Back
1996 Supreme(Kar) 149
Karnataka High Court
GNYANA MANDIR TRUST (REGISTERED), BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 03-01-96
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to establish and manage educational institutions is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and statutory law, and the state has a duty to make regulatory provisions for fair admissions and appointments.
Headnote:
Education - Government Circular - Karnataka Education Act - Articles 14, 19, 300-A of the Constitution - [The judgment discusses the government circular dated 20-11-1989, issued by the Commissioner of Public Instructions, Karnataka, which imposed conditions on admissions and appointments in unaided educational institutions. The petitioners challenged the circular on the grounds of violation of their right to establish and manage educational institutions, interference with their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and infringement of Article 300-A. The court considered the fundamental right to establish and manage educational institutions, the role of recognition and affiliation, and the state's duty to make regulatory provisions for fair admissions and appointments. The court held that the circular was not ultra vires, illegal, or void, as the petitioners' right to run the institution is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and statutory law, such as the Karnataka Education Act. The court dismissed all the writ petitions.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, including trusts and associations running unaided educational institutions in Karnataka, challenged a government circular dated 20-11-1989, which imposed conditions on admissions and appointments in unaided educational institutions. They claimed that the circular violated their right to establish and manage educational institutions, interfered with their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and infringed Article 300-A. The government circular required adherence to reservation quotas and roster systems, and included a representative of the education department in the selection committee for appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the government circular was not ultra vires, illegal, or void, as the petitioners' right to run the institution is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and statutory law, such as the Karnataka Education Act. The court emphasized the state's duty to make regulatory provisions for fair admissions and appointments, and the limitations on the petitioners' right to establish and manage educational institutions.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of the government circular in imposing conditions on admissions and appointments in unaided educational institutions, the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and the infringement of Article 300-A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the right to run an educational institution is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and statutory law, and the state has a duty to make regulatory provisions for fair admissions and appointments. The court emphasized that the petitioners' right to establish and manage educational institutions is not absolute and is subject to the state's regulatory measures.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions challenging the government circular dated 20-11-1989, and held the petitioners liable for the costs.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions involve common questions of law, so they are being disposed off by one common judgment.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in writ petition nos. 7163 and 7164 has challenged the government circular bearing No. Lo1/sc/st/ 20/89-90, dated 20-11-1989, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of this circular Annexure-A by a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari or the like. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus being issued restraining the respondents from enforcing the above mentioned circular and has prayed for such further or other reliefs as this court deems fit.
( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner in these two writ petitions is that the petitioner is a trust, which owns educational institutions in the name and style of "gnyana mandira" and at present running sudarshan vidhya mandira. The first petitioner's case is that the settlers who were desirous of creating a trust with the object of making proper and adequate provision for the efficient management of the institution to promote its growth into a sound educational institution to inculcate the Indian culture in the young minds and to educate them on combined state and central government curricula in the nursery, primary, secondary, higher secondary and university education, in general and in the field of technical education.
( 4 ) THE second petitioner in writ petition No. 7164 of 1990 also claims to be the registered association for management of english medium schools in karnataka. The aim and the object of the association have been indicated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. They all claim to be private managements of the privately established educational institutions. According to the petitioners case, petitioners have grievance against government circular dated 20-11-1989 and government letter dated 26-10-1987, as per annexures-a and b. The state government, according to the petitioners, after having made reference to various government orders, has issued circular dated 20-11-1989, issuing guidelines in respect of admissions to various institutionaided and unaided and issued directions to the said institutions in the matter of appointment of the staff in the various private institutions. As per allegations in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, a perusal of Annexure-A the government circular dated 20-11-1989, restrictions have been imposed by the department in relation to the matters of admission in educational institutions and appointment of the staff teaching and non-teaching. According to the petitioners, it is provided in the circular dated 20-11-1989 that the institutions will have to follow the reservation of 15 per cent quota for scheduled castes and 3 per cent for scheduled tribes etc. , and in the matter of appointment, it has been stated that private institutions were not following the reservation and various complaints have been received by the department in the matter of appointment, and on one pretext or the other appointments to the reserved posts of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have not been made by the institutions. Directions have been issued in the matter of appointment to the post teaching and non-teaching staff, as well as in the matter of admission of students to the private institutions, according to the reservations. It is further pointed out that in the circular it has been provided that in the matter of selection of teaching and non-teaching staff, the selection committee shall include in itself one of the representatives of the department as a member. The petitioners case is that it has been provided that recognition of the private educations institutions like the petitioner is dependent upon the impugned circular and in case private institutions do not follow or do not adhere to the guidelines and directions contained in the circular, or the institutions of theirs fail to comply with the directio
