1998 Supreme(MP) 581

R.S. Garg, J.
Mehdibai Foujdar Education
vs
State Of M.P. And Ors.
Decided on : 5 August, 1998

The appeal provisions in the M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ka Sandaya), Adhiniyam, 1978 (1978 Adhiniyam) and the M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapkon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon) Appeal Rules, 1978 (Appeal Rules) are valid and do not violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - MINORITY INSTITUTIONS - SERVICE CONDITIONS OF TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES - APPEAL PROVISIONS - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 30(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - M. P. ASHASKIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA (ADHYAPAKON TATH AANYA KARMACHARIYON KA SANDAYA), ADHINIYAM, 1978 (1978 ADHINIYAM) - M. P. ASHASKIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA (ADHYAPAKON TATH AANYA KARMACHARIYON) APPEAL RULES, 1978 (APPEAL RULES) - M. P. ASHASKIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA (ADHYAPAKON TATH AANYA KARMACHARIYON KO PADACHYUT KARNE SEWA SE HATANE SAMBANDHI PRAKRIYA) NIYAM, 1983 - VALIDITY OF APPEAL PROVISIONS - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISO TO CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 6(A) OF THE 1978 ADHINIYAM - WHETHER APPEAL PROVISIONS VIOLATE ARTICLE 30(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - HELD, NO.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a registered society under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, known as Mehdibai Fouzdar Education Society, challenged the jurisdiction of the Joint Director, Public Instructions, Narmada Division, Hoshangabad, to entertain appeals of certain employees whose services were terminated by the petitioner society under the provisions of Section 6(a)(iii) and (iv), (b) and (c) of the M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ka Sandaya), Adhiniyam, 1978 (1978 Adhiniyam). The petitioner contended that the Joint Director had no jurisdiction as the scope of the appellate power had already been explained by the High Court in a Division Bench judgment in Sidhi Bala Bose Library Association v. State of M. P. and Ors. The petitioner also submitted that the provisions of appeal had been prescribed in the rules framed Under Section 6(a)(iii) of the Adhiniyam of 1978, known as M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapkon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon) Appeal Rules, 1978 (Appeal Rules).

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the amended Clause (iii) of Section 6(a) of the 1978 Adhiniyam, which gave the management control over the teachers and other employees for taking disciplinary action, was valid and did not offend the rights of any minority institution. The Court further held that the proviso to Clause (iii) of Section 6(a), which provided a right of appeal to the teacher or employee, was not an exception to the main clause but a separate provision governing the rights of a party in relation to appeal. The Court also held that the appeal provisions did not violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India as they did not interfere with the management's right to select personnel.

Issues: 1. Whether the Joint Director, Public Instructions, had jurisdiction to entertain appeals of certain employees whose services were terminated by the petitioner society under the provisions of Section 6(a)(iii) and (iv), (b) and (c) of the 1978 Adhiniyam? 2. Whether the provisions of appeal prescribed in the Appeal Rules were valid? 3. Whether the appeal provisions violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Joint Director had jurisdiction to entertain appeals as the amended Clause (iii) of Section 6(a) of the 1978 Adhiniyam gave the management control over the teachers and other employees for taking disciplinary action and the proviso to Clause (iii) provided a right of appeal to the teacher or employee. 2. The Court held that the provisions of appeal prescribed in the Appeal Rules were valid as they did not interfere with the management's right to select personnel. 3. The Court held that the appeal provisions did not violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India as they did not interfere with the management's right to select personnel.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and held that the appellate authority had powers to hear and decide matters as provided under the proviso to Clause (iii) of Section 6(a). The Court also directed that the appeal preferred by the petitioner of W. P. No. 4072/97 be decided in accordance with law at an early date.