Back
1977 Supreme(Del) 64
High Court Of Delhi
GANDHI HARIIAN UCCHTAR MADHYMIK VIDYALAYA - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI - Respondent
Civil 1140 of 1975
Decided On : 05/17/1977
A.K.MARVAHA, B.DUTTA, B.N.LOKUR, J.L.Saxena, MADAN BHATIA, MAEHSVAR DAYAL, RISHI KESH, S.N.MARVAH, VAZIR SINGH
The court emphasized the need for a balance between individual or institutional rights and public interest in educational institutions and the importance of an impartial inquiry into the affairs of the institution.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT, 1973 - SECTION 20 - TAKEOVER OF MANAGEMENT - MALA FIDES - JUDICIAL REVIEW - CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION - ARTICLE 30 - MINORITY INSTITUTION - ARYA SAMAJ - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - INSPECTION OF RECORDS - IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY - BALANCE OF INTERESTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a school and its management, challenged the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Section 20, and a notice from the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi requiring the school to show cause why its management should not be taken over. The petitioners claimed minority institution status under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the school was established by the Arya Samaj for the upliftment of Harijans and other backward classes. They also alleged mala fides and political motivations behind the threatened takeover.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners could not avail of the constitutional protection under Article 30 as the Arya Samaj was not considered a minority and institutions established by it would not qualify for such protection. The court also upheld the constitutional validity of most of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as previously determined by the court. However, the court found that the petitioners had been denied a reasonable opportunity to inspect official records relating to previous enquiries and inspections, which formed the basis of the takeover notice. The court also noted allegations of mala fides and political motivations behind the takeover decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the school was a minority institution entitled to constitutional protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder were constitutionally valid. 3. Whether the petitioners were denied a reasonable opportunity to inspect official records and whether there was mala fides in the takeover decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Arya Samaj could not be considered a minority and institutions established by it would not qualify for the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court upheld the constitutional validity of most of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as previously determined by the court. 3. The court found that the petitioners had been denied a reasonable opportunity to inspect official records relating to previous enquiries and inspections, which formed the basis of the takeover notice. The court also noted allegations of mala fides and political motivations behind the takeover decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, considering that the petitioners had been given an opportunity to inspect the records and that recent political and administrative changes would allow for a fresh and impartial consideration of the takeover issue. The court emphasized the need for a balance between individual or institutional rights and public interest in educational institutions and the importance of an impartial inquiry into the affairs of the institution.
( 1 ) THIS petition, under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, By Gandhi Harijan Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, its Principal, and certain others, includmg the President of its Managing Committee, is directed against certain orders and directions of the Directorate of Education with regard to the management of the School and a notice from the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi requiring the Manager of the school to show cause why the management of the school be not taken over under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short, the Act ).
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the school was started in the year 1965 by the Gandhi Harijan Shiksha Sabha, a society registered under the socities Registration Act, as a Middle School, with the object of imparting "knowledge of vedic and Arya Samaj text as laid down by its founder Maharishi Daya Nand Ji who had been the Pioneer for the cause of uplift of untouchability in India in Hindu society. " It is claimed that inter alia, on account of the untiring efforts and work of Shri Ranjit Singh, who has been the Principal of the school since its inception, the institution has grown from strength to strength over the years and had become by the year 1975, when the petition was filed, a Higher Secondary School, having on its rolls 3500 students and a staff of 146 teachers, housed in a building of its own consisting of over 50 rooms in two floors in an area of about 7000 sq. yds. acquired and put up with public help without any assistance from government. It is a co-educational institution and works in two shifts. It is further claimed that throughout this period the school was considered among the best run schools in Delhi, with excellent results and the management of the school had been the recipient of commendations and appreciation on a number of occasions from the educational authorities. According to the petitioners, since the enforcement of the Act, there has been undue interference in the management and administration of the school by the Directorate of Education, which had its genesis in the jealousies that the successful management and growth of the school by the efforts of the Principal had generated and, in particular, the machinations of a local social worker, Shri Ram Chander Kardam, who had openly aspired to the membership of the Managing Committee of the school. According to the petitioners, the resistance of the management to the inclusion of Shri Kardam into the Managing Committee has been the cause of hostility by the Directorate of Education towards the management of the school, which inspired public agitation against the management and, in particular, against the Principal and disaffection amongst a section of the teaching staff, which have since taken an ugly turn because of the support that the elements hostile to the management have been able to enlist on account of the influence of Shri Kardam over the then Chief Executive Councillor. who also held the education, portfolio, and the officers of the Directorate of Education; It is further alleged that the hostile attitede of the dissident teachers is partly attributable to the fact that they were acting under the influence of a political party, which; during the material period,. was supporting the political party then in power in the Union Territory of Delhi and at the Centre. According to the petitioners, the interference with the management of the school, and its threatened take over by the Administration is mot only mala fide, actuated by political constiderations, but is also violative at the fundamental right of the Society and the School enshrined in Art. 30 of the Constitution of India; out the ground that the Society and the school are minority institutio;ns, having, been established by the, Arya Samaj,, are- ligious minority, for the benefit of the Scheduled Castes and the other backward classes constituting an economic minority. After the internal emergency was wit
