Polina Alexander Singh vs Joint Director Education, Sagar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(MP) 171

1995 JLJ 435
S.K. Dubey, J.
Polina Alexander Singh (Mrs.) v. Joint Director Education, Sagar and others
M.P. No. 1951 of 1993; Decided on 31.1.7995.

Advocates:
Abhay Sapre with Ku. Chandana Mukherjee for petitioner; M.L. Choubey, Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2; B.S. Ruprah for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Headnote:(1) Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (M.P.) -- S. 6 (a) (iii), (iv), (b) and (c) -- other provisions of the Act -- are applicable to minority educational institutions -- these provisions being violative of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution are not applicable to such institutions. 1979 JLJ 485 relied on. [Para 3
        (2) Private Educational Institutions (promotion of Teachers and other Employees Working in School) Rules, 1988 (M.P.) -- R. 4 Sch. Note 2 -- vacancy on post of Principal -- can be filled by promotion -- non-availability of competent candidate not shown -- post of Principal cannot be filled in by direct recruitment. [Para 10
        (3) Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (M.P.) -- S. 6 (a) (i) -- Private Educational Institutions (Promotion of Teachers and other Employees Working in School) Rules, 1988 (M.P.) -- Rr. 4 and 3 (2) -- post of Principal -- is a promotion post -- cannot be filled in by direct recruitment without investigation for competent candidate amongst existing staff -- advertisement and selection by committee not constituted according to R. 3 (2) -- is invalid. [Para 10
        (4) Constitution of India -- Art. 30 (1) -- fundamental right under -- is absolute but subject to regulatory measures -- regulations cannot abridge fundamental right of minorities.
        It is clear that the fundamental right declared by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution is absolute in terms, but subject to regulatory measures. The regulations framed by the State cannot abridge the fundamental right of the minorities and they should be in the interests of the minority institutions themselves, the regulations should be with a view to promoting excellence of educational standards and ensuring security of the services of teachers and other employees of the institutions and in the true interests of efficiency of institutions, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like. AIR 1994 SC 43 and AIR 1987 SC 311 followed. AIR 1974 SC 1389, AIR 1975 SC 1821, AIR 1980 SC 1042, AIR 1986 SC 1490, AIR 1988 SC 305 and AIR 1989 SC 183 referred to. [Paras 11 & 12
        (5) Constitution of India --Art. 30 (1) -- society or institution -- not free in all respects -- in educational institution teacher or other employee should have requisite qualifications -- recruitment should be made in prescribed manner -- these are regulatory measures -- Principal is not outsider. AIR 1975 SC 1821 followed. [Para 13
        ¼1½ v‘kkldh; f‘k{k.k laLFkk ¼v/;kidksa rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds osruksa dk lank;½ vf/kfu;e] 1978 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 6 ¼d½ ¼rhu½] ¼pkj½] ¼[k½ rFkk ¼x½ && vf/kfu;e ds vU; mica/k && vYila[;d f‘k{k.k laLFkkvksa ij ykxw gksrs gSa && ;g mica/k lafo/kku ds vuq- 31 ¼1½ ds vfrØe.k esa gksus ds dkj.k ,slh laLFkkvksa ij ykxw ugha gSaA 1979 ts ,y ts 485 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 3

        ¼2½ izkbosV f‘k{k.k laLFkk,¡ ¼fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr f‘k{kd rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dh izksUufr½ fu;e] 1988 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 4] vuqlwph uksV 2 && iz/kkukpk;Z ds in dh fjfDr && izksUufr }kjk Hkjh tk ldrh gS && l{ke vH;FkhZ dh vuqiyC/krk n‘kkbZ ugha xbZ && iz/kkukpk;Z dk in lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk ugha Hkjk tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 10

        ¼3½ v‘kkldh; f‘k{k.k laLFkk ¼v/;kidksa rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds osruksa dk lank;½ vf/kfu;e] 1978 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 6 ¼d½ ¼,d½ && izkbosV f‘k{k.k laLFkk,¡ ¼fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr f‘k{kd rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dh izksUufr½ fu;e] 1988 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 4 rFkk 3 ¼2½ && iz/kkukpk;Z dk in && izksUufr in gS && fo|eku deZpkfjo`an esa l{ke vH;FkhZ ds fy, vUos"k.k fcuk lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjk ugha tk ldrk && fu- 3¼2½ ds vuqlkj ugha xfBr lfefr }kjk foKkiu rFkk p;u && vfof/kekU; gSA ¿ iSjk 10

        ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 30¼1½ && mica/k ds v/khu ewy vf/kdkj && vkR;afrd gS fdarq fofu;edkjh v/;qik;ksa ds v/;/khu gS && fofu;e vYila[;dksa ds ewy vf/kdkj dks U;wu ugha dj ldrsA

