Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
Y.Philomena, Principal and Correspondent St.Anns College, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Prl.Secretary to Govt, Education Department, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 08-10-92
EDUCATION - TRANSFER - JURISDICTION - RELIGIOUS GROUNDS - NATURAL JUSTICE - WRIT JURISDICTION - A. P. EDUCATION ACT, 1982 - A. P. MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (ESTABLISHMENT, RECOGNITION AND REGULATION) RULES, 1988 - GRANT-IN-AID CODE FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OTHER THAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND ANGLO INDIAN SCHOOLS - Held, the transfer of the petitioner by the Superior General of the Religious Society of St. Ann, Guntur, is an order devoid of jurisdiction. Even in her capacity as President of the St. Ann’s Convent, Mehdipatnam, the 7th Respondent had no authority to transfer the petitioner. That power vests only in the governing body of the above Society and is subject to approval by the competent authority.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner is the Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann’s Degree and Post Graduate Colleges and correspondent of St. Ann’s Junior College for Girls, Mehdipatnam. She was transferred from the posts on religious grounds to the generalate of St. Ann’s Society at Guntur by the 7th respondent who is the Superior General of the Society of St. Ann, Guntur. Petitioner assailed the order as devoid of jurisdiction, vitiated by malafides and as violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned single judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The 7th respondent had no power or competence to transfer the petitioner from the post of Principal and Correspondent of the Colleges, conducted by the St. Ann’s Convent, Mehdipatnam. The transfer of the petitioner was not in bona fide exercise of power and in exigencies of administration. The petitioner’s transfer ought to have been preceded by notice containing the reasons for such transfer.
Issues: 1. Whether the 7th respondent had power and jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner from her post as Principal and Correspondent of the Colleges, conducted by the St. Ann’s Convent, Mehdipatnam? 2. Whether the transfer of the petitioner was in bona fide exercise of power and in exigencies of administration? 3. Whether the petitioner’s transfer ought to have been preceded by notice containing the reasons for such transfer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The educational agency which applied for permission to open the College under Section 20of the Act, and the management constituted under Section 24 of the Act, was neither the Society of St. Ann, guntur nor the Superior General-in-Council of that Society. It was a different society registered under the Societies Registration Act, viz., St. Ann’s Convent, mehdipatnam (formerly Vijayanagar Colony ). We have necessarily to hold that the Board of Management constituted by that Society is the “management” under Section 24 of the Act. We have to hold further that the petitioner who was appointed as correspondent by that Board of management was nominated as the manager of the Colleges under Section 24 (2) of the Act. Once appointed as a manager by the managing body, that person can be removed only by the same body in accordance with the provisions of the constitution or bye-laws of the society as provided under Section 24 (1) of the Act. That not having been done, it is difficult to hold that the 7th respondent in her individual capacity as a superior General of the Society of St. Ann’s or the Superior General in council is competent to transfer the petitioner. 2. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules,. 1988 promulgated in g. O. Ms. No. 526 Education (Rules) Department dt. 21-12-1988 governs establishment, recognition and regulation of minority educational institutions under the private managements. “Educational Agency” in rule 2 (d) of the rules was defined to mean - “the Society / Trust / Committee / Mission / Church / wakf Board and the like managing any of the educational institutions coming within the ambit of the Act. St. Ann’s Convent Society, Mehdipatnam is obviously the “educational agency” as defined in rule 2 (d) in respect of the three colleges. Detailed provisions relating to the procedure for grant of permission and establishment of minority educational institutions, their approval etc., are contained in those rules. Rule 8 provides for appointment of staff and disciplinary control. Only candidates selected by the Staff Selection Committee constituted by the respective managements for that purpose can be appointed to the teaching and non-teaching posts in the institutions functioning under the minority community managements. Such appointments are to be made from candidates who are eligible. They are subjected to scrutiny about the leigibility, and their appointments are to be approved by the competent authority. Rule 11 (6) provides that the educational agency is entitled to constitute its own managing committee to manage and administer the affairs of its institution either on the lines prescribed by the Government for other non-minority private educational institutions or to adopt a committee of its own choice to suit its requirements. The management has got an obligation to pay salaries at the rates prescribed by following the procedure prescribed by the competent authorities. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 is in the following terms: “8 (5 ). The educational agency is empowered to remove, terminate, dismiss or discharge a staff member only with the prior approval of the competent Authority by following the rules and regulations prescribed by itself and got approved by the competent Authority. The competent authority shall normally approve the action proposed by the educational agency unless it considers that the action proposed is against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules and regulations adopted by the management itself.” 3. A perusal of the above provisions clearly indicates that private educational institutions are subject to pervasive State Control The whole of the teaching grant is paid by the State on condition that the staff pattern prescribed by the government and rules relating to conditions of service and disciplinary control of the staff are duly observed by the institution. Institutions imparting education subject to statutory provisions and which are funded by the State to a substantial extent are undeniably public institutions. The conduit through which state funds are furnished for imparting general education as prescribed by the State are necessarily institutions to which are attached statutory and public law obligations. There cannot be any doubt therefore that such institutions and those who administer and manage them take their colour as public bodies or at least as private bodies burdened with statutory and public obligations to perform. It is open for this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict such agencies, when they attempt to transgress the limits of law under which they are constituted or violate the principles of natural justice or perform the statutory or public duties in an oppressive manner resulting in manifest injustice.
