INDULAL HIRALAL SHAH Vs. S S SALGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question to whether the Educational Institution run by the petitioner is an Institution run by minority community and, if so, whether the provisions of Rule 77.3 (3) (vii) of the Secondary School Code violate fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, falls for determination in this petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner No. 5 Prabhubhai Bhogilal Upadhyaya conducted an educational institution at Khar in Bombay Known as "Adarsh Bal Mandir". The institution was set up in the year 1938 by opinion a primary school and in June, 1963, High School was stated. The institution was conducted on the Gandhian principles of truth and non-violence and with a view to inculcate in the students Gandhian ideals and Gandhian view of life. The petitioner No. 5 executed a Deed of Declaration of Trust dated July 12, 1962 and created a Trust in respect of the educational institution and appointed and petitioner as the trustees. The Trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act as a Public Trust. In the school run by the Trust, the students are imparted secondary education and are prepared for the S. S. C. Examination. Along with the general curriculum, the pubic are also taught to clean the premises, the class rooms, the sanitary blocks, etc., in order to inculcate in them the spirit of self-help and social service as taught by Mahatma Gandhi. The students are also required to undertake training in mass spinning and the Uniform prescribed is of Khadi both for the students as well as the teachers. The petitioner No. 5 and the remaining Trustees are Gujarati speaking and 90% students come from Gujarati speaking families and have Gujarati as their mother tongue,. About 80% of the teacher and 50% of the members of the staff are also Gujaratis. The petitioner, therefore, claim that the school is an educational institution established and administrated by a linguistic minority in the State of Maharashtra and are entitled to exercise rights conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were appointed as teacher sin the school between the years 1970 and 1974,. The letters of appointment stipulate wearing of Kahdi as a condition and respondents Nos. 5 to 9 accepted the said condition and were wearing clothes made of Khadi from the date of the their appointments. Some time in July 1978, it was observed by the school authorities that respondents Nos. 5 to 9 had not been wearing Khadi dress in school and thereupon they were called upon to give explanation for the their failure. It appears that thereafter the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 restarted wearing clothes made of Khadi but within a couple of days, they again ceased to wear Khadi during the school house. According to the school authorities, the conduct of the teachers was in breach of the conditions on which their appointments were made and amounted to gross insubordination and, therefore, the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were served with show cause notices. The respondents Nos. 5 to 9 claimed that it was not desirable that the wearing of Khadi should be made compulsory and pleaded that they should be permitted to attend duty in any dress they like.