The Orissa high court has dismissed a batch of petitions by government school teachers who challenged the state’s decision to revoke their licenses as Muslim marriage and divorce registrars, stressing that teaching was a “noble profession” that demands undivided attention and could not be compromised by additional quasi-judicial responsibilities.
“Teaching is a noble profession. It is teachers in general and primary/secondary school teachers in particular who inculcate civilizational values and culture in the young minds. Therefore, our ancient scriptures chant “Guru Saakshaat Parabrahma” literally likening teacher to God. Several onerous duties are attached to the Office of Muhammedan Registrar. His functions have far-reaching evidentiary consequences on the status of marriage/divorce of Muhammedans. In registering marriage/divorce or refusing to register, he exercises quasi-judicial power. They have to maintain and update several Registers/Books. They have to examine parties and witnesses. At times, they have to travel to other places for the discharge of their duties. How will they be able to discharge their duty as teachers with absolute commitment in the Government Schools, is a big question,” justice Dixit Sripad Krishna said, dismissing the petitions.
Muslim teachers of government schools in Odisha have been working as marriage and divorce registrars under the Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1949 and Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Rules, 1976.
{{/usCountry}}Muslim teachers of government schools in Odisha have been working as marriage and divorce registrars under the Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1949 and Orissa Muhammedan Marriage and Divorce Registration Rules, 1976.
{{/usCountry}}But two years ago, the state government ended this practice, prompting six teachers who functioned as licensed registrars of Muslim marriages and divorces to move the high court.
In a 12-page verdict, the court traced the statutory framework of the 1949 Act and the 1976 Rules. It noted that the government enjoys discretion in granting licenses and no individual has an “absolute right” to be appointed as registrar.
Justice Shripad said the phrase that “it shall be lawful for the State Government to grant a license” confers power but not obligation. “The vehement plea that long years of service as registrars creates a vested right for renewal cannot be accepted. At best, it is a privilege, not an entitlement. The teachers are settled in permanent government employment. Their additional claim to registrarship, which may deprive unemployed members of the community of livelihood, cannot be sustained,” the court said.