Mohammed Khaled Ahmed v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ARBAAZ SUFIYAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELI: \RE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SHAFIULLAH, SC F CR TSWB Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : cP FOR GENERAL ADI ttN|STRAT|ON The Court made the following ORDER IN TIIE IIIGII COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 32()()0 0F 2025 1o.12.2025 Between: Mohammed Khaleed Ahmed And Petitioner The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minoriry Departmenl & th ree olhers. Welfare (Estt-lI) ORDER: Respondents Petitioner claims to be an in terested/ affected person in the matter of appointment of Chief Executive Ofhcer of the 2"d 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 0g.O4.2025. He challenges the validity of G.O.Rt.No.96 issuecl by the lst respondent dated 14. 1O.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 O8.O4.2O25, i.r,hich reads as under:_ t="" I I 2 Thr:re shall be a ful1-time Chief Executive Offic('r ( f the Waqf Board to be appointed by the State Government who shall I t t be below the rank of Jorrlt Sccretary to the State Government" ' Thc tcrm of ofltce and other conditions of se- ice of the Chie[ Exccutivr: Officer shall be such as may be prescribec.l' 'lbe Ctrief Executive Ofltcer shall be Ex-Ofltcxr - :crerary of thc Board and shatl be under the administrative control of tl'r Board ' It is stated, Section 23 of the Act does rr

1.2. the Slate Govt:rnment to make any in-charge arrangc Additionzrl CI Large arrangements as regards the ) Chiel trxecutive Officer, Waqf Board is concerned l un-understan dable as to what are the administratir under u'hich 1l'rc impugned order has been issuec respondent. [n lhe absence of statutory power of nlrr charge arranllements, the impugned order is witho : juiisdiction, hence the same is liable to be set: thesc circumstances, the present Writ Petition is fi1: In the counter filed on behalf of Respolt

2. is statecl that r-rnder Section 3(k) of the Act, a "pers'r refers t.o one s ho has a right to offer prayer or per i rites in a rvaqf institution such as a Mosque' Graveyard; thc present issue pertains purely lo tr action of the State Gove rnment, which falls outside )[ empowe r lent s / Full tr(re ot tne urther it is : exigencies by the 1s <ing any in- , pou'er and side. Under

1. lent No. 1, it r interested" rm religious Dargah, or lministrative the scope of "-o"''' J the said provision. Hence, petitioner cannot be treated as a "person interested,,, and Writ petition is not maintainable under Section 83(2) ol- the Act.

2.1. It is also st_ated, as per the un_amended Section 23, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board shall be a Muslim Olllcer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to covernment, to be appointed by the State Government. In the past, whiie Sri Md. Asadullah was serving as Speciai Grade Deputy Collector, the matter regarding his eligibilify was reterred to the General Administration (Cabine t) Department in File No.399/trstt-11/2025 for clarification on equivalence ol.the post of Special Grade Deputlr Collector to that of Deputy Secretary to Government under Section 23 ol the Waqf Act. In response, uide Memo dated OB-O2-2O25, it is clarihed that all Fourth Level Gazetted Posts notifred under Group_I Services as per G.O.Ms.No.55, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept., dated 2S_O4-2O22, shall be treated as equivaient to the rank of Depu$u 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 I j I l 4 Secretary tc (iovernment, and the appointmcl I r,r'as made accordinglY al that time. Subseqtter-rtly, it is stated, Sri Md' I I '2.2. promotcd as Additional Collector, rvhich is a position in the Executive Brzrnch hierarchy lvil e No. 14 of 2025 has amended Section 23 stipulrr Chief Execr tivc Officer "shall not be below lhr: I Secreta ry to Government. Hou'ever, the constit L I and implerr.e ntation of the said Amendment At:t adullah was r ig1'r e r czrdre lnwhile, Act ing that the ank of Joint onal va[ditY rrc presentlY Hon'ble SuPreme C ( urt, and the under challertge beforc the Centrzrl Wa ql Council has communicatcd instructions Governments. Consequently, the State of TelarL not yet issued aj1v 3uidelines or for its adoPtion I Y the State ;ana has not lormally adrptcd the amended provisions, pending of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and necessary clit hnal decision ihcation from the Government of India. In vieu' of the above legal ancl

