Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.43 seconds)The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
State Of Kerala, Etc vs Very Rev. Mother Provincial, Etc on 10 August, 1970
''The decisions of this Court make it clear that in the matter of
appointment of the Principal, the management of a minority
educational institution has a choice. It has been held that one of
the incidents of the right to administer a minority educational
institution is the selection of the Principal. Any rules which take
away this right of the management have been held to be
interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the
Constitution. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by the
management and the third respondent are qualified and eligible for
appointment as Principal according to rules. The question is
whether the management is not entitled to select a person of their
choice. The decisions of this Court including the decision in State
of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, and Ahmedabad St.
Xavier's College Society v.State of Gujarat, make it clear that this
right of the minority educational institution cannot be taken away
by any rules or regulations or by any enactment made by the State.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right
in holding otherwise. The State has undoubtedly the power to
regulate the affairs of the minority educational institutions also
in the interest of discipline and excellence. But in that process,
Page 33 of 41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.1121 of 2022
the aforesaid right of the management cannot be taken away,
even if the Government is giving hundred per cent grant.''
The Special Courts Act, 1979
Section 3 in The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Pramati Educational & Cultural ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2014
27.Since the matter has already been referred by two Judges
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are leaving the issue regarding
Teachers Eligibility Test qualification open at present in the context of
Pramathi's case. But regarding Teacher Eligibility Test, other perspective is
possible and required with reference to the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private
Schools (Regulations) Act and Rules in force.
Ashwini Thanappan vs The Director Of Education on 4 July, 2014
23.As far as the ground raised regarding the requisite qualification
of pass in Teachers Eligibility Test, there is a controversy, in view of the
ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pramathi Educational and Cultural Trust and others vs. Union
of India [2014 4 MLJ 486(SC)], however, the two judges bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently in the case of Ashwini Thanappan vs.
Director of Education and another [(2014) 8 SCC 272] referred the matter
by stating as follows:
P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005
Justice Jaganmohan
Reddy, in D.A.V. College (supra) reiterated while upholding Clause
18 of the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar Act, 1961 that
regulations governing recruitment and service conditions of
teachers of minority institutions, which are made in order to ensure
their efficiency and excellence do not offend against their right to
administer educational institutions of their choice
Sk. Md. Rafique vs Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania ... on 6 January, 2020
In the case of Sk.Md.Rafique Vs. Managing Committee,
ContaiRahamania High Madrasah and Ors, reported in W.P.No.4511 of
2015 MANU/SC/0004/2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as
follows:
The Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006
(b) In the case of Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College
Vs. T.Jose and Ors, reported in MANU/SC/5280/2006, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held as follows: