IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. VERMA, R. K. GULATI
BADRUL HASAN QADIRI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 2940 Of 1979
Decided On : 02/12/1992
MINORITY INSTITUTION - ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION - ARTICLE 30(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - SECTION 16G(3) - Whether the institution was established as a minority institution and whether the provisions of Section 16G(3) of the Intermediate Education Act could abridge or curtail or inhibit the exclusive right enjoyed by the Management to take disciplinary action against its teachers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the principal of an institution, challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Education dismissing his appeal against the disciplinary action taken against him by the Management on the ground that the institution was a minority institution and, therefore, the provisions of Section 16G(3) of the Intermediate Education Act did not apply. The petitioner contended that the institution was not established as a minority institution and that even if it was, the provisions of Section 16G(3) did not impinge upon the essentials of the constitutional guarantee envisioned by Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the institution was not established as a minority institution and, therefore, was not protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The court also held that the provisions of Section 16G(3) of the Intermediate Education Act did not abridge or curtail or inhibit the exclusive right enjoyed by the Management to take disciplinary action against its teachers.
Issues: 1. Whether the institution was established as a minority institution? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 16G(3) of the Intermediate Education Act could abridge or curtail or inhibit the exclusive right enjoyed by the Management to take disciplinary action against its teachers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the institution was not established as a minority institution based on the following factors: - The institution was established by prominent citizens of Bilthara Road, Ballia, including both Muslims and Hindus. - The institution was established for the spread and promotion of education in general and not merely for the benefit of any particular community. - The membership of the Society which brought into existence this institution was open to all and not confined to any particular Community. - The Scheme of Administration approved by the Education Department after 1958 also reflected the same characteristics and totally negated the contention raised by the respondents regarding the minority character of the institution. 2. The court held that the provisions of Section 16G(3) of the Intermediate Education Act did not abridge or curtail or inhibit the exclusive right enjoyed by the Management to take disciplinary action against its teachers because the institution was not a minority institution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education, and directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the petitioner's appeal afresh on merits within two months.
( 1 ) THIS is the second time that the petition has come up for hearing before the court. Earlier by our order dated 24/05/1984, the petition had been dismissed on the ground that in view of the consistent stand taken by him throughout his tenure as a principal of the institution that it was a minority institution, it was not open to the petitioner to turn round and contend that it was not a minority institution and, therefore, the disciplinary action initiated against him by the Management was subject to the control of the educational authorities under Section 16g (3) of the Intermediate Education Act. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. By its order dated 29/10/1984, the Supreme Court granted Special Leave to the petitioner letting aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the case for the determination of the question whether the institution is or is not a minority institution.
( 2 ) UPON remand, we heard learned counsel for the parties again at some length on the issue whether the institution of which the petitioner was the principal, bears the character of a minority institution protected by Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, the main and the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the institution was neither established by the minority community nor run as a minority institution. The words establish and administer, it was argued, must be read conjunctively, i. e. , not only should the institution be administered by the minority but it should have been established, i. e. , brought into existence by the minority. Both the requirements, namely, the establishing as well as the administering of the institution must be fulfilled. Article 30 (1) of the Constitution which states-"30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. " has been the subject of numberous pronouncements of the Supreme Court, but it is not necessary to burden this judgment with all those decisions. We will refer only to the barest minimum. In S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India reported in AIR 1968 SC 662, Chief Justice Wanchoo speaking for the Constitution Bench of the Court observed in paragraph 19 of the judgment thus : "under Article 30 (1), "all minorities whether based on religion or language shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice". We shall proceed on the assumption in the present petitions that Muslims are a minority based on religion. What then is the scope of Art. 30 (1) and what exactly is the right conferred therein on the religious minorities? It is to our mind quite clear that Art. 30 (1) postulates that the religious community will have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice meaning thereby that where a religious minority establishes an educational institution, it will have the right to administer that. An argument has been raised to the effect that even though the religious minority may not have established the educational institution, it will have the right to administer it, if by some process it had been administering the same before the constitution came into force. We are not prepared to accept this argument. The article in our opinion clearly shows that the minority will have the right to administer educational institutions of their choice provided they have established them, but not otherwise. The Article cannot be read to mean that even if the educational institution has been established by somebody else, any religious minority would have the right to administer it because, for some reason or other, it might have been administering it before the constitution came into force. The words establish and administer in the Article must be read conjunctively and so read it gives the right to the minority to adm
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.