2.3. situation, rrnd in strict compliance with the di '' rdministrative ctions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 276 of 2O2l and batcl-r directed that the post of Chief Executive Officer, '[ Bqard, sha.ll not remain vacant and that a regu t r''herein it was :langana Waqf r or in-charge 5 offrcer be placed to ensure smooth functioning of thc statutory body, Government was constrained to take immediate action to avoid judicial displeasure and administ-rative vacuum. Further, Writ Petitions No. 27523, 22692 and 27091 of 2O25 concerning the apporntment of Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf Board are also pending adjudication beforc this Court. In view of the judicial pronouncement in Writ Appeal No.g60 of 2025, u,'hich reiteratcd the necessiry of maintaining continuous and effective administrative control over the Waqf Board, the C'}overnment, considering administrative exigencies, public rnterest, and the large volume of Iitigations, issued the impugned G.O. placing Sri Md. Asadullah, Additional Collector, as In-charge Futl Additional Charge of CtrO, Telangana Waqf Board, purely on a temporary basis until further orders. This action was taken to ensure administrative continui[r, prompt representation of the Waqf Board before the Hon,ble Courts, and adherence to statutory and judiciat obligations.

2.4. It is further stated, in view of petitioner,s contention regarding equivalency of the Additional Collector u'ith Joint Secretary to Government under the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the Minorities Welfare Department has sought -/ ) I ------ 6 SpeCifiCclzrrificat.ionfromtheG.A.(Cabinet)Depar.llent$.hich is the corrpe t'int authorlty to issue such clarilicalior s regarding inter se scniorin' and equivalence betr'l'een Secretir'- lt and held posts. Unril sur:h clarif tcation is reccivcd, lpptlintr r nt rrf officcr is only a stor)-g'lp arrangemenl' not a permanent r 'tlsting' and does not conlcr anY vested right' It is pertinent to mention that in \\rri Appeal No. ;etting aside o< 860 of 2O2:,. the Hon'ble Division Bench' rvhile G.O.Rt.No.6/. clated I2-O8-2025' dirccted the Ir rrned Single Judge ro ht ar Lhe malter alresh' without being i rfluenced by earlier obscn'ations, and to decide the issue on I crits Hence' the mattcr is sub judice, and' the Governmen is acting in accordance u ith judrcial directions and administr I ive propriety' In view ol the above facts and circumstances it is humbly prayed tha t this Court may be pleased to disr: riiss the Writ Petitron. [n the counter hled on behalf of ResI] 'ndent No 3' it 3. is slated, Pctitk)ner has neither pleaded any sJ)! cifi<: facts nor hled a single document before this Court to es: Lblish that the answering Respondent is belo'*' the prescriberl [oint Secretary ranF- lt is tr srttlecl proposition of law that' the p ty rvho asserts I 't ,' 7 a fact must prove the same. Mere averments of speculative assertions without material cannot form the basis of judicial intervenlion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to Respondenr 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, Generai Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 25-04-2022, the 4tj, level Gazetted Ofhcer corresponds to the Deputy Collector, and in terms of Memo No. l8/Cabinetl2025 dated 08-O2-2025, such 4h level Gazetted posts are treated as equivalent to the Deputy Secretary to Government. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 (Additional Collector), being a 5e level Gazetted Officer in the Revenue Department, slands one rank above the Deputy Secretary and hence, satisfies the eligibilify requirement as to the rank of Joint Secretary under Section 23 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by Act 14 of 2025. 8 I t is also stated, Petitioner lacks locL s 3 .2 . the present 'vYrit Petition He claims to be an "intert : as per Section 3(k) of the Waqf Act' 1995 lIowever read rvith Section 3(r) clearly del-rnes who constitu '' interested in a ,,r'trqf ' and what is a "waqf'" and thos relate only to religious endowments' benefit properties of a t'ac1f, not to the appointment or : t control of th': Waqf Board or its officers lt is furt L Para No. 4, I)ctitioner alleged that the Act does not Governrnent to irppoint an in-charge Chief Execu''t '' viewed correctiy, thc Act also does not prohibit t h: from doing so for its own administrative con r .o malntaln led person" Section 3(k) s a "person : definitions .aries, and ministrative er stated, in rmpower the : Ofhcer, but Government :nience and constitutes t xigencies of continuity o[ governance What administrat.on lies solely within the Prero;: tive of the erous factors Governmenr,, as such exigencies depend upon nuil functioning of t'he institutio r affecting smoot h the Petitioner to dictate the manner in which thc : its executive discretton in matters of temporary arrangements Hence, the Writ Petition misconceived, lacking any factual or legal founda to bb disn:rissed with exemplary costs, as 1t ( tate exercises It is not for reing whollY [ion, deserves dministrative onstitutes an I 9 unwarranted interference in the lari,ful executive domain of the Gover-nment.

