Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.44 seconds)Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985
Section 37 in Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala, Etc vs Very Rev. Mother Provincial, Etc on 10 August, 1970
In view of principles laid down in the decisions above, it is
unambiguous that minorities based on religion or language, have fundamental
freedom to establish and manage educational institutions of their own choice,
but the State has the right to provide regulatory provisions for ensuring
educational excellence, conditions of employment of teachers, ensuring
health, hygiene, discipline and allied matters. Such regulatory provisions shall
not interfere with the minorities' fundamental right of administering their
W.P.(C) No. 2345/2013 35
educational institutions; instead they seek to ensure that such institution is
administered efficiently, and that the students who come out of minority
institutions after completion of their studies are well equipped with knowledge
and training so as to stand at par in their avocation in life without any
handicap. If regulatory provisions indirectly impinge upon minorities' right of
administration of their institution, it would not amount to interference with the
fundamental freedom of the minorities as the regulatory provisions are in the
interest of the minority institutions themselves. If the minority institution
seeks affiliation or recognition from the State or Education Board the State
has the right to prescribe syllabi and terms and conditions for giving such
affiliation or recognition or extending grants-in-aid. Minority institutions may
be categorized in three classes, (i) educational institutions which neither seek
aid nor recognition from the State, (ii) institutions that seek aid from the
State, and (iii) educational institutions which seek recognition but not aid.
Minority institutions which fall in the first category are free to administer their
institution in the manner they like; the State has no power under the
Constitution to place any restriction on their right of administration. This does
not mean that an unaided minority institution is immune from operation of
general laws of the land. A minority institution cannot claim immunity from
contract law, tax measures, economic regulations, social welfare legislation,
W.P.(C) No. 2345/2013 36
labour and industrial laws and similar other measures which are intended to
meet the needs of the society. But institutions falling within the second and
third categories are subject to regulatory provisions which the State may
impose. It is open to the State to prescribe conditions for granting recognition
or disbursing aid. These conditions may require a minority institution to follow
prescribed syllabus for examination, courses of study; they may further
regulate conditions of employment of teachers, discipline of students and
allied matters. The object and purpose of prescribing regulations is to ensure
that minority institutions do not fall below the standard of excellence expected
of an educational institution and that they do not fall outside the mainstream
of the nation. A minority institution must also be fully equipped with
educational excellence to keep in step with others in the State; otherwise the
students coming out of such institutions will not be fully equipped to serve the
society or the nation. While the State has every right to prescribe conditions
for granting recognition or disbursing aid, it cannot under the guise of that
power prescribe onerous conditions compelling the minority institutions to
surrender their rights of administration to the government. On the one hand,
the State is under an obligation to ensure that educational standards in the
recognised institutions must be according to the need of the society and
according to standards which ensure the development of personality of the
W.P.(C) No. 2345/2013 37
students in turning out to be civilized, useful members of the society, and to
ensure that the public funds disbursed to the minority institutions are properly
utilized for the given purpose. At the same time, the State has to respect and
honor minority rights under Article 30(1) in the matter of establishing and
carrying on administration of institutions of their choice. In order to reconcile
these two conflicting interests the State has to strike a balance and statutory
provisions should serve both the objects and such statutory provisions have to
withstand the test of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. These principles have
to be borne in mind in considering the question of validity of statutory
provisions relating to minority educational institutions. (See All Bihar
Christian Schools' Assn.)
