Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

With respect, I find it difficult to agree with Brother Fazal Ali that these provisions are violative of article 30(1). The question which one has to ask oneself is whether in the normal course of affairs, these provisions are likely to interfere with the freedom of minorities to administer and manage educational institutions of their choice. It is undoubtedly true that no educational institution can function efficiently and effectively unless the teachers observe at least the commonly accepted norms of good behaviour. Indisciplined teachers can hardly be expected to impress upon the students the value of discipline, which is a sine qua non of educational excellence. They can cause incalculable harm not only to the cause of education but to the society at large by generating a wrong sense of values in the minds of young and impressionable students. But discipline is not to be equated with dictatorial methods in the treatment of teachers. The institutional code of discipline must therefore conform to acceptable norms of fairness and cannot be arbitrary or fanciful. I do not think that in the name of discipline and in the purported exercise of the fundamental right of administration and management, any educational institution can be given the right to 'hire and fire' its teachers. After all, though the management may be left free to evolve administrative policies of an institution, educational instruction has to be imparted through the instrumentality of the teachers; and unless. they have a constant assurance of justice, security and fair play it will be impossible for them to give of their best which alone can enable the institution to attain the ideal of educational excellence. Section 3(3)(a) contains but an elementary guarantee of freedom from arbitrariness to the teachers. The provision is regulatory in character since it neither denies to the management the right to proceed against an erring teacher nor indeed does it place an unreasonable restraint on its power to do so. It assumes the right of the management to suspend a teacher but regulates that right by directing that a teacher shall not be suspended unless an inquiry into his conduct is contemplated and unless the inquiry is in respect of a charge of gross misconduct. Fortunately, suspension of teachers is not the order of the day, for which reason I do not think that these restraints which bear a reasonable nexus with the attainment of educational excellence can be considered to be violative of the right given by Art. 30(1). The limitation of the period of suspension initially to two months, which can in appropriate cases be extended by another two months, partakes of the same character as the provision contained in section 3(3)(a). In the generality of cases, a domestic inquiry against a teacher ought to be completed within a period of two months or say, within another two months. A provision founded so patently on plain reason is difficult to construe as an invasion of the right to administer an institution, unless that right carried with it the right to maladminister. I therefore agree with Brother Kailasam that sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Act do not offend against the provisions of Art. 30(1) and are valid."