Back
1993 Supreme(Mad) 662
High Court of Judicature at Madras
BAKTHAVATSALAM
S. Sundaram & Others
Versus
District Educational Officer, Cheyyar & Another
W.P. Nos. 12333, 15798, 15799 & 16935 of 1993
Decided On :Decided on: 08-10-1993
For the Petitioners:P.D. Dinakaran, Miss. K. Suguna, P. Peppin Fernando, Advocates.
For the Respondents:V.J. Latha, Government Advocate.
The right of minorities to administer educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India is subject to the regulatory power of the State. However, such regulations must be reasonable and not impair the right of minorities to educate their children in their own institutions.
Headnote:
MINORITY INSTITUTIONS - RE-EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS - GOVERNMENT ORDER - INTERFERENCE WITH MANAGEMENT RIGHTS - ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - RIGHT TO ADMINISTER - REASONABLE REGULATIONS - PUBLIC INTEREST - MALADMINISTRATION - REGULATORY POWER OF THE STATE - ACADEMIC MATTERS - UNIFORMITY IN STANDARDS OF EDUCATION - MINORITY INSTITUTIONS - RIGHT TO EDUCATE CHILDREN IN THEIR OWN INSTITUTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, teachers in minority institutions, challenged the government order requiring them to continue working till the end of the academic year after their retirement. They argued that it violated their right to administer their institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the government order interfered with the management rights of the minority institutions and was therefore unconstitutional. It also held that the writ petition was maintainable as the schools were receiving aid from the government.
Issues: 1. Whether the government order requiring teachers in minority institutions to continue working till the end of the academic year after their retirement was constitutional. 2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the government order interfered with the management rights of the minority institutions and was therefore unconstitutional. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi, which held that the right to administer educational institutions does not include the right to maladminister. The court also held that the State has the power to regulate academic matters and management, but such regulations must be reasonable and not impair the right of minorities to educate their children in their own institutions. 2. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the schools were receiving aid from the government.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in W.P. No. 16935 of 1993 and dismissed the writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 15798, 15799 and 12333 of 1993.
1. When the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. The prayer in W.P. No. 12333 of 1993 is as follows:
“to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from interfering with the rights of the petitioner herein to continue on reemployment till 31.5.1994 as Headmaster of the C.S.I. Elementary School at Nilkuppam, Arkonam, taluk.”
3. The prayer in W.P. No. 15798 of 1993 is to issue an order or direction or writ more specifically writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as P.G. Assistant in the first respondent school on reemployment terms till 31.5.1994.
4. The prayer in W.P. No. 1579 of 1993 is to issue an order or direction or writ more specifically writ of mandamus directing the respondents and also the petitioner to continue in service as Tamil Pandit is the first respondent school on re-employment terms till 31.5.1994.
5. The prayer in W.P. No. 16935 of 1993 is to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings issued in Memo No. 52041 F1/60-1 Education dated 8.10.1969 issued by the Director of Education and G.O.Ms. No. 1643 Education (US) Department dated 27.10.1988 from the office of the respondents 1 and 2 and quash the same.
6. The common issue involved in all these writ petitions is regarding the Government order which requires the teachers who have challenging superannuation in the middle of school year to continue till the end of the academic year.
7. It seems that the Government in Memo. 52041-F. 1/69-1 Education dated 8.10.1969 has ordered that teachers who attain the age of superannuation in the middle of the school year should be continued or reemployment till the date of closure of the school for summer vacation subject to the following conditions:
1. that their work and conduct are satisfactory.
2. that they are physically found fit for further service,
3. that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against them.
Admittedly, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 12333, 15798 and 15799 of 1993 are working in the institutions which are minority institutions.
8. The petitioner in W.P. No. 16935 of 1993 challenges the proceedings of the Director of Education in Memo. No. 52041-F1/69-1 Education dated 8.10.1969 and G.O.Ms. No. 1643 Education (US) Department dated 27.10.1988. In Memo No. 52041 dated 8.10.1969 the Director of School Education was informed that teachers Head Masters of aided Elementary and Secondary Schools who are continued in service on reemployment terms till the closure of the school for summer vacation are eligible for full vacation salary. In G.O. 249 Education dated 9.2.1959, the Government accepted the suggestion of the Government of India in the Ministry of Education that school teachers who reach the age of superannuation during the middle of the school year should be allowed to continue till the end of summer vacation in order to ensure continuity of staff. In the year 1988, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 1643 Education (U2) Department dated 27.10.1988 in which earlier Ms. No. 249 Education dated 9.2.1959. had been referred to. This Government order is with regard to the despatch of pension papers of the teachers well in advance. However, the petitioner in W.P. No. 16935 of 1993 on 15.5.1993 passed a resolution thus:
“93. 21 (C) Policy on school staff retirement : Resolved that as a general policy relating to retirement of all the school staff in the Diocese of Madras every staff retire by the close of the month during which birthday occurs. No extension on superannuation will be recommended for any staff. This policy will come into immediate effect.”
9. Mr. Peppin Fernando, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 16335 of 1993 vehemently contends that condition to re-employ the teacher curtails cannot give right to the petitioners under 1st of the constitution reemployment amounts to r