All Bihar Christian Schools ... vs State Of Bihar And Others on 26 November, 1987
44. It would be yet another matter if the Principal acts in violation to
Rule 6 of the Conduct Rules and enforces discipline without following the
procedure or in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such
W.P.(C) No. 2345/2013 50
circumstances, it would be open to the BASG to exercise its powers and
interfere with the order by exercising revisional powers. As explained by the
Apex Court in Bihar Schools (supra) the BASG cannot enjoy any unlimited
power. It is required to consider if the principal has taken disciplinary action in
accordance with the rules. If the BASG finds that the principal has taken
action in accordance with the rules, approval will have to be accorded; but if
the disciplinary action is taken contrary to the rules framed, the BASG can
refuse to grant approval. In other words BASG cannot be invested with any
veto or blanket power without any guidance, on the other hand it can only
have limited power. By restricting the power, it can be ensured that the Rules
framed by the University are strictly followed and there is no arbitrary exercise
of power by the Principal for and on behalf of the minority educational
institution. While considering the appeal filed by the student, the BASG shall
scrutinize whether disciplinary proceedings had been taken in accordance with
the rules and no more. The disciplinary action taken by the institution in
accordance with Rule 5 and 6 of the Rules and whether the principles of
natural justice embedded therein have been complied with. If the BASG finds
that the action taken by the Principal is in accordance with the procedure
contemplated under the rules, the BASG shall grant approval. On the other
hand, if the BASG finds that the disciplinary action is taken contrary to the
W.P.(C) No. 2345/2013 51
rules framed by the minority institution, the BASG will be justified in refusing
to record approval. Rule 9 insofar as it confers the appellate authority to set
aside, modify or cancel the order passed by the Principal under Rule 6 shall
be made applicable only in the manner in which the same has been
interpreted by this Court.
Lilly Kurian vs Sr. Lewina And Ors on 15 September, 1978
(ii) the right to administer educational institution of their
choice. The rights so granted are, however, not absolute; a
minority institution obtaining financial aid and recognition is
W.P.(C) No. 2345/2013 33
subject to reasonable restrictions to ensure excellence in the
institution. While minorities have a constitutional right to
establish and to administer educational institutions, of their
choice, they have no absolute right to maladminister, the
State has right to impose regulations made in the interest of
efficiency of institution's discipline, health, sanitation and
public order even though such regulations may indirectly
impinge on the exclusive right of administration and
management of the institution. A minority institution seeking
aid and recognition must be subject to regulatory provisions
which are reasonable and consistent with Article 30(1) of the
Constitution. A minority institution which does not seek aid or
recognition from the State or the Education Board need not
be subject to regulatory provisions. These principles have
been settled by this Court in In Re the Kerala Education Bill
1957 [AIR 1958 SC 956], Sidharajbhai Sabhai v. State of
Bombay [AIR 1963 SC 540], State of Kerala v. Very Rev.
Mother Provincial [(1970) 2 SCC 417], Ahmedabad St. Xaviers
College Society v. State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717] , Lilly
Kurian v. Sr. Lewina [(1979) 2 SCC 124] and All Bihar
Christian Schools Assn. v. State of Bihar [(1988) 1 SCC 206].
The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1974
(ii) the right to administer educational institution of their
choice. The rights so granted are, however, not absolute; a
minority institution obtaining financial aid and recognition is
W.P.(C) No. 2345/2013 33
subject to reasonable restrictions to ensure excellence in the
institution. While minorities have a constitutional right to
establish and to administer educational institutions, of their
choice, they have no absolute right to maladminister, the
State has right to impose regulations made in the interest of
efficiency of institution's discipline, health, sanitation and
public order even though such regulations may indirectly
impinge on the exclusive right of administration and
management of the institution. A minority institution seeking
aid and recognition must be subject to regulatory provisions
which are reasonable and consistent with Article 30(1) of the
Constitution. A minority institution which does not seek aid or
recognition from the State or the Education Board need not
be subject to regulatory provisions. These principles have
been settled by this Court in In Re the Kerala Education Bill
1957 [AIR 1958 SC 956], Sidharajbhai Sabhai v. State of
Bombay [AIR 1963 SC 540], State of Kerala v. Very Rev.
Mother Provincial [(1970) 2 SCC 417], Ahmedabad St. Xaviers
College Society v. State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717] , Lilly
Kurian v. Sr. Lewina [(1979) 2 SCC 124] and All Bihar
Christian Schools Assn. v. State of Bihar [(1988) 1 SCC 206].
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rev. Father W. Proost And Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 September, 1968
In Rev. Father W. Prost & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
[(1969) 2 SCR 73] Hidayatullah C. J. while dealing with Art.29(1) and 30(1),
had observed thus: