Back
1998 Supreme(Cal) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SATYABRATA SINHA & RONOJIT KUMAR MITRA, JJ.
Governing Body of the Founder Body (Diocese of Barrackpore) & other
Versus
State of West Bengal & other
M.A.T. No. 841 & 902 of 1997
Decided on : 21.1.1998
A.P. Sircar, Swapan Kumar Dutta for the Governing Body.
Durga Prasad Majumdar, S.N. De for the Petitioner.
Bhudeb Bhattacharya for the State.
Sundarananda Paul, Debabrata Saha Roy for the Respondent.
The State Government cannot interfere in the internal management of a minority institution, including the appointment of Headmaster, as it is protected under Articles 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
MINORTY INSTITUTION - APPOINTMENT OF HEADMASTER - WEST BENGAL SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, 1963 - MANAGEMENT OF RECOGNISED NON-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (AIDED AND UNAIDED) RULES, 1969 - SPECIAL RULES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL ESTABLISHED AND RUN BY A CHRISTIAN CHURCH/MISSIONARY SOCIETY (BOARD)/RELIGIOUS SOCIETY/SUBSIDIARY TRUST OR THEIR SUCCESSORS-IN-LAW, IN THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 1974 - APPOINTMENT OF HEADMASTER IN MINORITY INSTITUTION - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
A minority institution, governed by the West Bengal Secondary Education Act, 1963, the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969, and the Special Rules for the Management of Secondary School Established and Run by a Christian Church/Missionary Society (Board)/Religious Society/Subsidiary Trust or Their Successors-in-Law, in the State of West Bengal, 1974, appointed a Headmaster. A writ petition was filed challenging the appointment, alleging that the recruitment rules were not followed. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order declaring the appointment void and directing the school authority to appoint a teacher-in-charge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Inspector of Schools could not have passed the impugned order on the ground that recruitment rules had not been followed, as the appointment of the Headmaster was governed by the Special Rules, which provided a specific procedure for such appointment. The court further held that the State Government could not interfere in the internal management of the minority institution, as it was protected under Articles 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the writ petitioner, who had filed the writ petition after a period of five years, could not approbate and reprobate at the same time by challenging the appointment process while simultaneously praying for his own appointment as Headmaster.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government has the power to regulate the appointment of Headmaster in a minority institution established under Article 30 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the recruitment rules framed by the Director of School Education apply to the appointment of Headmaster in a minority institution governed by the Special Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government has the power to regulate the condition of service of Headmaster and teachers of a minority institution established under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, but it cannot interfere in the internal management of the school. 2. The recruitment rules framed by the Director of School Education do not apply to the appointment of Headmaster in a minority institution governed by the Special Rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and stayed the operation of the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools, directing the school authority to appoint a teacher-in-charge.
SATYABRATA SINHA, J.
1. These two appeals being inter-related were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed or by common judgment.
2. The appellant in M.A.T. No. 902 of 1997 is the Governing Body of the Founder Body (Diocese of Barrackpore) charge of North India. An advertisement for the post of Headmaster was published in the year 1989 and interview was taken wherein one Chandan Kumar Sinha, the appellant in the other appeal, the respondent no. 7, Kalyan Biswas and the respondent no. 8, Ashish Mukherjee participated. The Governing Body appointed Sri Chandan Kumar Sinha. At that point of time Ashish Mukherjee did not oppose the appointment. Governing Body issued appointment letter on 14.5.91 and he joined as Headmaster on 25.5.91. On 26.5.91 all the papers relating to the said appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools by the Governing Body. Ashish Mukherjee, however, filed a writ application after four months on 16.9.91 questioning his appointment and direction was issued to file affidavits and in the meantime, Status Quo was directed to be maintained. An appeal was preferred therefrom by Ashish Mukherjee, wherein the appeal court directed the District Inspector of Schools to release salaries of Chandan Kumar Sinha which was complied with. Conditional approval was also accorded by the District Inspector of Schools. On 5.4.95, Kalyan Biswas moved a writ application which was marked as C.O. 5832 (W) of 1995 alleging that the Governing Body did not consider his application for the post of Assistant Headmaster. The said writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the Governing Body of the Founder Body to pass an order in accordance with law. The said application of Kalyan Biswas was rejected by the Governing Body. Kalyan Biswas moved a fresh writ application on 21.8.95, which was marked C.O. No. 14352 (W) of 1995 alleging therein that he had filed an application for cancellation of the appellant's appointment as Headmaster and appointing him as Headmaster. A learned Judge of this Court disposed of the said application by directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the said application and take a decision thereupon in accordance with law, whereafter the respondent nos. 7 and 8, the appellant as also the School authorities were heard. On 28.12.95, the District Inspector of Schools issued an order withdrawing the order dated 8.12.93, whereby and whereunder the appellant's appointment was approved conditionally. Another writ application was filed by Chandan Kumar Sinha and by an order dated 27.5.95, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ application, where against the aforementioned Kalyan Biswas filed an appeal and application. The said order was set aside on the ground that no reason has been assigned in the said order. On 28.11.96, C.O. No. 1306 (W) of 1991 filed by Ashish Mukherjee was dismissed for non-prosecution. On 7.1.97, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order declaring the petitioner's appointment as void and asking the authority to appoint from the fresh panel. The appellant thereafter filed a writ application being W.P. 807 (W) of 1997. On 31.1.97, the District Inspector of Schools asked the school authority to appoint a teacher-in-charge and further directed the appellant to make over charge to him. On 31.1.97, the District Inspector of Schools issued a memo dated 3.1.97 and the Secretary of the School was requested to direct the respondent no. 10 to make over the charge as Assistant Teacher, if not already done. On 17.2.97, after service of demand for justice, a writ application was filed by the Governing Body, wherein the impugned order dated 18.3.97 was passed by S.R. Misra, J., directing the parties to maintain Status Quo.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the school in question although an aided school is admittedly a minority institution within the meaning of Articles 29 and 30(1) of the
