Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T.ASHA, J
Islamiah Higher Secondary School – Appellant
Versus
The Director of School Education (Secondary) – Respondent
Writ Petition No.12479 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.Dhakshyani Reddy, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Suneetha
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Prabhakaran
Minority educational institutions have autonomy in staff appointments, and TET qualifications are not mandatory for such institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - Minority educational institutions - Autonomy of minority institutions in appointing staff, limiting State interference to qualifications and service conditions - TET qualification not mandatory for minority institutions as per Supreme Court's interpretation. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Mandamus issued for approval of appointment based on established vacancy and qualifications; State abdication of duty in approving the appointment. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a religious minority institution established in 1948, seeks approval for one A.W. Abdul Azeez’s appointment as P.G. Assistant (Physics) dating back to 03.06.2019, asserting the appointment was made within sanctioned strength.
Findings of Court:
Respondents not passing approval orders constitute an abdication of duty, warranting the issuance of a mandamus for timely approval.
Issues: The primary issue concerns the State’s obligation to approve qualified appointments in minority institutions without excessive regulation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that minority institutions maintain administrative control and that TET requirements do not apply, preserving the essence of Article 30 of the Constitution.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. approval for appointment sought. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. rights of minority institutions discussed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
Seeking a mandamus to the respondents to grant approval for the appointment of one A.W.Abdul Azeez to the post of P.G. Assistant from 03.06.2019 with service and monetary benefits, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The petitioner-School is a religious Muslim Minority Institution established in the year 1948 and it largely caters to the economically backward classes of the minority population in the nearby villages. The petitioner-School is an aided School and from time to time is sanctioned with various posts based on students strength. At present, there are about 1800 students studying in the School. The petitioner-School has been sanctioned 8 posts of P.G Assistant(Science) and one of which is for PG Assistant (Physics). One Abdul Azeez was appointed as P.G. Assistant (English) with effect from 03.06.2019 in the place of one Humayun Basha, who had been promoted to the post of Head Master(Higher Secondary). The petitioner-School sent a proposal to the respondent which was returned by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.11.2024 raising certain queries. Thereafter, the proposal was re-submitted before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner-School would submit that though a fully qualified individual was appointed within the sanctioned strength and available vacancy the respondents have not granted the approval for the same to date. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4. The petitioner-institution seeks approval in respect of the appointment of one Abdul Azeez who has been appointed as PG Assistant (Physics). This post is a sanctioned post and the vacancy has arisen on account of the earlier employee being promoted. The respondents by not passing any orders have clearly abdicated their duty.
5. A Division Bench in the judgement reported as Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations in State of Tamil Nadu in [2011 SCC Online Mad 17 = (2011) 1 CTC 162] has discussed in extenso the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the autonomy of Minority Institutions guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and the extent of State interference to these institutions appointing employees. The Division Bench ultimately set out the instances where State could regulate in respect of employees of minority educational institutions receiving aid from the state as follows:
“57.The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to lay down that extension of Regulations by the state, permissible in respect of employees of minority educational institutions receiving aid from the State could only be to:
(i) the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit, for making appointments, (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, (iii) a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the employees, (iv) the conditions for the proper utilisation of the aid by the educational institutions, without abridging or diluting the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
All laws made by the State to regulate the administration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to minority educational institutions also. But if any such Regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational institutions, such Regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to Minority Institutions”
6. The Division Bench had gone on to state that the right of minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India was an absolute right and any regulation interfering with the right of administration of theis Co
