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

1990 Supreme(Ker) 216

Kerala High Court
V.S.MALIMATH,T.L.VISWANATHA IYER
Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Palai and etc.etc. - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Decided On : 07/13/1990

Advocates:
Legy Abraham, Mathews P. Mathew, M.I. Joseph, K.J. Arby and Roy Thomas, for Petitioners; Govt. Pleader Mr. Sugathan, for Respondents.

The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the right of a religious minority to administer an educational institution of its choice, including the appointment of a Headmaster, is of paramount importance and any interference with this right, except for prescribing qualifications and experience, would violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Right to Appoint Headmasters - Minority Educational Institutions - Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959) - Article 30(1) of the Constitution - Rule 44 of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the right of a religious minority, specifically the Christian community, to appoint Headmasters of its choice in educational institutions established and administered by them, irrespective of seniority. The minority educational agencies contended that Rule 44, which required appointments of Headmasters to be made ordinarily according to seniority, infringed upon their rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the right to appoint a Headmaster is of paramount importance in the administration of an educational institution by a minority, and any interference with this right, except for prescribing qualifications and experience, would violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1). The court also declared a government circular invalid to the extent that it directed compliance with Rule 44 for minority educational institutions imparting secular education or receiving aid from the State.

Issues: The main issue was whether the minority educational agencies were entitled to appoint Headmasters of their choice, ignoring the rule of seniority prescribed in Rule 44, and whether the insistence on compliance with Rule 44 violated the fundamental right of the minority guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the pivotal importance of the Headmaster in the life of a school and held that any trammel on the right of a minority to appoint the Headmaster, except for prescribing qualifications and experience, would be considered a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1). The court also clarified that while regulations for ensuring educational excellence and conditions of employment of teachers are permissible, any denial of the right of selection and appointment of teachers would infringe Article 30(1).

Final Decision: The court declared the government circular invalid and quashed the orders refusing to approve the appointments of Headmasters by the minority educational agencies. The concerned Educational Officers were directed to reconsider the question of approval without reference to Rule 44, in the light of the court's observations.

Judgement

VISWANATHA IYER, J.:- All these original petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution, involve a common question as to the right of a religious minority to appoint Headmasters of its choice, irrespective of seniority, in educational institutions established and administered by it. The minority concerned in these cases is Christian community. The minority educational agencies in question, who have established and are

administering various educational institutions in the State, have been required by the authorities functioning under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959) and the Rules framed thereunder, to appoint Headmasters in these institutions in accordance with seniority, as enjoined by R.44 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules (the Rules, for short). The contention of the minority educational agencies who have filed these original petitions (except O.P. No. 4795 of 1989) (in some cases, along with their appointee Headmasters) is that R.44 makes an inroad into the rights of the minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice by insisting that appointments of Headmasters should "ordinarily" be according to seniority. O.P. No. 4795 of 1989. On the other hand, is a petition filed by two senior affected teachers for directions to the concerned minority educational agency to appoint Headmasters in their institutions in accordance with the oridinary rule of seniority prescribed in R.44. The case of these teachers is that R.44 is a regulatory measure, the provisions of which do not trench upon the fundamental right of the minority under Art.30(1) of the Constitution.

2. It will be advantageous at this stage to extract the relevant Constitutional and statutory provisions, namely Art.30(l) of the Constitution, Sub-sec. (2) of S.2 of the Act defining an "educational agency". Subsection (5) of S.2 of defining a "minority school", R.1 of Chapter III of the Rules which classifies private educational institutions and defines educational agencies, R.3 of ChapterIII requiring management of a school to be vested in a Manager and R.44 of Chapter XIVA (to which we shall hereinafter refer as R.44).

"Article 30(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice."

"Section 2(2) "educational agency" means any person or body of persons permitted to establish and maintain any private school under this Act."

"Section 2(5) "minority school" means schools of their choice established and administered, or administered, by such minorities as have the right to do so under Cl. (1) of Art.30 of the Constitution."

"Rule 1 of Chapter III Classification of Private Educational Institutions:- Private Educational Institutions may be classified into two categories viz. (i) those under individual Educational Agency and (ii) those under Corporate Educational Agency. Where the right to conduct the school is vested in an individual in his own right or as the legal representative of a joint family, the Educational Agency shall be termed "Individual Educational Agency" and in all other cases the Educational Agency shall be termed "Corporate Educational Agency". Corporate Educational Agency shall include cases where the right is vested in (a) two or more persons jointly with written registered agreement, (b) a Board or Society or Association or Company or institution registered under a statute or created by a statute (c) an institution of Trust and (d) an ecclesiastical office of any religious denomination."

"Rule 3 of Chapter III Management to be vested in a Manager:- (1) The management of every aided school may be vested by the Education Agency in a person who shall be referred to as the Manager and who shall be responsible to the department for the management of the institution.

(2) In the case of aided institutions under individual management, the individual proprietor may be the Manager.

(3) In the case of aided institutions under Corpo














































































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top