Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ, quashing the order of the Deputy Inspector of Schools (2nd respondent) dated 7-1 -1984 and for a direction to the 1st respondent (District Educational Officer, Kurnool) and to the 2nd respondent to release the grant-in-aid for the post of Headmistress in the A.B.M. Elementary School, Gargeyapuram, Hindu range, Kurnool.

2. The 3rd respondent-The American Baptist Mission, Kurnool, represented by its Correspondent, is stated to be a minority institution running schools in several villages in Kurnool District, propagating its religion, after obtaining the necessary recognition from the competent authorities. It is stated that all the schools are located in the respective Church compounds in those villages and that the 3rd respondent-association has been receiving teaching grants and other grants from the Government under the Grant-in-Aid Rules for the time being in force. One Mr. R. Peter, who was working as Headmaster in the Elementary School run by the 3rd respondent at Gargeyapuram died on 30-11-1983. The petitioner, who is a retrenched employee in the 3rd respondent-organisation, submitted an application for consideration of her case for appointment as Headmistress. The 3rd respondent, in its proceedings dated 5-12-1983, appointed the petitioner as Headmistress in the vacancy of the said R. Peter and directed the petitioner to send joining report to the 2nd respondent also. The petitioner joined duty on 27-12-83 and took over charge from the Acting Headmistress. The petitioner sent her joining report to the 2nd respondent. On receiving the same, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order dated 7-1-84 stating that no grant will be assessed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been appointed in the vacancy caused by the demise of Sri R. Peter, inasmuch as both the posts are outside the purview of the Correspondent. It is also stated that orders have to be issued only by the District Educational Officer, Kurnool. Copies of the same were despatched to the Correspondent and to the District Educational Officer as well as the petitioner. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the 3rd respondent organisation is a "minority" organisation. The former Headmaster Sri R. Peter used to get his salary through the Department instead of the Correspondent. It is stated that the petitioner's appointment is contrary to the proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, Andhra Pradesh in Rc. No. 6496-B2/68, dated 26-6-69 and of the Government in G.O.Rt. No. 896, Education dated 16-6-68. Under the said G.O. the post of Headmistress/Headmaster in Aided Elementary Schools and Upper Primary Schools has to be filled up by the management, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit among the qualified teachers, working under the same management. It is also stated that, under the bye-laws of the 3rd respondent-association, the Executive Committee is competent to make appointments with the approval of the General Body but the Correspondent is not competent to appoint Headmistress/Headmaster or Teachers. In this case, the Executive Committee is said to have given a representation dated 10-11-1983 to the District Educational Officer, Kurnool, stating that the Correspondent had no power of appointment in the absence of approval of the General Body and the Executive Committee. It is stated that the Correspondent failed to produce the seniority list of teachers. It is further contended that, as per the proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction, Andhra Pradesh, in R.C. No. 3510/B1-2/73, dated 30-8-1973 the appointments made by the Management must be approved by the Department in all aided posts. The petitioner's appointment was not approved by the department, for the reasons above mentioned, and so the grant-in-aid cannot be released. The grant is to the institution and not to any individual and the petitioner has no claim as an individual. It is alleged that, under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the protection is given to the minority institution but not to the individual employees of the institution.

6. It is true that, according to the letter of the Director of Public Instruction dated 26-6-1969, the aided educational institutions have to follow G.O.Rt. No. 896, Education dated 16-6-68. The said G.O. no doubt states that appointment for the post of Headmaster in Elementary and Upper Primary Schools under the management of local bodies i.e., Municipalities and Panchayat Samithies are being made, according to the order of seniority and that in the case of Aided Elementary and Upper Primary Schools, the managements should follow the rule of seniority-cum-merit from among the qualified teachers working under the same management for the purpose of appointment as Headmaster. It is further stated therein that the Government have accepted the proposal of the Director of Public Instruction for amendment of Sub-para (v) of Rule 56 of the A.P. Educational Rules, so as to regulate the appointment of Headmasters in Aided Elementary and Upper Primary Schools. Formal orders amending the A.P. Educational Rules to the above effect were directed to be issued. There is another proceeding of the Director of Public Instruction in Rc. No. 3510/B1-2/72, dated 30-8-73 which states that it was brought to the notice of the Director that certain D.E.Os. are insisting that management should appoint teachers, drafting them through Employment Exchanges. It is therefore clarified that the D.E.Os. should not so insist and that it is for the Employment Exchanges concerned to see that the managements do not contravene the provisions of the Employment Exchange Act. It is further stated that the managements should ensure that the teachers appointed by them are fully qualified for the posts and that the appointments are approved.

19. Following the aforesaid principles, I hold that the G.O.Rt. No. 896, dated 16-6-1968 as well as the letter of the Director of Public Instruction dated 26-6-1969 and the subsequent letter of the Director dated 30-8-1973 cannot be applied in the case of appointment of teachers or Headmasters of the Elementary and Upper Primary Schools, run by the minority institutions, which are entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, even in a case where the institutions are receiving aid from the Government, provided the appointee has the prescribed educational qualification.