Final Decision: Writ Appeal allowed. Writ of certiorari issued to quash the order dt. 10-6-1992 of the 7th respondent transferring the petitioner from the post of Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann’s College for Women, Mehdipatnam. Writ of mandamus issued directing continuance of the petitioner in the post of Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann’s Degree College and Post-graduate Centre and as correspondent of st. Ann’s Junior College, Mahdipatnam.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment in W. P. No. 7412 / 92. Petitioner is the appellant. She assailed her transfer on religious grounds from the posts of principal and Correspondent of St. Ann s Degree and Post Graduate Colleges and correspondent of St. Ann s Junior College for Girls, Mehdipatnam to the generalate of St. Ann s Society at Guntur. The transfer was made by the 7th respondent who is the Superior General of the Society of St. Ann, Guntur. She replaced the petitioner by appointing respondent No. 5 as the Correspondent of the three colleges and as Principal of the Degree College and Post Graduate centre and the 6th respondent as Principal of the Junior College. Petitioner assailed the order as devoid of jurisdiction, vitiated by malafides and as violative of the principles of natural justice. Those grounds did not appeal to the learned single judge. He therefore dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.
( 2 ) THE pleadings in this appeal are voluminous. The rival contentions of parties have traversed a wide area. Fortunately, however, the main contestants before us viz. , petitioner on the one hand and respondents 5, 6 and 7 on the other, have tried to narrow down the controversy. The peripheral issues which have taken up a lot of space have been relagated to the background as they should be. We are therefore concerned in this appeal only with three questions: (A) Whether the 7th respondent had power and jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner from her post as Principal and Correspondent of the Colleges, conducted by the St. Ann s Convent, Mehdipatnam? (B) Whether the transfer of the petitioner was in bona fide exercise of power and in exigencies of administration? and (C) Whether the petitioner s transfer ought to have been preceded by notice containing the reasons for such transfer?
( 3 ) ON the first question, Sri Parasaran, appearing for the appellant urged before us that the 7th respondent is not an educational agency, the management or the Manager of the St. Ann s Colleges as per the A. P. Education Act and the Rules made thereunder, and therefore she has no power or competence to transfer the petitioner from the post of Principal or correspondent. He referred us to the specific ground taken in the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition, that-"the Writ of the respondent No. 7 cannot run in regard to matters relating to the administration of educational institutions which are run as per the law of the land and no religious authority can be exercised over them. " He also invited our attention to the portions of the judgment under appeal which indicate that the aspect of absence of power in the 7th respondent to transfer the petitioner was highlighted before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge had also referred specifically to the constitution of a separate society viz. , St. Ann s Convent, Mehdipatnam, for the purpose of establishing the colleges. These contentions were met by the 7th respondent - they found acceptance with the learned single judge that it was the 7th respondent who appointed the petitioner in her capacity as Superior General of the St. Ann s Society, Guntur and that the appointing authority necessarily has the power of transfer. The other reasons urged by the 7th respondent also appealed to the learned single judge that the petitioner was subject to the religious discipline and was bound by the directions of the superior General as long as she continued in the religious Order.
( 4 ) WE have referred to these aspects only to indicate that the petitioner had raised the point of jurisdiction and competence of the 7th respondent to transfer her from the post of Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann s Colleges at Mehdipatnam. Those contentions were so understood by the learned single judge, though they were not elaborated as is sought to be done in the appeal now.
( 5 ) ANOTHER specific contention which the petitioner has taken was that petitioner a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