        ;g Li"V gS fd lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 30 ¼1½ }kjk ?kksf"kr ewy vf/kdkj oLrqr% vkR;afrd gS] fdarq fofu;edkjh v/;qik;ksa ds v/;/khu gSA jkT; }kjk fojfpr fofu;e vYila[;dksa ds ewy vf/kdkj dks U;wu ugha dj ldrs rFkk os Lo;a vYila[;d laLFkkvksa ds fgr esa gksuk pkfg,] fofu;e f‘k{kk ds ekudksa ds mRd"kZ ds laizorZu rFkk laLFkkvksa ds f‘k{kdksa rFkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokvksa dh lqj{kk lqfuf‘pr djus dh n`f"V ls gksuk pkfg, rFkk laLFkkvksa dh n{krk] vuq‘kklu] LokLF;] LoPNrk] lnkpkj] yksd O;oLFkk rFkk ,sls gh vU; ds okLrfod fgr esa gksuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 43 rFkk , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 311 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 1389] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 181] , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1042] , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1490] , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 305 rFkk , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 183 fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 11 ,oa 12

        ¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 30 ¼1½ && lsklkbVh vFkok laLFkk lHkh izdkj ls Lora= ugha gS && f‘k{k.k esa f‘k{kd vFkok vU; deZpkjh dks visf{kr vgZrk gksuk pkfg, && HkrhZ fofgr jhfr ls gksuk pkfg, && ;g fofu;edkjh vuq/;kr gSa && iz/kkukpk;Z && ckgjh O;fDr ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1821 vuqlfjrA

ORDER

1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 532 of 1993 (Mrs. Polina Alexander Singh v. Joint Director, Education, Sagar) and Miscellaneous Petition No. 1558 of 1994 (Mission Higher Secondary School, Damoh v. State of M.P.).

2. The petitioner who is a Lecturer in Mission Higher Secondary School, Damoh has filed two petitions. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 532/93 relief sought is to quash the appointment of respondent No.4 as Principal of the School and to issue a writ of mandamus against the Mission Higher Secondary School, Damoh commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion according to Rules as directed by this Court vide order dated 16.7.1992 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2285 of 1992. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 1951 of 1993 the petitioner claims a relief for quashing of the advertisement issued by the Church of North India, Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training (hereinafter called 'the CNI Board') of inviting applications for appointment of the Principal by way of direct recruitment and the selection and appointment of respondent No.4. Miscellaneous Petition No. 1558/94 has been filed by the Mission Higher Secondary School, Damoh through the Principal J. Prasad, who is respondent No. 4 in two petitions filed by the petitioner for quashing of the approval of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer, from the post of Upper Division Teacher to the Post of Lecturer, vide Annexure P-5 dated 12.1.1993 passed by the Joint Director of Education.

3. The C.N.I. Board is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, which runs the minority institutions, one of them is Mission Higher Secondary School, Damoh, which gets maintenance grant from the State Government in respect of the approved teachers and its employees. It is not disputed that the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter called the' Act') are applicable on the minority educational institutions except the provisions of S. 6 (a) (iii) and (iv), (b) and (c) which have been declared invalid as violative of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, by a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Siddhibala Bose Library Association v.

State of M.P. (1979 JLJ 485) = (1979 MPLJ 379).

4. The case of the petitioner is that action of the CNI Board in issuing advertisement for direct recruitment of the Principal of the School (Annexure P-12) and the amendment in qualification prescribing the 10 years minimum teaching experience and date of submitting application as 25the May, 1993, published by advertisement Annexure P-13, thereafter, selecting respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal of the School bye-passing the claim of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Private Educational Institutions (Promotion of Teachers and other Employees Working in School) Rules 1988, (for short called the 'Rules of 1988') framed under section 10 of the Act of 1978, are illegal and deserve to be quashed.

5. Facts giving rise to the petitions are these. The petitioner avers that the petitioner is highly qualified and educated Lecturer who holds a Masters degree in Hindi and Diploma in Teaching. The petitioner joined School on 5.8.1957 as a Teacher in the Middle School of the CNI Board, which runs 3 educational institutions at Damoh vis. (1) Mission Primary School; (2) Mission Middle School and (3) Mission Higher Secondary School. Later on the petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Teacher in the Higher Secondary School from 1.9.67. The petitioner became eligible for the post of Lecturer in 1977-78 but as a result of the ban on promotion by abolishing the post of Lecturer, the petitioner continued as Upper Division Teacher, in the cadre of Upper Division Teacher, the petitioner was the senior most as is evident from the seniority list Annexure P-4. When the ban was lifted by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1995 Supreme(MP) 171

1995 JLJ 435S.K. Dubey, J.Polina Alexander Singh (Mrs.) v. Joint Director Education, Sagar and othersM.P. No. 1951 of 1993; Decided on 31.1.7995.

Cases Referred (7)

Judicial Analysis

1995 JLJ 435
S.K. Dubey, J.
Polina Alexander Singh (Mrs.) v. Joint Director Education, Sagar and others
M.P. No. 1951 of 1993; Decided on 31.1.7995.