Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

".....A minority institution enjoys several benefits and is exempt from the operation of several regulatory provisions contained in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Students and their parents are vitally interested in the character of the institution. claims a right to say that it will appoint only a Christian as the Head of the institution shows that the character of the institution is not irrelevant. Section 16FF shows that in the matter of appointment of Head of institution and in the matter of appointment of teachers, the constitution of the Selection Committee is entirely different in the case of a minority educational institution. It is wholly composed of the members nominated by the Management whereas in the case of non-minority educational institutions, a majority of the members are nominated by the Education Department. The manner of appointment of teachers and the manner in which they are selected for appointment reflects upon the quality and content of the education imparted in the institution. So far as the petitioner in the other writ petition is concerned, there can, of course, be no question about his locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It must be remembered that the institution in question is in receipt of substantial grant-in-aid besides obtaining recognition from the Board."

A firm finding was recorded that the students, ex-students or parents of students as well as teachers have locus standi to challenge the order of the Director of Education passed under Section 16FF of the Act declaring an institution as minority institution. The present petitioners have a special interest in the subject-matter, i.e., the status of the institution-whether it is minority institution or otherwise-for one simple reason that the minority institution enjoys several benefits and is exempt from the operation of several regulatory provisions contained in the various enactments by which protection is extended to the members of the society who are running the institution, itained in Articls, members of the teaching and non-teaching staff and the students. If the petitioners have some concern deeper than that of a busy body, they cannot be told off at the gates although whether the issue raised by them is justifiable, may still remain to be considered. In the tight of the above decisions, particularly direct Division Bench decision of this Court in Sabhnath Singh's case (supra), as well as the observations made in the special appeal filed against the order dismissing the present petition. I take the view that the petitioners have not only the locus, but the writ petition itself is maintainable to consider and determine the controversy raised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the respondents further pointed out that the present writ petition suffers from the defect of non-Joinder of the parties and since all the affected parties are not arrayed, effective relief cannot be granted in their absence. It was pointed out that the impugned order dated 13.3.1995, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition relates to the grant of minority status to ten institutions mentioned therein and the respondent-institution is only one of them. The assertion of Dr. Padia is that it was necessary that all the institutions should have been impleaded as respondents. I find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the obvious reason that though the Government Order dated 13.3.1995, which has been challenged in this writ petition relates to conferment of minority status under the provisions of Section 16FF of the Act, the petitioners have nothing to do with other nine institutions which are located in different cities of the State. The petitioners are concerned and aggrieved only on account of the fact that the minority status has been granted to Bara Inter College, Bara, Ghazipur, which according to them could not be conferred. If the relief claimed in the present petition is allowed, the other nine institutions covered by the Government Order would not be affected, in any manner. No relief has been claimed in respect of the other institutions and, therefore, it was wholly unnecessary to implead them as party to the writ petition. The plea of non-joinder raised on behalf of the contesting respondents is not only untenable but also misconceived.

10. Now, it is the time to consider the basic question whether the State Government has granted minority status to the respondent-institution in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Section 16FF of the Act, and the guidelines issued to regulate the matter. The provisions of Section 16FF of the Act appear to have been made with a view to secure and extend the benefits envisaged under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. It is stipulated that the provisions contained in the Act in regard to regulating the conditions regarding recruitment, appointment and other service conditions of teachers, including Principals shall not be applicable to the educational institutions recognized under the Act so far as those institutions are concerned, which are established and run by the minorities. This Section, thus, provides a saving clause in the case of a minority institution-certain provisions of the Act are modified in their application to minority institutions. Whether an institution can be characterized as a minority institution would depend on the establishment of certain facts which have to be tested by the touchstone of the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, necessary to go into the details of the provisions of these Articles.