Orissa High Court | Teachers Cannot Claim Right to Act as Registrars Under Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act | Writ Petitions Challenging Revocation of Licenses Dismissed
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad has rejected multiple writ petitions filed by teachers of government and aided schools contesting the State’s withdrawal of their licenses to function as Registrars of Muslim marriages and divorces. The Court concluded that such licensing is a discretionary privilege under the Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1949 and Rules of 1976, not an enforceable right. Justice Shripad noted concerns over whether teachers, as public servants, could simultaneously fulfil registrar duties while maintaining the “absolute commitment” required in their teaching responsibilities.
Several writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Orissa by teachers employed in government and aided schools across the State. The petitioners challenged the decision of the State authorities to revoke or rescind licenses earlier granted to them permitting registration of Muslim marriages and divorces and maintenance of records connected with such functions. These licenses had been issued under the Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1949 and the Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Rules, 1976.
The petitioners contended that they had been functioning as licensees under the 1949 Act and 1976 Rules for several years without neglecting their primary duties as teachers. They argued that there had been no complaint against them from students, parents, or the community at large. It was submitted that the government’s decision to withdraw the licenses was based on a mistaken assumption that such additional duties hampered their teaching responsibilities. The petitioners further asserted that neither the 1949 Act nor the 1976 Rules nor any applicable Conduct Rules barred serving teachers from holding such licenses. They therefore sought quashing of the government’s action and directions for continuation or renewal of their licenses.
The State Government contended that the impugned decision was not punitive but based on rational grounds, namely that the registration of Muslim marriages and divorces was a statutory function constituting a public office with quasi-judicial responsibilities. It was argued that teachers, being civil servants drawing salaries from the State, could not be expected to discharge both roles without adverse effect on their teaching duties and, consequently, on the interests of pupils. The State further highlighted that licensing under Section 3 of the 1949 Act was discretionary and did not create a vested right in favour of the petitioners.
The Court recorded that “all these petitions, by the teachers of Government/Aided Schools, are presented to the Writ Court essentially grieving against the decision of answering OPs in revoking/rescinding licenses granted to them for registering Muslim marriage/divorce and for maintaining certain official records in that connection, as provided under the provisions of Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1949 and Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Rules, 1976.”
On examining the statutory framework, the Court observed: “The text and context of Section 3 of the Act does not give any absolute right to get license and thereby become Muhammedan Registrar of marriages/divorces. The section employs the term ‘It shall be lawful for the State Government to grant a license to any person….’” Referring to judicial interpretation, it stated that “They confer a faculty or power, and they do not of themselves do more than confer a faculty or power.”
The Court recorded that “the serving Government servants, such as the petitioners cannot claim license as a matter of right. The Government has abundant discretion. Of course, the same has to be exercised in accordance with Rules of Reason and Justice.”
On the nature of the registrar’s role, the Court stated: “The text and context of various provisions of the Act and the Rules leave no manner of doubt that the Registrar of Muhammedan marriages/divorces holds a public office, to which certain powers and duties are attached.” It further recorded: “Several onerous duties are attached to the Office of Muhammedan Registrar… In registering marriage/divorce or refusing to register, he exercises quasi-judicial power.”
On the feasibility of combining teaching and registrar functions, the Court observed: “How will they be able to discharge their duty as teachers with absolute commitment in the Government Schools, is a big question. Teaching is a noble profession… Therefore, the impugned decision of the Government, regardless of certain arguable defects therein, cannot be faltered.”
Addressing the argument on absence of statutory prohibition, the Court stated: “The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the OCA (CCA) Rules, 1969 nor the 1949 Act nor 1976 Rules prohibit the serving Government servants from becoming Muhammedan Registrars of Marriage/Divorce and therefore, the impugned order is vulnerable for challenge, cannot be countenanced.”
Justice Shripad directed: “In the above circumstances, these petitions, being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are, costs having been made easy.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s. R.C. Jena & M. Padhi, Advocates; Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Md. Gulam Madani, Advocate; M/s. U.C. Mishra, A. Mishra, J.K. Mahapatra, D. Debadarshani & S. Dash, Advocates; M/s. R. Jena & M. Padhi, Advocates; M/s. P. Pattnaik, K.N. Muduli, D. Sahoo & S.K. Swain, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Jee, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Md. Usman Khan & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 17429 of 2025, WP(C) No. 43137 of 2023, WP(C) No. 708 of 2024, WP(C) No. 1785 of 2024, WP(C) No. 17936 of 2025, WP(C) No. 19436 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad
