Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 1274
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
R.M. BORDE
Momin Education Society, Mohalla Sayadan, Nanded & Another
Versus
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded & Others
Writ Petition No.116 of 2012
Decided on : 16-07-2012
For the Petitioners:Vivek Dhage, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, V.S. Panpatte, R2, R3, Y.M. Khan, Advocates.
Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - Appointment of teachers in minority institutions. Law, which interferes with a minority’s choice of qualified teachers or its disciplinary control over teachers of institution, would be void as being violative of Article 30(1) of Constitution.
The law which interferes with a minority’s choice of qualified teachers or is disciplinary control over teachers and other members of the staff of the institution would be void as being violative of Article 30(1). It is, of course, permissible for the State and its educational authorities to prescribe the qualifications of teachers, but once the teachers possessing the requisite qualifications are selected by the minorities for their educational institutions, the State would have no right to veto the selection of those teachers. The right to have the teaching conducted by teachers appointed by the management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer an educational institution. So long as the persons chosen have the qualifications prescribed by the University, the choice must be left to the management and this is facet of fundamental right of the minorities to administer the educational institutions established by them.
Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - Appointment of teachers in minority institutions. Rights guaranteed to minority institutions under Article 30(1) of Constitution, to appoint a teacher selected and chosen by them.
The directions issued by the Grievance Committee to the Educational Officer in respect of sending surplus teachers for being accommodated by the minority institution and mandate requiring the managements of minority institutions to absorb such teachers and prescription of consequences for breach of the directives issued by the Grievance Committee, is beyond the scope of interference in view of the rights guaranteed to the minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The directions issued by the Grievance Committee touching the management of petitioner institution quashed and set aside.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2. Petitioner no.1 is a minority institution eligible for protection available to the minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution. Petitioner no.2 is the school run by petitioner no. 1 Institution. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are employed as Shikshan Sevaks in petitioner no.2 school run by petitioner no.1 Institution.
3. Petitioner Institution tendered proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, proposal tendered by petitioner Institution was turned down by the Education Officer.
4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 approached the Grievance Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevaks, Aurangabad, seeking relief of quashment of the order passed by the Education Officer on 14.03.2011, rejecting the proposal tendered by petitioner Institution for grant of approval to the appointment of concerned Respondents. The appeals tendered by the respondents were taken up for consideration by the Grievance Committee along with separate appeals presented by different employees. The appeals tendered by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to be rejected and further directions have been issued by the Grievance Committee to the Education Officer to send surplus teachers to the concerned Institutions for being accommodated in employment. It is further directed that if the Management fails to absorb the surplus teachers within specified period i.e. two months, the Education Officer shall have liberty to take appropriate steps against the Management as per the provisions of law. It is further made clear in the order that in the event the Education Officer fails to send surplus teachers within a period of two months from the date of order, he shall grant his approval to the appointment of appellants, including Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, within a period of one month thereafter.
5. The petitioner Institution is challenging the order passed by the Grievance Committee so far as it relates to Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2011 presented by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. According to the petitioner, the Grievance Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing directions touching the administration and management of the Minority Institution. The direction issued by the Grievance Committee infringes the rights extended to the minority institutions to administer educational institutions. According to the petitioners, appointment of a teacher is a part of regular administration and management of the college and, therefore, minority institution has right to appoint a teacher selected and chosen by it and nobody can force it to appoint particular person as a teacher who is not selected by the management.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Panpatte, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 – Zilla Parishad.
7. Shri Panpatte, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, supported the order passed by Grievance Committee and contended that the regulations touching administration and management of the institution are equally applicable to the petitioner institution.
8. Reference is made to a judgment in the matter of Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (Writ Petition No.2545 of 1999, decided on 04.03.2011). Said petition was presented by Association of Minority Institutions raising challenge to the Circulars issued by Director of Higher Education dated 01.04.1999 and 07.05.1999. The Director of Higher Education had issued a Circular on 01.04.1999 and directed all the Education Institutions, including the minority institutions, who are receiving grantinaid from the State Government, to obtain a certificate from the office of Director of Education (Higher Education), Maharashtra State, before making appointment of any teacher, to the effect that, ‘any candidate in surplus cell is no
