HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 387 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Sajjad Husain, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 06.10.2025 passed in Writ - A No. 8245 of 2025. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the State Respondents, more specifically Respondent No. 3 to 5, to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds under the dying- in-harness provisions as per Section 10 of the U.P. Non-Governmental Arbic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Service Regulation, 2016 (Madarsa Rules, 2016) at Madarsa Idara Darul Uloom Arbia Islamia Ahle Sunnat, Sadimadanpur District Banda Uttar Pradesh in the interest of justice. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent No. 3 to 5 to expeditiously decide the petitioner's application dated 16.12.2024 within a stipulated time period as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court for securing the ends of justice. Copy of the application dt. 16.12.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this petition." Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sajjad Husain Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohammad Mukhtar Naseem .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare And Waqf Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. The facts of the case in brief are that father of the appellant was employed in the Madarsa i.e. respondent no. 5 herein. The Madarsa is situated at Banda. After his death the appellant/petitioner claims to have moved an application for compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment in such Madarsas is governed by Rules, namely, Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arbic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016 (hereinafter referred to 'the Madarsa Rules, 2016'). Sub rule 8 of Rule 10 of the Madarsa Rules, 2016 as is evident from the Hindi version of the Rules is relevant which reads as under:- "(8) आिũत के आवेदन पर Šबęध सिमित 15 िदवस मȅ आिũत की िनयुिǘ करके िजला अġपसंćयक कġयाण अिधकारी के माĘयम से सहमित ŠाĚत करने हेतु Šĥताव िनरीWक अरबी मदरसा को Šेिषत करेगी। Šĥताव की ŠािĚत के 15 िदवस के भीतर िनरीWक अरबी मदरसा वेतन भुगतान हेतु सहमित दȅगे। यिद िनयुिǘ मे कोई śुिट/गलती है तो िनरीWक अरबी मदरसा उǘ śुिट/गलती का िनराकरण करने के पdzात वेतन भुगतान की सहमित दȅगे।" 4. Apparently, the Committee of Management is to make the appointment and send the proposal for consent of the Inspector, Arbi Madarsa through District Minority Welfare Officer. 5. In the case at hand there is nothing on record to show that the Madarsa has made the appointment in terms of Sub rule 8 of Rule 10 of the Madarsa Rules, 2016 and thereafter sent the proposal for approval by the Inspector. As the appointment was to be made by the Madarsa situated at Banda, therefore, the learned Single Judge has found merit in the objection of the concerned parties that the High Court at Lucknow lacked territorial jurisdiction. We concur with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge. The High Court at Lucknow would have jurisdiction only after the Madarsa had made the appointment and it was pending before the Inspector for his consent, the Inspector, Arbi Madarsa being stationed at Lucknow but in a case such as one at hand where, the opposite party no. 5 is situated at Banda itself had not made the appointment, there is no way that jurisdiction would lie before this Court at Lucknow to entertain a writ petition in this regard. 6. In view of the above, the writ Court can not be faulted for having SPLA No. 387 of 2025 2 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in an intra court appeal. We, however, leave it open for the appellant/petitioner to move an application before the opposite party no. 3 if there is a grievance against opposite party no. 5 regarding non performance of its statutory obligations under Rule 10 of the Madarsa Rules, 2016 referred hereinabove and non consideration of application for compassionate appointment and if any such application is filed the same can be considered by the opposite party no. 3 only to the extent he may be empowered and may have jurisdiction to direct the opposite party no. 5 to perform its statutory obligations and ensure that it is done. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the special appeal is disposed of. November 11, 2025 R.K.P. SPLA No. 387 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench