SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Bom) 471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.N. Srikrishna, R.K. Batta P.S. Brahme, JJ.
St. Francis de Sales Education Society another.... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2537 of 1982, decided on 4-5-2001.
Advocates appeared :
P.N. Chandurkar, for petitioners.
Bhushan Gawai, G.P. with Sumant Deopujari, A.G.P., for respondents.

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 30(1)- Right to Administer Minority Educational Institution- Notwithstanding the absolute character of the fundamental right under Article 30(1), it is permissible for the State to make regulations in the interest of efficiently, instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like; such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution, but are intended to advance that right, the right of selection of the head of the minority education institution.

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 30(1)- See Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) rules, 1981, Rule 9 (7) to (10).

       Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981

       Rule 9(7) to 9(10) and Constitution of India, Article 30(1) -Minority Educational institution- Minority Education institution cannot be directed to make appointment of teachers on the basis of reservation policy laid down in Rule 9(7) or 9(10) . The application of Rule 9(7) to rule 9(10) to such minority institution would be violative of fundamental rights under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This writ petition has been placed before this Full Bench because of the view expressed by the Division Bench of Justice V.A. Mohta and Dr. B.P. Saraf, JJ. by their order dated 17th October, 1992 doubting the correctness of the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court in (Khan Abdul Hamid Abdul Razak v. Mohamed Haji Saboo Siddik Polytechnic)1, 1985 Mh.L.J. 400 in the light of subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements and suggesting its reconsideration by a larger Bench.

2. The facts of this writ petition, in so far as material to the controversy, are as under :

The petitioner is a society run by the Clergy of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Nagpur, which is governed by the Code of Canon Law. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and conducts the St. Francis de Sales Higher Secondary School in Nagpur since 1873. The Head Master of the petitioner School is Rev. Fr. Maurice Fernandes, a Roman Catholic Priest. The petitioner is a minority educational institution run by the Christian Clergy.

3. The management of the school is in the hands of persons belonging to the minority of Christians and the school is basically run to carry forward the objects of the society.

4. There were certain vacancies of teaching and non-teaching staff which had to be filled and the petitioner published a notice in the Nagpur Times dated 21-6-1982 seeking to fill up vacancies of four Assistant Teachers, two Laboratory Assistants and one Peon. On 31-7-1982, the School Committee of the petitioner passed a resolution unanimously approving the appointments of the following candidates in the school.

1. Mrs. Deepti Prasad. Asstt. Teacher

2. Mrs. Reene E.J.D. Moraie. -"-

3. Mrs. Tilottma Trivedi. -"-

4. Miss. Amita Chabra -"-

5. Mr. Vikas Ryan Francies-Laboratory Attendant.

6. Mr. Francis Xavier Rebello -"-

7. Mr. Edward Emanuel- Peon.

The resolution also approved the promotion of John Guldekar as Jr. Clerk from the post of Laboratory Attendant with effect from 16-6-1982.

5. On 3-8-1982, the Head Master of the petitioner School addressed a letter to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, seeking approval to the appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff mentioned above from the academic year 1982-83 onwards. The letter gave full particulars of the vacancies, the reasons leading to the vacancies and the names and particulars of the incumbents who were appointed therein. The Additional Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur addressed a letter dated 23-8-1982 to the Head Master of the petitioner school seeking further particulars of the caste of each teacher and information as to whether there was any backlog of backward class candidates remained to be appointed. Information with regard to backlog was sought in a tabulated form as suggested. The petitioner forwarded the information sought for by its letter of 8-9-1982 in which it was specifically pointed out that the petitioner school was run by the management of minority people and the rules of backlog were not applicable to the minority run schools. By another letter dated 24-9-1982, formal proposal for approval of the appointment of teachers for the year 1982-83 was also forwarded to the Education Officer along with information as to the backlog. By a further letter dated 1-10-1982, the Additional Education Officer, Zilla Parishad sought further particulars as to the community (whether S.C. S.T. D.T./N.T. O.B.C. and others) of the staff. The petitioner by its letter dated 4-10-1982 pointed out that all the seven persons about whom information was sought belonged to open category.

6. On 14-10-1982, the Additional Education Officer informed the petitioner that the proposal submitted by the petitioner for approval of teaching and non-teaching staff had been examined, that backlog of 6 scheduled caste, 3 Scheduled Tribes, 2 N.T. and 2 O.B.C. teaches existed in the school and similarly there was a backlog of






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top