JUDGMENT :- An interesting question to whether the Educational Institution run by the petitioners is an Institution run by minority community and, if so, whether the provisions of Rule 77.3(3)(vii) of the Secondary Schools Code violate fundamental right guaranteed, under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, falls for determination in this petition.

2. The petitioner No. 5 Prabhubhai Bhogilal Upadhyaya conducted an educational institution at Khar in Bombay known as "Adarsh Bal Mandir". The institution was set up in the year 1938 by opening a primary school and in June, 1963, High School was started. The institution was conducted on the Gandhian principles of truth and non-violence and with a view to inculcate in the students Gandhian ideals and Gandhian view of life. The petitioner No. 5 executed a Deed of Declaration of Trust dated July 12, 1962 and created a Trust in respect of the educational institution and appointed the petitioners as the trustees. The Trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act as a Public Trust. In the school run by the Trust, the students are imparted secondary education and are prepared for the S.S.C. Examination. Along with the general curriculum, the pupils are also taught to clean the premises, the class rooms, the sanitary blocks, etc., in order to inculcate in them the spirit of self-help and social service as taught by Mahatma Gandhi. The students are also required to undertake training in mass spinning and the Uniform prescribed is of Khadi both for students as well as the teachers. The petitioner No. 5 and the remaining Trustees are Gujarati speaking and 90% students come from Gujarati speaking families and have Gujarati as their mother tongue. About 80% of the teachers and 50% of the members of the staff are also Gujaratis. The petitioners, therefore, claim that the school is an educational institution established and administered by a linguistic minority in the State of Maharashtra and are entitled to exercise rights conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

3. The respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were appointed as teachers in the school between the years 1970 and 1974. The letters of appointment stipulate wearing of Khadi as a condition and respondents Nos. 5 to 9 accepted the said condition and were wearing clothes made of Khadi from the date of their appointments. Some time in July 1978, it was observed by the school authorities that respondents Nos. 5 to 9 had not been wearing Khadi dress in school and thereupon they were called upon to give explanation for their failure. It appears that thereafter the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 restarted wearing clothes made of Khadi, but within a couple of days, they again ceased to wear Khadi during the school hours. According to the school authorities, the conduct of the teachers was in breach of the conditions on which their appointments were made and amounted to gross insubordination and, therefore, the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were served with show cause notices. The respondents Nos. 5 to 9 claimed that it was not desirable that the wearing of Khadi should be made compulsory and pleaded that they should be permitted to attend duty in any dress they like.

4. The school authorities thereupon commenced an enquiry as contemplated by Rule 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code which, inter alia, provides for an enquiry if the services of a permanent employee are to be terminated by the management. The rule enables the management to commence the enquiry if an employee is guilty of insubordination, neglect of duties or misconduct (in each case of a serious nature). It is required to be stated at this juncture that the school run by the petitioners receives grant from the Government of Maharashtra and the conditions of service of teachers are regulated by the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code. The Committee appointed for holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were guilty of insubordination and their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document