Goa High Court
TITO MENEZES, J. C.
Monte de Guirim Educational Society and another - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondents
Spl. Civil Appln. (Writ Petn.) No. 182 of 1976
Decided On : 24 August 1979
GRANT-IN-AID CODE - MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - RIGHT TO ADMINISTER - PROVISO TO RULE 74(2)(i) - UNCONSTITUTIONAL - REDUCTION IN GRANTS - RULE 94 - NOT APPLICABLE - WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a minority educational institution, challenged the validity of the proviso to Rule 74(2)(i) of the Grant-in-Aid Code, which required prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education for the removal of a teacher. The petitioners also challenged the order of the respondents stopping the grant-in-aid to the school under Rule 94 of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the proviso to Rule 74(2)(i) was unconstitutional as it interfered with the right of administration of the minority educational institution and was not a permissible regulatory measure. The Court also held that the respondents were not entitled to stop the grant-in-aid to the school under Rule 94 as the alleged infringement of Rule 74(2)(i) was not of a serious nature.
Issues: 1. Whether the proviso to Rule 74(2)(i) of the Grant-in-Aid Code was unconstitutional? 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to stop the grant-in-aid to the school under Rule 94 of the Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right of administration of a minority educational institution includes the right to remove teachers. The proviso to Rule 74(2)(i) interfered with this right by requiring prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education for the removal of a teacher. The proviso was not a permissible regulatory measure as it was not necessary to achieve the objective of ensuring the standard of excellence of a school and safeguarding the right conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 2. Rule 94 of the Code allowed the respondents to reduce or stop the grant-in-aid to a school if there was an infringement of the provisions of the Code of a serious nature. The alleged infringement of Rule 74(2)(i) was not of a serious nature. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to stop the grant-in-aid to the school under Rule 94.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the respondents stopping the grant-in-aid to the school, and directed the respondents to restore the grant-in-aid and to continue to pay all the grants in future.
ORDER :- The Monte de Guirim Educational Society and the Head-Master of the St. Anthonys High School which is administered by that Society come before me with this petition for Writ directing the Government and their Education Director, the first and second respondents herein, to continue the payment of the maintenance grant that was being given to the school under Grant-in-Aid Code for its maintenance and to restrain the first and second respondents from stopping the grant for the payment of salary of the staff of the school.
2. Shortly stated the case of the petitioners is as follows :-
In 1963 the Capuchin Fathers in Goa formed a Capuchin Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 known as the Capuchin Friars Minor Society. Its objective was, inter alia, the establishment and maintenance of educational institutions. Accordingly the Capuchin Society established the St. Anthonys High School (hereinafter referred to as the School). In 1975 the first petitioner Society was formed also with the avowed object, among others, of taking over, conducting, developing, improving, equipping and administering the School. The petitioners seek to provide education to the children of Christian community which is a religious minority. However, children of other creeds are also admitted to the School. Fr. Terance DSouza, the second petitioner, is the Headmaster of the School. In the year 1963 the School was recognized by the Department of Education of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and started receiving Grant-in-Aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code for Secondary Schools and Colleges and other Educational Institutions. Except the Primary Schools, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The third and the fourth respondents were permanent teachers in the School. They were given the required compensation; their services were terminated under Rule 74(2)(i) of the Code after the prescribed compensation was given to them and intimation of termination was given to the Deputy Director of Education, Academic Section I (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Directors) and a copy of the letters of termination of services was also sent to him. The Education Inspector requested the petitioners to quote the relevant Rule of the Code under which the termination of the services of the two respondents was effected. In reply the petitioners stated that the School was an Educational Institution run by a religious minority protected by Art.30 of the Constitution of India and that the services of the third and the fourth respondents were terminated by the Management on payment of compensation of six months salary as provided by R.74(2)(i) of the Code. On July 27, 1976 the second respondent wrote to the first petitioner admitting that Art.30 of the Constitution confers rights upon the minorities to establish and administer institution of their choice. However, the second respondent contended, schools that are aided under the Code have to follow the provisions of the Code as the Code is a contract between the Government and the school and the breach of any provisions of the Code is a breach of a contract. The second respondent called upon the petitioners to explain why grants to the School not be withdrawn under R.94 of the Code for breach of the R.74(2)(i) of the Code. The petitioners in answer to the show cause notice stated that the first petitioner was a minority educational institution and its rights were protected by Art.30 of the Constitution. By his letter dated Sept. 4, 1976 the second respondent informed the petitioners that their explanation was not satisfactory. He further stated that since the petitioners were not ready to remedy the situation it has been decided to withdraw the maintenance grant to the School with immediate effect under R.74(94 ?) of the Code. The petitioners were also warned : "if the petitioners still refuse to restore back the situation as before the termination of services, within three months, steps
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.