CHIKKALA SAMUEL Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and important question that arises in these writ petitions is, whether the petitioner-institution is a minority institution within the meaning of Art. 30 of the constitution of India. While the petitioner asserts that it is a minority institution, the respondents deny the same and assert that in the petitioner-institution only secular education is imparted as per the syllabus prescribed by the Education Department and that the management is trying to hide its misdeeds, taking shelter under the plea that it is a minority institution. It is averred by the respondents that the petitioner-institution is in receipt of grant-in-aid and that, the correspondent of the institution has also given a declaration that the management will follow strictly the conditions of recognition laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Education Rules. It is further submitted that at no point of time earlier, did the correspondent or any other representative of the petitioner-institution ever assert that this was a minority institution.

(2.) The petitioner-school terminated the services of one of its teachers, Sri S. V. Subba Rao, against which order he filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer. The D.E.O. found that the order of termination is bad and directed reinstatement. W. P. No. 4829/80 is preferred against this order. While refusing to implement the orders of the D.E.O. aforesaid, the petitioner-school appointed one Smt. G. Satyavati Devi in place of Sri S. V. Subba Rao, and asked the department to release the grant. The respondents refused to do so on the ground that the appointment has been made contrary to the Rules and the directions issued by the competent authorities. W. P. No. 1430/1981 is preferred for issuance of a direction to the respondents to recognize the appointment of Smt. G. Satyavati Devi to the said post, and for release of the relevant grant. The petitioners case is that

(3.) Article 30 of the constitution of India guarantees to all minorities, whether based on religion or language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It declares further that the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. This is a right given to the minorities as such, and not to an individual member of the minority. The minorities have the right to establish an educational institution of their choices (see Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389: and Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465). They may choose to establish an educational institution, devoted mainly to teaching of religious tenets, or the language of the minority, as the case may be, or they may establish an an educational institution for imparting general secular education as is imparted in Govt. schools and Colleges. The choice is theirs. These institutions need not be meant for , or confined to the students of that particular minority. They may freely admit students of all communities, with the possible result that the majority of students come to be drawn from other communities. The minority institutions are entitled to recognition and aid from the State, provided they satisfy the regulations imposed by the State for the purpose of ensuring educational standards and maintaining the excellence thereof. While this regulatory power includes the power to lay down the service conditions of teachers it is again clarified (see: All Saints High School v. Govt. of A. P. , AIR 1980 SC 1042) that under the guise of this regulatory power the State cannot virtually nullify the right to manage these institutions. (It is on this theory that sub-ss. (1) and (2) of S. 3 and Ss. 4 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Recognized Private Educational Institutions Control Act, 1975, were struck down by the Supreme Court). Indeed, in the words of Jaganmohan Reddy, J., in Ahmedabad St. Xavier college v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389 (at p. 1407)