SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Ker) 8

Judges : K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,G.SASIDHARAN
Evans U.P.School - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 2032 of 2000 & connected cases
Decided On : 01/05/2001
Advocates Appeared :
T.P. Kelu Nambiar (Sr.Advocate), P.G. Rajagopalan, M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar & Shiraz Abdulla For Appellant Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair, Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, Reji Paul, Saju John, V.V. Pratheeksh & Government Pleader (P.K. Ramakrishnan) For espondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of minority rights under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India and the competence of the State Government to determine the minority status of an institution.

Headnote:

Minority Institution - Appointment Dispute - Kerala Education Act - Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a Headmistress in a school claimed to be a minority institution. The Manager of the school, belonging to the Nadar Christian community, claimed minority status and constitutional protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. The appointment dispute arose when the Manager appointed a Headmistress against the conditions laid down in the Kerala Education Act, leading to legal challenges and government orders.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the Manager to appoint the disputed candidate as Headmistress within a week, and referred the claim for minority status to the State Government for resolution within three months. The court emphasized the protection of minority rights under Art.30(1) and the need for a competent authority to determine the minority status of an institution.

Issues: The main issues included the appointment dispute, the claim for minority status, and the competence of the State Government to resolve the minority status dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the management of a minority school has the right to choose qualified personnel for appointments, and that the State Government is the competent authority to determine the minority status of an institution. The court emphasized the protection of minority rights under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court directed the Manager to appoint the disputed candidate as Headmistress within a week, and referred the claim for minority status to the State Government for resolution within three months. The court also stated that no further proceedings would be initiated against the Manager if the appointment was made, and all disciplinary proceedings against the Manager would be dropped.

Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Common questions arise for consideration in all these cases. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of the cases are as follows: Appellant herein claims to be Manager of three Institutions by name, Evan's Upper Primary School, Parassala, Evan's High School, Parassala, and Evan's Teachers Training Institute, Parassala. According to the Manager, all these Institutions belong to Nadar Christian community and are established for rendering educational facilities to members of Nadar Christian community. Nadar Christian community, according to the Manager, is a minority community and consequently entitled to get the benefit of protection guaranteed under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. Among the three institutions, according to the petitioner, Evan's Basic Training has already been declared as a minority institution by the Director of Public Institution by his order dated 11.5.1970. According to him, even if there is no declaration to that effect the institution has got the status of minority institution entitled to protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. De hors a declaration to that effect the case of the Manager is that a minority institution can claim minority status and consequently entitled to get constitutional protection.

2. Dispute mainly centres round the question of appointment of a Headmaster in the Evan's U.P. School Parassala in a retirement vacancy which arose on 31.3.1999. Instead of appointing one Kanaka Bai, seniormost U.P.S.A. in the Evan's U.P. School, Smt. Joylet was transferred from Evan's H.S. Parassala and posted as Headmistress. That appointment was not approved by the Asst. Educational Officer since it was against the conditions laid down in R.44(1) of Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. Manager later appointed one P.J. Ushakumari as Headmistress and sought for approval. Assistant Educational Officer rejected the request and directed the Manager to appoint Kanaka Bai, senior most U.P.S.A. in the Evan's U.P. School. Since no steps were taken by the Manager to appoint Kanaka Bai as the Headmistress of the school the matter was taken up before the Government and the Government by order dated 20.3.2000 directed the Manager to appoint Kanaka Bai as Headmistress in the Evan's U.P. School.

3. Manager challenged the order of the Government by filing O.P. No. 14896 of 2000. Kanaka Bai also filed O.P. No. 8017 of 1999 to implement the Government order. Learned Singe Judge dismissed O.P. No. 14896 of 2000 holding that the Government was perfectly justified in directing the Manager to appoint Kanaka Bai as Headmistress of the School. Government order dated 20.3.2000 was upheld by the learned Single Judge. On the question of minority status the judgment states as follows:

"In view of the disputed status of the petitioner's school as a minority institution and insufficiency of data before this Court to decide the same, it may not be possible for this Court to hold that the petitioner's institution is a minority institution. It is for the petitioner to establish the same before the appropriate authority which is to decide the above question."

In view of the dismissal of OP. No. 14896 of 2000, learned judge disposed of O.P. No. 8017 of 1999 directing Kanaka Bai to approach the educational authority for appointment as Headmistress of the school. Aggrieved by the above judgments, the Manager has filed Writ Appeal Nos. 2032 and 2033 of 2000 respectively. Due to the non-implementation of the Government Order as directed by the learned judge, Kanaka Bai took up the matter before the higher authorities. The Deputy Director of Education subsequently passed an order on 30.12.2000 stating as follows:

"Hence it is conclusively proved that the Manager at feud with the senior most U.P.S.A. deliberately violated and disparaged R.9(1) of Chapter III KER, by continuously neglecting and disobeying the orders issued from time to time by the Government and the Department in conformity with t













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top