Point of Law: Minorities Educational Institution - Establishment and administration of - Minority Educational Institutions under Article 30(1) of Constitution of India have a right to appoint teaching staff including Teachers/Lecturers and non-teaching staff, despite receiving aid from State, so long as procedure for making such appointments is fair and transparent. Such Minority Institutions have a guaranteed right of overall administrative control over staff and to administer educational institutions.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. The Petitioner in Writ Petition no. 589 of 2010, Nirmala Education Society, is invoking Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned orders dated 06.07.2010 and 12.07.2010 issued by the Respondent no.1-State of Goa. It is the case of the Petitioners that the manner in which the impugned orders have been issued, amounts to violation of the right of the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as a minority institution to administer its Educational Institution.

2. The factual backdrop in which the said Writ Petition has been filed is that the Petitioner no.1 is a registered Society constituted by the Daughters of the Heart of Mary in India for the purpose of service of the human kind. The said Society has set up various Educational Institutions, including Nirmala Institute of Education i.e. the Petitioner no.2 herein, which conducts the course of B.Ed. in the State of Goa.

3. In the year 1967-68, the said Institute started the M.Ed. Course as a part time course of two years duration and from the year 1991 onwards, it started the full time M.Ed. Course of one year duration. The Respondent no. 6 was appointed on 22.07.1993 as a Lecturer on temporary basis for the M.Ed. Course and later by order dated 13.06.1994, he was appointed as Lecturer on regular basis, exclusively for the said M.Ed. Course. Similarly, the Respondent no.7 was appointed on 17.03.1994 on temporary basis and later, on 25.07.1994, he was appointed on regular basis for the M.Ed. Course.

4. On 23.07.2004, the Respondent-State directed the Petitioner no.2-Institute, to discontinue the M.Ed. Course from the academic year 2004-05 in view of the poor response for admission to the said course. By order dated 03.11.2004, the Respondent-State directed permanent closure of the M.Ed. Course at the Petitioner no.2-Institute, declaring Respondent nos. 6 and 7 as surplus, to be paid full salary by the said Institute till such time that they were adjusted in alternative employment.

The salaries of Respondent nos. 6 and 7 were permitted to be paid from grant-in-aid payable to the Petitioner no.2-Institute.

5. On 03.04.2006, the Respondent-State redeployed Respondent nos. 6 and 7 to work in the State Institute of Education (SIE) under the Directorate of School Education and they were put under the administrative control of the Director of SIE, who was to allot them appropriate work. Their salaries were to be drawn at the SIE and they were granted the status of Government Gazetted Officers. The said Respondents were designated as Subject Inspectors (Languages) in the SIE. Consequently, the said Respondents were relieved and they joined the SIE in the aforesaid posts.

6. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 07.07.2010, when the Respondent no.7 approached the Petitioner no.2-Institute to join that they realised that the said Respondent had been deployed by the Respondent-State in the post of Reader that he had held prior to the closure of the M.Ed. Course. Similarly, on 12.07.2010, the Respondent no.6 approached the Petitioner no.2-Institute for joining in the aforesaid post. It was stated that the Respondent no.6 was joining without prejudice to his rights and contentions in Writ Petition no. 359 of 2009. It was at this stage that the Petitioners realised that the Respondent no.6 had filed the aforesaid Writ Petition before this Court, seeking a direction to the Respondent-State to either deploy him to the vacant post of Director of the State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) i.e. the successor of SIE or to post him as a Principal of any Government College of Arts, Science and Commerce with protection of pay. Alternatively, it was prayed that the Respondent no.6 be deployed to any other post commensurate to his qualifications and experience. The Petitioners then realised that the impugned orders had been issued by the Respondent-State.

7. By impugned order dated 06.07.2010, the Respondent-State stated that the Government had ap