PRASAD Vs. SANGHI COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt. Venkata Laxmi was the Principal of G.M. Sanghi College of Commerce, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. She went on long leave for a period of two years with effect from the 1st of July, 1983. To the vacancy thus arose in the post of the Principal, several lecturers of the college advanced their claims. The next seniormost lecturer Sri Lalitha Kumar, had resigned during July, 1980 and left the college service. He is out of the contest. The next in order of seniority Smt. Lalitha John, declined the post of the in-charge Principal. The next in order of seniority is the petitioner who claims that post. The petitioner is a Professor of Commerce. He joined the institution as a lecturer in Commerce Deparment in the year 1979 and later in the year 1981 became the Head of the Department, On the basis of his seniority, he claims to be appointed as the in-charge Principal of the college. But his claims were not accepted by the College Correspondent and the management of the college. Overlooking the petitioner's claims, the college had chosen and appointed the second respondent Sri K Satyanarayana Reddy as the in-charge Principal. The said Reddi is far junior to the petitioner However, the said Satyanarayana Reddy was later replaced by the college Correspondent who had appointed himself as the in-charge Principal. Now, the Correspondent is working as the in-charge Principal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of Satyanarayana Reddy and later the appointment of the Correspondent of the college as the in-charge Principal.

(2.) In this writ petition the argument of the petitioner is, that the appointment of Satyanarayana Reddy and later the appointment of the college Correspondent Sri H.L. Sanghi are both illegal and unlawful, because they are opposed to certain directions issued by the Director of Higher Education on 17-11-81. The petitioner contends that on the basis of the abovementioned directions of the Director of Higher Education, he has a right to be appointed as the in-charge Principal. As his right was not respected by the college, he prays that a Writ may be issued to the college to appoint him as the in-charge Principal.

(3.) This writ petition is opposed by the respondent college and its Correspondent. They oppose this writ petition on the ground that G.M. Sanghi College of Commerce is a minority educational institution, within the meaning of article 30 (1) of the Constitution, and that therefore, the respondent college is not bound, in the matter of appointment of the in-charge Principal, by the aforesaid directions dated 17-11-81 of the Director of Higher Education. In reply to this argument of the respondent college the writ petitioner argues , that G.M. Sanghi College cannot ba considered as a minority educational institution, falling under article 30 (1) of the Constitution.