1. Heard Sn 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 Stare.

5. The case of petitioner is that under Section 23 of thc Act, as amended by Act No. l4 of 2025 which came into force from 08.04.2025, there shall be a [ull-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, urde impugned G.O., Sri. Md. Asadullah, Additiorlal 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 g of the counter, states that Additional Collector (Joint Collector) (Non-cadre) is equivalent to Additional Secretary to Government I \- \ 10 (Non-cadre) which is above the,Joint Secretary to - lvernmellt, hence placing him as Chief trxecutive Olhcer is rt t illegal or arbitrary'. Ir this factual scenaritr, at thc thresho r , it is to lle seen, the G.O. impugned itself says that in u eu of the administrative exigencies qnd to enslt' 2 smooth functioning of the Waqf Board, the Governmt:rL placed the services of Sri Md. Asadullah, Additional Collector 's In-charge Chief ExecuLive Officer, Telangana Waqf Bo: : C on Ful1 Additional ChLarge, temporarilg until Jurthet orde's F'urther, in the counter, it is stated on behalf of the l't respt I dent that in view of the petitioner's contention regarding equir t lency of the Additional Collector with Joint Secretary to Govct t rnet'rt under th'e amended Waqf Act, the Minorities Wellare DeJ artment has sought clarif-rcation and the G.A (Cabinet) Depart r ent which is the competent authority is examining the said is' re :rnd untii such clarification is received, appointment of the of icer is only a stop-gap arrangement, bul- not a permanent posl.i r I and it cloes not confer any vested right in him. Furtherrr:re, the 3'd respondent has placed before this Court thr: lemo dated Oa.O2.2O25 along with the material papers whi:h says that ) ).- L 1l /': 'gouentment herebg claify that alt the 4tLL Leuel Gazetted posts belonging to Seruices notified under Group I uid,e G.O.Ms.1Vo. 55, General Administration (Ser.A) Dept., Dated 25.04.2022 sh,,ll be tr.eated as equiualent to DeputA Secretary to Gout., for the purpose of Section23of theWoqf Act, 1995,forfitlingof thepostof Chief Executiue OfJlcer of the Telangana Waqf Board'. Though petitioner relied on the affidavit filed by the Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare Departmenr 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 vieu. 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 lleld posLs regarding inter-se seniority and also in view of the Memo dated O8.O2.2O25, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition Article 226 ot the Constitution.

6. Further aspect to be seen is petitioner's claim is that he hled the Writ Petition as 'interested person', but respondents drawing attention to Section 3(k) read with Section 3(r) of the I ,t 12 i Act, contend that 'person interested in a waqi pertains on1,/ to those who derive a religious c interest in a u'aqf property or u'ho have rights co:l and fuaqf . charitable rected to its use or benefi[s and it does not exlend to administi: I ve decisions of the govern ment concerning the appointment ol r lficers of the Waqf Board, hence, petitioner cannot claim loctll; the government's decision regarding :t arrangements made in the larger public and interest. In vicw of the same, this Court is of lh: to challenge lministrative institutional opinion that Writ Petrtion does not merit consideration and the ame is li:rble to be dismissed. 7 .

8. 'Ihe Writ Petition is therefore, dismisse t . No costs- Consequently, Miscellaneous Applict" Lons, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ) , SDi. C. DEEPIKA {ss srnur REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER , - rgh Court for the State

1. Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADIVINISTRATI of Telanoarra at HYderabad [OUT] iiliC:i; c;i r6C socrn'r- wELFARE Hish coun Lr thg $t3rs 6f Telanoana at Hvderabad. IOUTI one ic to sRl ARBAAZ SUFIYAN, Advocate IOPUL I 5;;6c i" sni snArluLLAH, sc FoR rswB, Advo.; te (oPUC) Two CD CoPies To 2 3 4 5 SA GJP w I I I I I I I ! I I i i I I i I I I I l HIGH COURT DATED:1 011212025 ORDER WP.No.32000 of 2025 i {E SIA r-E o. \ C) ? : JAN 2[?[ ,il ii/l :' tl ( S]AT DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. -^6e'A ,aXL" t. - 5il.'