Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. An interesting question to whether the Educational Institution run by the petitioner is an Institution run by minority community and, if so, whether the provisions of Rule 77.3 (3) (vii) of the Secondary School Code violate fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, falls for determination in this petitioner.

2. The petitioner No. 5 Prabhubhai Bhogilal Upadhyaya conducted an educational institution at Khar in Bombay Known as "Adarsh Bal Mandir". The institution was set up in the year 1938 by opinion a primary school and in June, 1963, High School was stated. The institution was conducted on the Gandhian principles of truth and non-violence and with a view to inculcate in the students Gandhian ideals and Gandhian view of life. The petitioner No. 5 executed a Deed of Declaration of Trust dated July 12, 1962 and created a Trust in respect of the educational institution and appointed and petitioner as the trustees. The Trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act as a Public Trust. In the school run by the Trust, the students are imparted secondary education and are prepared for the S. S. C. Examination. Along with the general curriculum, the pubic are also taught to clean the premises, the class rooms, the sanitary blocks, etc., in order to inculcate in them the spirit of self-help and social service as taught by Mahatma Gandhi. The students are also required to undertake training in mass spinning and the Uniform prescribed is of Khadi both for the students as well as the teachers. The petitioner No. 5 and the remaining Trustees are Gujarati speaking and 90% students come from Gujarati speaking families and have Gujarati as their mother tongue,. About 80% of the teacher and 50% of the members of the staff are also Gujaratis. The petitioner, therefore, claim that the school is an educational institution established and administrated by a linguistic minority in the State of Maharashtra and are entitled to exercise rights conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. The school authorities thereupon commenced an equiry as contemplated by Rule 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code which, inter alia, provided for an enquiry if the services of a permanent employee are to be terminated by the management. The rule enable the management to commence the enquiry if an employee is guilty of insubordination, neglect of duties or misconduct (in each case of a serious nature). It is required to be stated at this juncture that the school run by the petitioner receives grant from the Government of Maharashtra and the conditions of service of teacher are regulated by the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code. The Committee appointed for holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were guilty of insubordination and their services were liable to termination. The respondents Nos. 5 to 9 thereupon preferred an appeal before respondent number 1 -- the Deputy Direction of Education -- in accordance with Rule 77.3 (3) (vii) of the Secondary School Code. The respondent No. 1, by letter dated November 7, 1979 informed the School that the findings of the Enquiry Committee are set aside as the act of not wearing Khadi uniform cannot be held to be an act of insubtodination, neglect of duty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 77.3 of the Secondary School Code. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of respondent No. 1 to the Director of Education but the same was subsequently withdrawn and thereafter the present petitioner was filed in this Court on April 23, 1980.

5. The petitioners' claim that they belong to the minority community and have established and are administering an educational institution of their choice and it is not permissible for respondent No. 1 to interfere in the order passed by the educational institution as such interference by an outside agency clearly violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further claim that Rule 77.3 (3) (vii) of the Secondary School Code with enable the aggrieved party to file appeal before respondent No. 1 is violative of petitioners' fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, as it unreasonably interferes with the petitioner's right of administration in regard to the internal affairs of the School. It is further claimed that the impugned rule and Rule 77.10 of the Secondary School Code gives an unqualified mandate that no teacher shall be removed except with the prior approval of an outside authority. The impugned rules, claimed the petitioner, enable the appellant authority to substitute its own view for that the management even in case in which two views are reasonably possible. The petitioners, therefore, claim that the order passed by respondent No. 1 should be quashed.

15. Shri Chaugale learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submitted that the result would be that the administrator of the minority institution would be able to hire and fire any of the teachers according to his will and in spite of receipt of grant from the Government, the Government would not be able to regulate the administration of the school with regard to the service condition of the teachers. The right of the State Government to regulate the administration in respect of the service conditions of the employees and teachers is not taken away but such regulation would not enable the Government to provide for an outside agency or an authority like the Deputy Director of Education to entertain an appeal against the decision taken by the Management after holding an enquiry as contemplated under R. 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code. Shri Chaugle sounded an apprehension that the Enquiry Committee consists of the Principal, the representative of the Management and the representative of the teachers and it its not unlikely that in almost all the cases, the view of the Management would be supported by the Principal and the teacher is left without any alternative. It is undoubtedly true that the apprehension of Shri Chogle is not without any basis but it is for the Government to decide how best to protect the interest of the employee from the threat of wrongful dismissal, but this consideration cannot weigh while considering whether the provisions of R. 77.3 (3) (vii) and (viii) of the Secondary Schools Code are volative of fundamental right guaranteed under Act. 30(1) of the Constitution of India to a minority institution. In my judgment, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition.