Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4237
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.K.BASHEER, J
C.V.SUBHADRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP/15999/2002
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SRI. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD
Verification of minority status is essential for lawful appointment processes in educational institutions.
Headnote:
Minority - Educational Institutions - Article 30 - The court examined the minority status of an educational institution and its implications for appointment processes, highlighting the importance of verifying institutional status.
Fact of the Case:
The case concerns whether a specific institution has been granted minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution, affecting the appointment process of staff amidst claims for a vacancy arising in 2002.
Finding of the Court:
The court ordered a verification of the institution's minority status by the appropriate authority and mandated that the petitioner be allowed to present their case, ensuring a timely decision based on the merits of the issue.
Issues: Whether the institution had minority status at the time the vacancy arose and the implications of that status on the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a representation regarding minority status must be considered on its merit, ensuring that both parties are heard, aligning with legal precedents.
Final Decision: The original petition is disposed of with directions for verification and response from the competent authority.
J U D G M E N T
The bone of contention in this original petition is whether the institution run by respondent No.3 has been accorded minority status as provided under Article 30 of the Constitution of India . Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the issue has been finally settled in view of the order passed by the Government in G.O. (Rt) 5118/05 GEdn. dated 30.11.04. Consequentially, the District Educational Officer, Aluva, had approved the appointment of respondent No.4, who was appointed by the management. But the claim made by the petitioner relates to a vacancy, which had arisen with effect from June 1, 2002.
2. The question whether the management got a minority institution as on the date when the vacancy referred to above had arisen, is a matter to be verified with reference to the records. This shall be done by respondent No.1, if such a motion is made by the petitioner.
OP NO.15999/02 Page numbers Petitioner may make a representation before respondent No.1 highlighting all the relevant aspects. The representation shall be considered and an appropriate decision thereon shall be taken by respondent No.1 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt thereof. Needless to mention, petitioner and respondent No.3 shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. While taking a decision, the Government shall keep in view the decision of this Court reported in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala {2006 (4) KLT 264}.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE vps OP NO.15999/02 Page numbers A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE OP NO.15999/02
JUDGMENT
14th June, 2007
