by the petitioner's Committee. Such subsequent elections were not challenged by the rival Committee of Management, therefore, the Court observed that in case they were aggrieved by the subsequent elections, they could approach the appropriate forum. The rival Committee of Management challenged the said order in Special Appeal, which was also dismissed by the High Court. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the entire order of the Court dated 29.10.2014 filed as Annexure-SCA-5 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. It has been submitted that the writ petition was dismissed on 29.10.2014, and the appointments of teachers were made on 8.11.2014. There was no dispute regarding Committee of Management in control of Madarsa at the time of such appointments. The application was filed again by the petitioner on 12.11.2014 along with the certificate issued by the Registrar regarding no dispute of the Committee of Management remaining pending. 41. It has been submitted that the Reference made to the Prescribed Authority with regard to dispute regarding elections of 2010 and 2015 only in December, 2014. Moreover, it has been submitted in the supplementary counter affidavit that was filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the first time, dispute relating to Committee of Management was raised. Earlier the only reason mentioned for rejection in the correspondence between the parties was that the post of Principal and three teachers was lying vacant. 42. Shri Syed Husain, has referred to his rejoinder affidavit filed on 12.07.2019 to the additional counter affidavit filed by the Opposite party no. 97. It has been submitted on the basis of paragraph 10-A and 10-B that admittedly, in one of the Madarsa taken on grant-in-aid, the post of Principal was filled up only on 28.05.2015. With regard to the son of opposite party no. 97, being appointed as Teacher the date of appointment as 26.08.2013, has been ante-dated. 97. It has been submitted on the basis of paragraph 10-A and 10-B that admittedly, in one of the Madarsa taken on grant-in-aid, the post of Principal was filled up only on 28.05.2015. With regard to the son of opposite party no. 97, being appointed as Teacher the date of appointment as 26.08.2013, has been ante-dated. Discrepancy in the dates of appointments of various Teachers in that particular Madarsa where the Opposite party no. 97's son was appointed, have also been pointed out from Page No. 22 to 26 of the additional rejoinder affidavit. Reference has been made to the sale deed of that particular Madarsa where the boundaries of the plot on which the Madarsa was situated have been clearly stated and also dimensions of the plot which was only 40 x 40 feet. There was a requirement of 8 rooms ad-measuring 16 x 20 feet each, and three rooms ad-measuring 15 x 10 feet each, in the Government Order, but the said Madarsa in which the opposite party no. 97's son was working, was built on a plot of land ad-measuring only 40 x 40 feet. On the other hand, the petitioner had bought land through four sale deeds and its Madarsa had 20 rooms and a Play ground. 43. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the Inspection Report on page 28 of the rejoinder affidavit, to show that no discrepancy was pointed out by the Committee constituted by the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare during the pendency of the writ petition. However, the Government still relied upon the earlier report of opposite party no. 97 to non-suit the petitioner. The Committee that was constituted by the Government had given its report dated 01.08.2017, in favour of the petitioner but again a Four Members' Committee at the Directorate Level was constituted after this Committee had given a report by respondent no. 97. This Committee of Four Members did not refer at all to earlier reports submitted in favour of the petitioner but stated that the appointments of the Teachers have been made during the pendency of the dispute relating to Committee of Management before the High Court. 44. This Court having considered the submissions made on affidavits by the petitioner and the State respondents and also the private respondent no. 44. This Court having considered the submissions made on affidavits by the petitioner and the State respondents and also the private respondent no. 97 and having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on several occasions, is of the considered opinion that initially when the petitioner had filed its application on 28.6.2013, the shortcoming pointed out to it was with regard to vacancy of the post of Principal and three teachers in the institution. On relaxation of criteria by later Government Orders and opportunity to file a fresh application, the petitioner issued advertisement, conducted selection and appointed one Principal and three teachers on 8.11.2014 and submitted a fresh application on 12.11.2014. The application submitted on 12.11.2014 was verified by respondent nos. 4 and 3 and thereafter submitted to the office of respondent no. 2. The office of respondent no. 2 wrote a letter on 5.8.2015 to the respondent no. 4 saying that requisite documents were not filed along with the application and the same be filed latest by 20.8.2015. The petitioner institution again submitted all documents along with the application and it was forwarded in time by respondent nos. 4 and 3, but by the time it reached the Government, the decision was already taken and a list of 17 Madarsas was again issued on 13.8.2015. The petitioner was not included. Thereafter also out of 194 files sent by the Directorate, the remaining Madarsas were considered in the meeting held by the State Level Committee on 11.2.2016, 7.4.2016 and 15.9.2016. On such dates also, the reports submitted by respondent no. 2 prevailed, which erroneously recorded that appointments of teaching staff made on 8.11.2014 were made during the period when the Management of the institution was disputed and, therefore, such appointments were illegal and the posts be deemed to be vacant. 45. From a perusal of the judgments rendered by this Court in adjudication undertaken by the rival Committees of Management at Allahabad, it is evident that the petitioner Committee of Management with its Manager Mohd. Ali Akhtar had remained in control of the institution on the basis of elections held in 2007, and in 2010 and then again in 2013. There was no dispute pending after dismissal of writ petition on 29.10.2014 by this Court at Allahabad. The Reference was filed by the rival Committee of Management before the Prescribed Authority only in December, 2014. 46. There was no dispute pending after dismissal of writ petition on 29.10.2014 by this Court at Allahabad. The Reference was filed by the rival Committee of Management before the Prescribed Authority only in December, 2014. 46. With regard to the contention that one of the Sale Deeds relating to the land of the petitioner institution being recorded in the name of Faizanul Uloom Junior High School, it has come on record that the Junior High School is situated in a different locality in the city of Jaunpur and has no concern with the Madarsa, which is running independently at Machhlishahar, Jaunpur. Thus, the three objections taken for rejection of the petitioner's case were completely erroneous. The case of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily. 47. This writ petition is allowed to the extent of exclusion of the name of the petitioner institution from the list of institutions taken under grant in aid on 23.7.2015 and 13.8.2015. 48. The decisions taken subsequently by the State Level Committee on 11.2.2016, 7.4.2016 and 15.9.2016 are also erroneous in so far as they reject the petitioner's case and are set aside. The petitioner being wrongly excluded from the list issued in July, 2015 shall be taken under grant in aid w.e.f. 23.7.2015, the date when several other Madarsas, which were recognized later than that of petitioner's Madarsa were taken under grant in aid.