Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1768 (TS)

Mohammed Khaleed Ahmed v. State of Telangana

2025-12-10

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Petitioner claims to be an interested/affected person in the matter of appointment of Chief Executive Officer of the 2 nd respondent-Telangana State Waqf Board in terms of Section 23 of the Waqf Act, as amended by Amending Act No.14 of 2025 which came into force with effect from 08.04.2025. He challenges the validity of G.O.Rt.No.96 issued by the 1 st respondent dated 14.10.2025. 1.1. It is stated, the said G.O. is in the teeth of Section 23 of the Act as amended in Amending Waqf Act which came into force with effect from 08.04.2025, which reads as under:- There shall be a full-time Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board to be appointed by the State Government who shall not be below the rank of Joint Secretary to the State Government." The term of office and other conditions of service of the Chief Executive Officer shall be such as may be prescribed. The Chief Executive Officer shall be Ex-Officio Secretary of the Board and shall be under the administrative control of the Board." 1.2. It is stated, Section 23 of the Act does not empower the State Government to make any in-charge arrangements/Full Additional Charge arrangements as regards the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board is concerned. Further it is un-understandable as to what are the administrative exigencies under which the impugned order has been issued by the 1 st respondent. In the absence of statutory power of making any in- charge arrangements, the impugned order is without power and jurisdiction, hence the same is liable to be set aside. Under these circumstances, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, it is stated that under Section 3(k) of the Act, a "person interested" refers to one who has a right to offer prayer or perform religious rites in a waqf institution such as a Mosque, Dargah, or Graveyard; the present issue pertains purely to administrative action of the State Government, which falls outside the scope of the said provision. Hence, petitioner cannot be treated as a "person interested," and Writ Petition is not maintainable under Section 83(2) of the Act. 2.1. Hence, petitioner cannot be treated as a "person interested," and Writ Petition is not maintainable under Section 83(2) of the Act. 2.1. It is also stated, as per the un-amended Section 23, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board shall be a Muslim Officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government, to be appointed by the State Government. In the past, while Sri Md. Asadullah was serving as Special Grade Deputy Collector, the matter regarding his eligibility was referred to the General Administration (Cabinet) Department in File No.399/Estt-11/2025 for clarification on equivalence of the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector to that of Deputy Secretary to Government under Section 23 of the Waqf Act. In response, vide Memo dated 08-02-2025, it is clarified that all Fourth-Level Gazetted Posts notified under Group-I Services as per G.O.Ms.No.55, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept., dated 25-04-2022, shall be treated as equivalent to the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government for the purpose of appointment as CEO, Telangana Waqf Board. Accordingly, the Government treated the said post of Special Grade Deputy Collector as equivalent to Deputy Secretary to Government, and the appointment was made accordingly at that time. 2.2. Subsequently, it is stated, Sri Md. Asadullah was promoted as Additional Collector, which is a higher cadre position in the Executive Branch hierarchy. Meanwhile, Act No.14 of 2025 has amended Section 23 stipulating that the Chief Executive Officer "shall not be below the rank of Joint Secretary to Government. However, the constitutional validity and implementation of the said Amendment Act are presently under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Central Waqf Council has not yet issued any guidelines or communicated instructions for its adoption by the State Governments. Consequently, the State of Telangana has not formally adopted the amended provisions, pending final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and necessary clarification from the Government of India. 2.3. In view of the above legal and administrative situation, and in strict compliance with the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 276 of 2021 and batch, wherein it was directed that the post of Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf Board, shall not remain vacant and that a regular or in-charge officer be placed to ensure smooth functioning of the statutory body, Government was constrained to take immediate action to avoid judicial displeasure and administrative vacuum. Further, Writ Petitions No. 27523, 22692 and 27091 of 2025 concerning the appointment of Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf Board are also pending adjudication before this Court. In view of the judicial pronouncement in Writ Appeal No.860 of 2025, which reiterated the necessity of maintaining continuous and effective administrative control over the Waqf Board, the Government, considering administrative exigencies, public interest, and the large volume of litigations, issued the impugned G.O. placing Sri Md. Asadullah, Additional Collector, as In-charge Full Additional Charge of CEO, Telangana Waqf Board, purely on a temporary basis until further orders. This action was taken to ensure administrative continuity, prompt representation of the Waqf Board before the Hon'ble Courts, and adherence to statutory and judicial obligations. 2.4. It is further stated, in view of petitioner's contention regarding equivalency of the Additional Collector with Joint Secretary to Government under the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the Minorities Welfare Department has sought specific clarification from the G.A. (Cabinet) Department which is the competent authority to issue such clarifications regarding inter-se seniority and equivalence between Secretariat and field posts. Until such clarification is received, appointment of officer is only a stop-gap arrangement, not a permanent posting, and does not confer any vested right. 2.5. It is pertinent to mention that in Writ Appeal No. 860 of 2025, the Hon'ble Division Bench, while setting aside G.O.Rt.No.67, dated 12-08-2025, directed the learned Single Judge to hear the matter afresh, without being influenced by earlier observations, and to decide the issue on merits. Hence, the matter is sub judice and the Government is acting in accordance with judicial directions and administrative propriety. