1977 Supreme(AP) 187

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JEEVAN REDDY, LAKSHMAIAH
Marwadi Hindi Vidyalaya High School - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-08-77

The regulatory power of the State does not extend to directing the institution to pay salary to a teacher for a particular period, while not releasing grant-in-aid to that extent, and further the threat of withholding the grant altogether for non-compliance with the said direction violates the fundamental right guaranteed to a linguistic minority by clause (1) of Article 30.

Headnote:

Whether the petitioner-institution is an institution established by a linguistic minority, entitled to protection under article 30 (1) of the Constitution of india; and (ii) whether the regulatory power of the Government, which goes along with the grant-in-aid it gives to a private educational institution, extend to directing the institution to pay salary to a teacher for a particular period, while not releasing grant-in-aid to that extent, and further whether the threat of withholding the grant altogether for non-compliance with the said direction violates the fundamental right guaranteed to a linguistic minority by clause (1) of Article 30.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-institution is an educational institution established by a linguistic minority in the State, and hence entitled to protection of Article 30 of the Constitution of india. Under clause (1) of Article 30, a linguistic minority is entitled to establish and maintain educational institutions of its choice. Article 30 as construed by the Supreme Court in its various decisions, confers upon such minority institution a right to receive aid from the Government, without which the institution cannot properly function. The impugned order of the director of Public Instruction, dated 25th March, 1975 directing the management to pay the full salary of the 4th respondent for the period in question, from out of the management funds, while refusing to release the grant to that extent, is penal in nature, besides being not supported by any legal authority. The management has no where-withal to comply with the ; said order. The Director of Public instruction has threatened to withhold the entire grant to the institution in case the impugned order is not implemented. The threat to withhold the the entire grant for non-compliance of the impugned order, which itself is incompetent and unconstitutional violates the guarantee enshrined in clause (1) of Article 30. The impugned order and the threat coupled with it are, therefore, void being violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to the linguistic minority and, accordingly the respondents must be restrained from enforcing or acting upon the same.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioner-institution, though not engaged in preservation or promotion of the language of the minority community which established it and containing no course of study relevant in any manner to the language, script or culture of the said minority community, is still entitled to the protection of article 30 (1) of the Constitution of india.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner-institution is an institution established by a linguistic minority, entitled to protection under article 30 (1) of the Constitution of india? 2. Whether the regulatory power of the Government, which goes along with the grant-in-aid it gives to a private educational institution, extend to directing the institution to pay salary to a teacher for a particular period, while not releasing grant-in-aid to that extent, and further whether the threat of withholding the grant altogether for non-compliance with the said direction violates the fundamental right guaranteed to a linguistic minority by clause (1) of Article 30?

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order is within the undoubted regulatory power of the State. Khanna, J. recognized in so many words the power of the State to make regulations for ensuring the regular payment of salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff. The impugned order, in essence, is an order pertaining to the payment of salary of a teacher. The District Educational officer had directed the reinstatement of the 4th respondent, by. his order dated 28th April, 1973. The management, however, choose to ignore the said order, though the Director of public Instruction did not suspend or stay the operation of the said order. The consecutive appeals filed by the management against the orders of the district Educational Officer were ultimately dismissed, thereby vindicating the innocence of the 4th responden. In other words, the order of termination passed by the management was held to be untenable and unjustified. Once that is so, the management is bound to pay full salary to the 4th respondent for the period he was kept under suspension and or kept out of service. The order of reinstatement has become final, and is no longer in question in this writ petition. The petitions-institution cannot compel the Government to release funds in that behalf since that would amount to compelling the State to pay for the sins of the management. It was the management that passed the untenable order of termination and, above-all, it was the management that refused to reinstate the 4th respondent soon after the order of the District Educational officer dated 28th April, 1973. It was again the management which persisted in filing appeal after appeal and a writ petition in this Court, all in vain. In the above circumstances, it is the management which should take the consequences for its attitude and not the State.

Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed with costs.