MIRZA FARID BEG Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as a Peon in Urdu Middle School Mundwara, Tahsil Khandwa, District East Nimar, Khandwa. His services were terminated by order dated 8 -5 -1996. The school was receiving cent percent grant -in -aid at the relevant time. Against the order of his termination, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority Joint Director, Public Instructions, Hoshangabad which was dismissed by him as per order dated 16 -4 -1999 (Annexure P/5). At the behest of institution, several writ petitions came to be filed before this Court challenging the power of the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on the basis that it being a minority institution, there cannot be any fetter imposed on it while administering the education and the fetter of appeal imposed under the rules is violative of Article 30 of Constitution of India.

(2.) THE right of minority institution to manage is not a right to mal -administer. It can be regulated in proper way. Regulatory bodies can be provided power to see that right to administer is not abused. However, the power to supervise is not also arbitrary; it does not enable to unduly interfere in administration making it impossible to run the institution. Reasonableness non -arbitrariness is co -extensive.

(3.) LET us now notice some of the decisions of this Court. In Kerala Education Bill, 1957 case 1959 SCR 995 : AIR 1958 SC 956, this Court had observed the constitutional right to administer an educational institution by the minority of their choice does not necessarily militate against, the claim of the State to insist that it may prescribe reasonable Regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions. In Sidhrajbhai Sabhai vs. State of Bombay, (1963) 3 SCR 837 : AIR 1963 SC 540, a Constitution Bench observed that Regulations made in the true interests of efficiency of instructions, discipline, health sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed and such Regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed; they secure the proper functioning of the institution, in the matters educational. In State of Kerala vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, (1971) 1 SCR 734 : AIR 1970 SC 2079, it had been stated that the right of management in respect of a minority institution cannot be taken away and vested with somebody else, as that would be encroachment upon the guaranteed right but that right is not an absolute one and it is open to the State to regulate the syllabus of the examination and discipline for the efficiency of the institution and the right of the State to regulate the education or educational standards and allied matters cannot be denied. In Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCR 173 : AIR 1974 SC 1389, this Court had observed: "Regulations which would serve the interest of the students, Regulations which would serve the interests of the teachers are of paramount importance in good administration. Regulations in the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in administration are unnecessary for preserving harmony among affiliated institutions." In Lilly Kurian vs. Sr. Lewine, (1979) 1 SCR 820 : AIR 1979 SC 52 : 1978 Lab.IC 1644, the Court had observed: "Protection of the minorities is an article of faith in the Constitution of India. The right to the administration of institutions of minority's choice enshrined in Article 30(1) means 'management of affairs' of the institution. This right is, however, subject to the regulatory power of the State. Article 30(1) is not a charter for mal -administration, regulation, so that the right to administer may be better exercised for the benefit of the institution is permissible; but the moment one goes beyond that and imposes, what is in truth, not a mere regulation but an impairment of the right to administer, the Article comes into play and the interference cannot be justified by pleading the interest of the general public; the interests justifying interference can only be the interest of the minority concerned." In Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCR 238 : AIR 1987 SC 311 : 1987 Lab.IC 427, the Court was examining the validity of section 12 of Delhi School Education Act, Sections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) were held not to have encroached upon any right of the minority to administer their educational institutions. But Section 8(2) which stipulated that no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor his services will be terminated except with the prior approval of the Director was held to have interfered with the right of the minority, and therefore, the said provision was held to be inapplicable to the minority institutions. The aforesaid dictum, no doubt, was in respect of an unaided minority institution. The conspectus of the aforesaid decision would indicate that there would be no bar for the Government to have regulatory measures for ensuring a standard of excellence of the institutions and such a measure would not in any way affect the right of the minority to administer its institutions engrafted in Article 30 of the Constitution."