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.

6. In answer to the petition, on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Shri Rajanikant Prabhakar Karnik, Deputy Director of Education, has filed a return worn on September 1, 1980 and has claimed that the petitioner have not established how Gujarati speaking people in the State of Maharashtra constitute the linguistic minority. The respondent claimed that the petitioners are receiving grant-in-aid form the Government and it is open for the Government to control and regulated the administration of the School and establish the conditions of service of the teachers and the employees by framing regulations under the Secondary Schools Code. The respondent No. 1 further claims that the rule which provides for an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education cannot be claimed to be voilative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit dated October 2, 1980 on behalf of himself and respondents numbers 6 to 9 in answer to the petitioner and it is also not established for the students of Gujarati speaking families. The respondents Nos. 5 to 9 deny that the school is established or administrated by linguistic minority in the State of Maharashtra, and provisions of appeal violates the fundamental right of the petitioners. The petitioners have filed affidavit-in-rejoinder sworn on November 14. 1980 and the supplementary affidavit dated November 26, 1982 reiterating the contentions urged in the petition and relying on the Census of India, 1971 in regard to the population Court of Gujaraties in the State of Maharashtra. In view of the rival claims two questions squarely fall for determination and those are (1) whether the educational institution run by the petitioners can be termed as an institution run by the minority based on language, and (2) whether R. 77.3 (3) (vii) violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.