Madarsa Not Immune from Reasonable Regulations on Academic Standards: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that while Article 30(1) of the Constitution grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, this autonomy does not exempt them from reasonable regulatory control designed to ensure academic excellence and maintain educational standards.

The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan quashed an advertisement issued by Nazime Ala/Manager of Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom, Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) for recruitment of 5 teachers and a clerk, terming it violative of the State’s policy and contrary to the directions flowing from the Supreme Court's decision in Anjuman Kadri and Others vs. Union of India and Others, declaring the Kamil and Fazil degrees unconstitutional.

It held that issuing recruitment advertisements without awaiting the government’s final decision on qualification norms for teachers amounted to acting against public policy and constitutional principles.

One Sajjad Hussain, who claimed to the Nazim-e-Ala/Manager of the Madarsa published an advertisement on April 29, 2025, inviting applications for five Assistant Teacher posts and one Clerk post.

The petitioners (the Committee of Management of the Madarsa and its members) challenged this move, contending that Hussain had no legal authority to issue the advertisement since his status as Manager was itself under dispute. They pointed out that an earlier order dated October 11/17, 2019, had excluded him from the membership list of the society which runs the Madarsa and declared the previous management time-barred.

The State Government had, meanwhile, imposed a blanket restriction on new appointments in madarsas through a Government Order dated May 20, 2025, and subsequent communications dated May 21 and May 30, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Anjuman Kadri v. Union of India (2024), which declared the Kamil and Fazil degrees unconstitutional. These directions mandated that no recruitment could be made until new qualification and eligibility norms for madarsa teachers were finalized.

Despite multiple communications reiterating this restriction, including those from the Director of Minority Welfare, the Registrar of the U.P. Madarsa Education Board, and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Hussain went ahead with the recruitment process.

Justice Chauhan noted that the State’s directions were issued to uphold academic standards and align teacher qualifications with the evolving framework of secular education. Such regulations, the court observed, “cannot be said to infringe upon the minority’s right to administer their institutions.” The bench added that “minority rights under Article 30(1) are subject to reasonable regulations intended to ensure quality and integrity in education".

In reinforcing this principle, the High Court relied on a line of Supreme Court judgments including P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General (2003), Chandigarh Administration v. Usha Kheterpal Waie (2011), and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (2007), which collectively affirm that determining qualifications and recruitment norms lies solely within the policy domain of the State and cannot be interfered with by courts or institutional bodies.

“The advertisement was issued in violation of the government’s policy and the directions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court,” the judge said, adding that any person appointed under such an advertisement “cannot claim any legal right to an appointment made pursuant to an illegal process".

Court consequently quashed the April 29, 2025, advertisement and held that even if appointments had been made pursuant to it, they were void ab initio and conferred no legal entitlement.

Case Title: Committee of Management, Madarsa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom, Sikariganj (Ehata Nawab) and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Order Date: October 17, 2025

Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan