Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35650
- 1 -
WP No. 104011 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104011 OF 2021 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. SUNITA JOHN MUDALGI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION. ASSISTANT TEACHER,
BEYNON SMITH HIGH SCHOOL,
CAMP, BELAGAVI,
R/O H NO. 4450/3,
CHAVAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADANGOUDA N PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE CHAIRMAN
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND MANAGEMENT,
BANGALORE REGIONAL CONFERENCE,
NO. 3 RHENIUS STREET, BEHIND GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE- 560025.
2.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN
MANAGING COMMITTEE,
METHODIST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,
METHODIST CHURCH MISSION COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI - 590001.
3.
THE SECRETARY
THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,
REGIONAL CONFERENCE BENGALURU - 560025.
- 2 -
WP No. 104011 of 2021
4.
THE COORDINATOR
AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,
BENGALURU REGIONAL CONFERENCE,
BEYNON-SMITH COMPOSITE
PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEFE OF COMMERCE AND ARTS,
COLLEGE ROAD,
CAMP, BELAGAVI - 590001.
5.
THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DHARWAD
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
OPPOSITE LIC AND SBI MAIN BRANCH,
RODDA RASTEY, DHARWAD,
580008.
6.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
BELAGAVI,
CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 590001.
7.
THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER
CITY RANGE,
VISHWESHAWAYYA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590019.
8.
SMT. SHAILAJA G GUNDI
THE HEAD MASTRESS,
BEYNON-SMITH COMPOSITE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SOURABH HEGDE, ADV., FOR SRI. SHEEVATSA HEGDE,
ADV., FOR R2 AND R8;
SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R NO. 5 TO R.NO.7;
NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH; R1 AND R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF THE MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
- 3 -
WP No. 104011 of 2021
CONSIDER
THE
REPRESENTATIONS
OF
PETITIONER
DATED
26.08.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND 06.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D,
AND GIVE PROMOTION TO THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF HEAD
MISTRESS IN THE RESPONDENT NO.4 SCHOOL BY CONSIDERING
HER SENIORITY AND DISABILITY SINCE THE PETITIONER IS THE
ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO ACT ON THE
LETTER OF THE COMMISSIONER WITH PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
AT ANNEXURE-N DATED 28.06.2021.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Minority educational institutions have the right to appoint teachers and staff, and this right cannot be taken away by any rules or regulations.
Headnote:
MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - PROMOTION - RIGHT TO APPOINT - ARTICLE 30 - [Constitution of India]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a minority institution, challenged the promotion of another employee to the post of Head Mistress, alleging that the promotion was illegal and that the petitioner should have been considered for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the minority institution had the right to appoint teachers and staff, and that the interference of the authorities was only justified if the appointee did not possess the required qualifications.
Issues: Whether the minority institution had the right to appoint the Head Mistress without considering the seniority of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND TEACHERS TRAINING v. JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, SAGAR AND OTHERS, which held that minority educational institutions have the right to select their own principals and staff, and that this right cannot be taken away by any rules or regulations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the minority institution had the right to appoint the Head Mistress without considering the seniority of the petitioner.
This writ petition is filed by an employee of Beynon
Smith High School run by Respondents 1 to 4, challenging
the order dated 23rd July, 2021 passed by the respondent-
authorities, approving promotion of the respondent No.8
as Head Mistress of the School. The petitioner has also
sought for consideration of the representation seeking
promotion to the post of Head Mistress in the school run
by respondent No.4.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
- 4 -
Sri Madanagounda N. Patil, learned counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner
contended
that,
the
respondent-Management has promoted respondent No.8
to the post of Head Mistress of the School without
considering the seniority of the petitioner and same has
been illegally approved by respondent-authorities and
therefore, the promotion given to the respondent No.8 is
incorrect, which requires to be set aside by this Court.
4. Per contra, Sri Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Management submitted that
the respondent-School is a minority Institution and
protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, it is the prerogative of the management to
appoint the employees and same cannot be questioned by
the petitioner and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the
writ petition.
- 5 -
Learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
supports the contentions urged by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Management.
6. Having taken note of the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the respondents 1 to 4 is running subject
institution under the name and style of “Beynon Smith
Composite High School”, which is a minority institution
recognised by the respondent-State as per the documents
produced by the learned counsel representing respondent
No.8. The said aspect has not been countered by the
learned Additional Government Advocate. The same is
also fortified through letter dated 17th August, 1993 by the
Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION AND TEACHERS TRAINING
v. JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
SAGAR AND OTHERS reported in (1998)8 SCC 555, at
paragraph 3 of the judgment, has observed as under:
- 6 -
“The decisions of this Court make it clear that in
the matter of appointment of the Principal, the
management of a minority educational institution has a
choice. It has been held that one of the incidents of the
right to administer a minority educational institution is
the selection of the Principal. Any rules which take away
this right of the management have been held to be
interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the
Constitution. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by
the management and the third respondent are qualified
and eligible for appointment as Principal according to
rules. The question is whether the management is not
entitled to select a person of their choice. The decisions
of this Court including the decision in State of Kerala v.
Very Rev. Mother Provincial, and Ahmedabad St.
Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, make it
clear that this right of the minority educational
institution cannot be taken away by any rules or
regulations or by any enactment made by the State. We
are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was
not
right
in
holding
otherwise.
The
State
has
undoubtedly the power to regulate the affairs of the
minority educational institutions also in the interest of
discipline and excellence. But in that process, the
aforesaid right of the management cannot be taken
away, even if the Government is giving hundred per
cent grant. We need not go into any other question in
this appeal.”
- 7 -
7. The aforementioned judgment was reiterated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANAGER,
CORPORATE
EDUCATIONAL
AGENCY
v.
JAMES
MATHEW AND OTHERS reported in (2017)15 SCC 595.
Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Apex
Cou
