SC 'frees' minority schools on SC, ST teachers

Updated on: Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Supreme Court has held that minority educational institutions cannot be compelled to appoint SC, ST teachers even if they are drawing grant-in-aid from the government

A Bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said minorities enjoy special status under Article 30(2) of the Constitution to set up and operate their schools with their own set of rules and the government can step in only if there is maladministration or illegalities.

"The right to establish and administer includes a right to appoint teachers. Thus, except providing grant-in-aid as per the Delhi State Education Rules and having no power to discriminate in terms of Article 30(2) of the Constitution, the government has a very limited regulatory control over the minority institutions and no control whatsoever on the managing committee, internal management of the school and, of course, has no power to take over such an institution," the apex court said.

The apex court passed the judgement while upholding an appeal filed by the Sindhi Education Society challenging a Delhi government circular issued in September, 1989, addressed to all the schools that appointment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is a precondition for receiving grant-in-aid in terms of Rule 64 of the DSE rules.

Citing earlier judgements, including the Constitution Bench ruling in the TMA Pai case, the apex court said Article 15(5) of the Constitution excludes minority educational institutions from making provision for the advancement of the socially backward classes vis-a-vis admission to educational institutions.

However, it said the rights enjoyed by minority institutions are not absolute as they are subject to certain restrictions.

"The right under clause (1) of Article 30 is not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions which, inter alia, may be framed having regard to public interest and national interest of the country.

"Regulation can also be framed to prevent maladministration as well as for laying down standards of education, teaching, maintenance of discipline, public order, health, morality etc.It would not be possible for the courts to permit the state to impinge upon or violate directly or indirectly the constitutional rights and protections granted to various classes including the minorities," the apex court said.

The Bench said the state may not be well within its constitutional duty to compel the linguistic minority institution to accept a policy decision, enforcement of which will infringe their fundamental right and/or protection.

"Resultantly, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Rule 64(1)(b) cannot be enforced against the linguistic minority school.

"Having answered this question in favour of the appellant and against the state, we do not consider it necessary to go into the constitutional validity or otherwise of Rule 64(1)(b) of the Rules, which question we leave open," the apex court added in its judgement.

SC 'frees' minority schools on SC, ST teachers

More Education news