Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. An impleadment application was filed by petitioner on 13.05.2012 for impleading petitioner of Writ Petition No. 39788 of 2012, as one of the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed by petitioner of Writ-A No. 39788 of 2012 stating that Regulation 7(2) of Chapter II are not applicable to minority institution. It is also averred that there is no provision for promotion applicable to a minority institution and Committee of Management had rightly rejected their claim. It is also stated that judgment rendered by Apex Court in case of T M A Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 8 SCC 481 has been considered in case of Committee of Management, Sri Kund Kund Jain Inter College (supra) and provisions of U.P. Act 1921 are only applicable to the extent that it relates to minority institution.

23. Sri Pandey also submitted that Apex Court in T M A Pai Foundation and others (supra) had considered in depth Article 30(1) of the Constitution in regard to religious minorities and linguistic minorities wherein the Court held that State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. He also invited attention of this Court to Para 19 and 22 of the judgment in case of Committee of Management, Swami Lila Shah Adarsh Sindhi Inter College and another (supra). Relevant Paras 19 and 22 are extracted hereasunder:

"19. Article 30 (1) of the Constitution deals with religious minorities and linguistic minorities. The opening words of Article 30 (1) make it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been put at par, insofar as that Article is concerned. The Supreme Court in T M A Pai Foundation & Ors Vs State of Karnataka & Ors, (2002) 8 SCC 481, has exhaustively considered and dealt with Article 30. Several questions were formulated and addressed by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. In the present case, we are concerned with Question 5 (c) : whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, employees, teachers and principals including their service conditions and regulation of fees etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities? After dealing with Article 30 exhaustively, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 450 of the judgment (majority view):

29. The Institution in question though is a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, but as held by Apex Court in case of T M A Pai Foundation and others (supra) that State can regulate method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification as the same is fundamental to the maintenance of academic and administrative autonomy of an aided Institution. In the present case, Regulation 7(2-a) was inserted in the year 2003 by the State providing for the promotion of teachers in primary section to LT Grade to the extent of 25% quota of total sanctioned strength.