Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. He further submitted that the term 'minority institution' although used in Section 16FF of the Act, has not been defined anywhere in the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the savings available to minority institutions are referable to Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India.

20. To elaborate his submissions, Shri Ansari, learned Standing Counsel next submitted that Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India only deals with right to establish and administer minority institutions and in no way preclude them from the regulatory measures undertaken by the State Government to efficiently regulate the abovesaid rights.

21. Learned Standing Counsel also drawn our attention to the following Regulations 102, 103 and 104 of the Chapter III of the Act, which all contains the same terminology i.e. 'किसी मान्यता प्राप्त, सहायता प्राप्त संस्था' i.e. 'any recognised, aided institution'. He further drawn our attention to Regulation 110, which starts from 'अल्पसंख्यक संस्थाओं को छोड़कर' i.e. 'apart from the minority institution'. Hence he submits that wherever the applicability of the regulations are saved upon the minority institution, it has been expressly given in the Act. For example Section 16FF and Regulation 110.

22. Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that once it is apparent from the plain reading of Regulation 101 read with Section 16FF and Regulation 110, there is no scope of doubt that Regulation 101 does apply upon the minority institutions and the procedure given therein has to be strictly adhered to without any classification or distinction as to minority or non-minority institutions.

23. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently submitted that in the instant case there is no such material on record to show that the alleged appointment was made by the appointing authority after obtaining prior approval from the DIOS. He submitted that the amendment in Regulation 101 dated 24.4.2014 was held as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.6 vide order dated 19.11.2018. The same was subjected to challenge by the State Government before Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College & Ors.7. Hon'ble the Apex Court vide judgment dated 27.9.2021 had approved the entire Regulation 101.

25. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Regulation 101 of Chapter-III of the Act, 1921, therefore, applies with full force on minority institutions as well. The framers have not carved out any distinction or classification between minority and non-minority institution under the Act, 1921.

26. He has also placed reliance upon Section 16FF of the Act, 1921, which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

16-FF. Savings as to minority institutions-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of section 16-E, and section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (I) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman), nominated by the Committee of Management :