Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel for the interveners contends that the interposition of an outside authority like the Vice- Chancellor, demits the entire disciplinary power of a minority educational institution to the Vice-Chancellor. Under Ordinance 33(4) the Vice-Chancellor has the power to veto its disciplinary control. There is complete interference with the disciplinary power of the minority institution. The State may 'regulate' the exercise of the right of administration, but it has no power to impose any 'restriction' which is destructive of the right itself. In matters relating to discipline, the process of decision must be left to the institution. There is direct interference with this right. The post of principal is of pivotal importance in the life of a college, around whom wheels the tone and temper of the institution, on whom depends the continuity of its traditions, maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The character of the institution depends on the right choice of the principal by the management. The right to choose the principal is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a college. In the same way, the right to dispense with the services of the principal is an equally important facet of the same right. The imposition of any trammel, thereon, except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and the experience or otherwise fostering the interests of the institution itself, cannot but be considered as a violation of the right warranted under Article 30(1).

The conferment of a right of appeal to an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor under Ordinance 33(4) takes away the disciplinary power of a minority educational authority. The Vice-Chancellor has the power to veto its disciplinary control. There is a clear interference with the disciplinary power of the minority institution. The State may 'regulate' the exercise of the right of administration but it has no power to impose any 'restriction' which is destructive of the right itself. The conferment of such wide powers on the Vice-Chancellor amounts in reality, to a fetter on the right of administration under Article 30(1). This, it seems to us, would so affect the disciplinary control of a minority educational institution as to be subversive of its constitutional rights and can hardly be regarded as a 'regulation' or a 'restriction' in the interest of the institution.

An analysis of the judgments in St. Xaviers College's case (supra) clearly shows that seven out of nine Judges held that the provisions contained in clauses (b) of sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 51A of the Act were not applicable to an educational institution established and managed by religious or linguistic minority as they interfere with the disciplinary control of the management over the staff of its educational institutions. The reasons given by the majority were that the power of the management to terminate the services of any member of the teaching or other academic and non-academic staff was based on the relationship between an employer and his employees and no encroachment could be made on this right to dispense with their services under the contract of employment, which was an integral part of the right to administer, and that these provisions conferred on the Vice-Chancellor or any other officer of the University authorised by him, uncanalised, unguided and unlimited power to veto the actions of the management. According to the majority view, the conferment an such blanket power on the Vice-Chancellor and his nominee was an infringement of the right of administration guaranteed under Art. 30(1) to the minority institutions, religious and linguistic. The majority was accordingly of the view that the provisions contained in clauses (b) of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 51A of the Act had the effect of destroying the minority institutions disciplinary control over the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college as no punishment could be inflicted by the management on a member of the staff unless it gets approval from an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor or an officer of the University authorised by him. On the contrary, the two dissenting Judges were of the view that these provisions were permissive regulatory measures.

(ii) to (v) of Ordinance 33(2); that is to say, he can even interfere against the infliction of minor punishments. In the absence of any guidelines, it cannot be held that the power of the Vice-Chancellor under ordinance 33(4) was merely a check on maladministration.

As laid down by the majority in St. Xaviers College's case (supra), such a blanket power directly interferes with the disciplinary control of the managing body of a minority education institution over its teachers. The majority decision in St. Xaviers College's case squarely applies to the facts of the present case and accordingly it must be held that the impugned Ordinance 33(4) of the University of Kerala is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. If the conferment of such power on an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor, which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys the power of administration, that is, its disciplinary control, is held justifiable because it is in the public and national interest, though not in its interest as an educational institution, the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) will be, to use the well-known expression, a 'testing illusion', a 'promise of unreality'.