Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 578 (4.82 seconds)
Documents citing The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1974

Association Of University Teachers vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 7 September, 1990

The submission on behalf of the minority institutions was that in the light of the ratio in Kerala v. Mother Provincial (supra) and St. Xaviers College v. Gujarat (supra) rendered by larger Benches of 6 and 9 respectively, the law, if any laid down in any subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court with less number of strength constituting it, it is the law that was laid down by the larger Bench that should prevail and that the cases required to be considered only in the light of the ratio and principles laid down in those earlier decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioners though will have no serious quarrel with the proposition that the decision of the larger Bench should prevail over that of the smaller Bench irrespective of the fact as to which was earlier in point of time, submitted that having regard to the fact that the later judgments were rendered only after considering the earlier decisions also and with particular reference to the peculiar nature of the provisions, in-built safeguards and differences in the provisions themselves that were the subject matter of the later decisions in contrast to those which were considered in the earlier cases, we are not precluded from going into the question independently in the context of the provisions contained in the College Act and determining the points raised with reference to the peculiar nature of the specific provisions before us for consideration in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court of India.
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 11 - A S Anand - Full Document

Old No.157 vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2011

The question in each case is whether the particular measure is, in the ultimate analysis, designed to achieve such goal, without of course nullifying any part of the right of management in substantial measure. The provisions embodied in Sections 8 to 11 of the Delhi School Education Act may now be measured alongside the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution to determine whether any of them impinges on that fundamental right. Some like or analogous provisions have been considered in the cases to which we have referred. Where a provision has been considered by the nine-Judge Bench in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat,4 we will naturally adopt what has been said therein and where the nine-Judge Bench is silent we will have recourse to the other decisions.
Madras High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Ummul Qura Educational Society And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 26 September, 2001

69. There is absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the doctrine of waiver and estoppel cannot be imported to whittle down the plenitude of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part-III of our Constitution. With specific reference to the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed that "it is doubtful whether the fundamental right under Article 30(1) can be bartered away or surrendered by any voluntary act or that it can be waived. The fundamental right is for the living generation. By a voluntary act of affiliation of an educational institution established, and administered by a religious minority the past members of the community cannot surrender the right of the future members of that community. (See: Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat (supra).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Kiran Jain vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 10 October, 2023

103. Another conclusion which follows from what has been discussed above is that a law which interferes with a minor'ty's choice of qualified teachers or its disciplinary control over teachers and other members of the staff of the institution is void as being violative of Article 30(1). It is, of course, permissible for the State and its educational authorities to prescribe the qualifications of teachers, but once the teachers possessing the requisite qualifications are selected by the minorities for their educational institutions, the State would have no right to veto the selection of those teachers. The selection and appointment of teachers for an educational institution is one of the essential ingredients of the right to manage an educational institution and the minorities can plainly be not denied such right of selection and appointment without infringing Article 30(1). In the case of Rev. Father W. Proost this Court while dealing with Section 48-A of the Bihar Universities Act observed that the said provision completely took away the autonomy of the governing body of the college and virtually vested the control of the college in the University Service Commission. The petitioners in that case were, therefore, held entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The provisions of that section have been referred to earlier. According to the section, subject to the approval of University appointment, dismissals, removals, termination of service or reduction in rank of teachers of an affiliated college not belonging to the LPA 691/2019 Page 61 of 85 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:10.10.2023 11:53:57 State Government would have to be made by the governing body of the college on the recommendation of the University Service Commission. The section further provided that the said Commission would be consulted by the governing body of a college in all disciplinary matters affecting teachers of the college and no action would be taken against or any punishment imposed upon a teacher of a college otherwise than in conformity with the findings of the Commission.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Konika Poddar vs St Stephens College & Ors. on 12 September, 2022

138. As we look at it, Article 30(1) is a sort of guarantee or assurance to the linguistic and religious minority institutions of their right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Secularism and equality being two of the basic features of the Constitution, Article 30(1) ensures protection to the linguistic and religious minorities, thereby preserving the secularism of the country. Furthermore, the principles of equality must necessarily apply to the enjoyment of such rights. No law can be framed that will discriminate against such minorities with regard to the establishment and administration of educational institutions vis-à-vis other educational institutions. Any law or rule or regulation that would put the educational institutions run by the minorities at a disadvantage when compared to the institutions run by the others will have to be struck down. At the same time, there also cannot be any reverse discrimination. It was observed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 8814/2022 & W.P.(C) 8869/2022 Page 55 of 95 Signing Date:12.09.2022 19:24:11 in St. Xavier's College case [(1974) 1 SCC 717 : (1975) 1 SCR 173] at SCR p. 192 that : (SCC p. 743, para 9) ―The whole object of conferring the right on minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have such special protection they will be denied equality.‖ In other words, the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. No one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for that matter, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Chief Executive Trustee And Ors. vs State Of Kerala And The Commissioner For ... on 4 January, 2007

The provisions contained in Section 8(c) and that of Section 10(8) are mutually inconsistent. The institution will lose its character as a minority institution, though run by a community having the right to establish and administer its institution under Article 30, if the students are less than 50% as also when it is more than 50%. The criteria of allowing unaided minority institutions to be recognised only if the colleges are proportionately less than rest of the non-minority community under Section 8(b) or if the total number of students belonging to minority community is proportionately less than the number of students belonging to non-minority community would destroy the right of minority under Article 30(1). The right of minorities under Article 30 appears to be absolute and subject only to the regulations made by the State for ensuring excellence in education of the institution as held in St.Xaviers case. No other restriction it appears can be imposed upon minorities under Article 30(1). Even though it is true that the observation with regard to State being a unit for determining the minority community came in the background of the States being carved out on linguistic basis and without their being any definition of minority, but the same would appear to be true even without the definition of minority. In any case, such identifying criteria of minorities as envisaged under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 8 would be destructive of the right of the minorities to establish and administer the institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The matter may be looked from another angle. Section 8(b) and 8(c) if applied to the minority communities in exercising their right would make it dependent upon what the non-minorities may do or may not do, for establishing their educational institutions. Can the right of a citizen or a community be dependent upon what other communities may or may not do? The answer appears to be an emphatic no. Yet another contradiction or absurdity in Section 8 is that, it only applies to minority unaided institutions and not to minority aided institutions. The reason why the identifying criteria as envisaged in Section 8 has not been made applicable to minority aided institutions is not forthcoming from the provisions of the Act. It is settled proposition of law that unaided minority institutions have more freedom in running their institutions than that of aided minority institutions. If that be so, the provisions contained in section 8 would be totally irrational and would also come under the vice of Article 14, by not according equal treatment to minority-aided and minority-unaided institutions.
Kerala High Court Cites 106 - Cited by 0 - P R Raman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next