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.3, it is stated, Petitioner has neither pleaded any specific facts nor filed a single document before this Court to establish that the answering Respondent is below the prescribed Joint Secretary rank. It is a settled proposition of law that the party who asserts a fact must prove the same. Mere averments of speculative assertions without material cannot form the basis of judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled proposition of law that the party who asserts a fact must prove the same. Mere averments of speculative assertions without material cannot form the basis of judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to Respondent No.3, Additional Collector in the Revenue Department, a post which, under the Telangana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2024, is superior in rank to that of a Joint Secretary in the Secretariat hierarchy as per the Secretariat Service Rules, hence, the impugned order cannot be faulted on this ground. 3.1. It is further stated, as per G.O.Ms.No.55, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 25-04-2022, the 4 th level Gazetted Officer corresponds to the Deputy Collector, and in terms of Memo No. 18/Cabinet/2025 dated 08-02-2025, such 4th level Gazetted posts are treated as equivalent to the Deputy Secretary to Government. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 (Additional Collector), being a 5 th level Gazetted Officer in the Revenue Department, stands one rank above the Deputy Secretary and hence, satisfies the eligibility requirement as to the rank of Joint Secretary under Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by Act 14 of 2025. 3.2. It is also stated, Petitioner lacks locus to maintain the present Writ Petition. He claims to be an "interested person" as per Section 3(k) of the Waqf Act, 1995. However, Section 3(k) read with Section 3(r) clearly defines who constitutes a "person interested in a waqf" and what is a "waqf," and those definitions relate only to religious endowments, beneficiaries, and properties of a waqf, not to the appointment or administrative control of the Waqf Board or its officers. It is further stated, in Para No. 4, Petitioner alleged that the Act does not empower the Government to appoint an in-charge Chief Executive Officer, but viewed correctly, the Act also does not prohibit the Government from doing so for its own administrative convenience and continuity of governance. What constitutes exigencies of administration lies solely within the prerogative of the Government, as such exigencies depend upon numerous factors affecting smooth functioning of the institution. It is not for the Petitioner to dictate the manner in which the State exercises its executive discretion in matters of temporary administrative arrangements. What constitutes exigencies of administration lies solely within the prerogative of the Government, as such exigencies depend upon numerous factors affecting smooth functioning of the institution. It is not for the Petitioner to dictate the manner in which the State exercises its executive discretion in matters of temporary administrative arrangements. Hence, the Writ Petition being wholly misconceived, lacking any factual or legal foundation, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs, as it constitutes an unwarranted interference in the lawful executive domain of the Government. 4. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Arbaaz Sufiyan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for unofficial respondent and Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. 5. The case of petitioner is that under Section 23 of the Act, as amended by Act No.14 of 2025 which came into force from 08.04.2025, there shall be a full-time Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board to be appointed by the State Government who shall not be below the rank of Joint Secretary to the State Government. But, in this case, vide impugned G.O., Sri Md. Asadullah, Additional Collector which post is not equivalent in rank to Joint Secretary to the State Government, was placed in-charge Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf Board. Whereas Respondent No.3 drawing attention of this Court to the comparative statement of the gazetted cadres of General Administration and Revenue services, placed at page 8 of the counter, states that Additional Collector (Joint Collector) (Non-cadre) is equivalent to Additional Secretary to Government (Non-cadre) which is above the Joint Secretary to Government, hence placing him as Chief Executive Officer is not illegal or arbitrary. 5.1 In this factual scenario, at the threshold, it is to be seen, the G.O. impugned itself says that in view of the administrative exigencies and to ensure smooth functioning of the Waqf Board, the Government placed the services of Sri Md. Asadullah, Additional Collector as In-charge Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf Board on Full Additional Charge, temporarily until further orders . Asadullah, Additional Collector as In-charge Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf Board on Full Additional Charge, temporarily until further orders . Further, in the counter, it is stated on behalf of the 1 st respondent that in view of the petitioner’s contention regarding equivalency of the Additional Collector with Joint Secretary to Government under the amended Waqf Act, the Minorities Welfare Department has sought clarification and the G.A. (Cabinet) Department which is the competent authority is examining the said issue and until such clarification is received, appointment of the officer is only a stop-gap arrangement, but not a permanent posting and it does not confer any vested right in him. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent has placed before this Court the memo dated 08.02.2025 along with the material papers which says that ‘government hereby clarify that all the 4th Level Gazetted Posts belonging to Services notified under Group-I vide G.O.Ms.No. 55, General Administration (Ser.A) Dept., Dated 25.04.2022 shall be treated as equivalent to Deputy Secretary to Govt., for the purpose of Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995, for filling of the post of Chief Executive Officer of the Telangana Waqf Board’. Though petitioner relied on the affidavit filed by the Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare Department in Writ Appeal No. 860 of 2025 to the effect that appellant therein i.e. Respondent No.3 herein post is not equivalent to the post of Joint Secretary to the government, in view of the specific stand of the government that this appointment is only a stop-gap arrangement and only as a temporary measure, and the competent authority is examining the issue of equivalence between Secretariat and field posts regarding inter-se seniority and also in view of the Memo dated 08.02.2025, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. 6. Further aspect to be seen is petitioner’s claim is that he filed the Writ Petition as ‘interested person’, but respondents drawing attention to Section 3(k) read with Section 3(r) of the Act, contend that ‘person interested in a waqf’ and ‘waqf’ pertains only to those who derive a religious or charitable interest in a waqf property or who have rights connected to its use or benefits and it does not extend to administrative decisions of the government concerning the appointment of officers of the Waqf Board, hence, petitioner cannot claim locus to challenge the government’s decision regarding administrative arrangements made in the larger public and institutional interest. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition does not merit consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.