THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, ARYA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, DHURI, DISTRICT SANGRUR AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE 3 OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions address the validity of the order of dismissal from service of the teacher working in a college declared as a minority institution. The dismissal was found to be bad as one having been made without securing the previous consent of the State authorities in the Education Department as stated to be required under Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979. The impugned order was one passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 4(2) of the 1979 Act referred to above. The Commissioner made a short work of the contentions raised on merits and proceeded to hold that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DAV College v. State of Punjab, 1971 AIR(SC) 1737, declaring the educational institution as a minority institution. As regards the decision of the Managing Committee to dispense with the services, which was contended to be not a subject of jurisdiction of the DPI (Schools), he observed that he would not sit in judgment of whether he had the competency under the Act or not and the plea of the educational institution should be addressed only to the High Court, as far as he was concerned. As per the Act, the approval of the DPI (Schools), Punjab, was required to be obtained and if it was not done, the order was void ab nitio. The appeal filed by the teacher was accepted and the impugned order of termination of services was quashed. Against this order, two writ petitions have been filed; CWP No. 1628 of 1986 has been filed by the educational institution challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass an order and CWP No. 8400 of 1987 by the teacher himself finding that the decision to terminate taken by the Managing Committee was vitiated as violative of principles of natural justice. This, according to the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the teacher, has become necessary', since the impugned order itself does not examine the validity of the order of termination on merits but has dealt with only the issue of lack of previous sanction from the DPI as concluding the issue.

(2.) The extent of State intervention in matters relating to minority institutions have been the subject of several decisions but it would suffice for reconsideration to quote the case in The All Saints High School etc. etc. v. The Government of A. P. and others etc. etc., 1980 AIR(SC) 1042, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while the State or any statutory authority had no right to interfere with the internal administration or management of the minority institution, it could take regulatory measures to promote the efficiency and excellence of educational standards. However, under the cover or garb of adopting regulatory measures, it cannot take any action which would tend to destroy the administrative autonomy of the institution, it would, therefore, be open to a Government or University to frame rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of teachers in order to secure the tenure of service and to appoint even a higher authority with sufficient guidance to see that rules were not violated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provision for an appeal or a revision against the order of an authority of a minority institution by an aggrieved member of staff or setting up an arbitration tribunal shall not be permissible in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier College Society v. State of Gujarat, 1974 AIR(SC) 1389. Such a course of action would introduce an ena of litigation that would involve the institution in unending litigation, thus impairing the educational efficiency of the institution and create a new field for the teachers and thus draw them out of purely educational atmosphere of the minority institutions. In the course of judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was striking down a provision in the Andhra Pradesh Recognized Private Educational Institutions Control Act providing for a State authority to conclude issues of termination, dismissal, etc.

(3.) Even white setting the contours of control by the State authority for preservation of excellence in education, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 8 SCC 481, by raising the question as to what extent could the rights of aided private minority institutions to administer be regulated said that the State or University could provide for the qualifications and minimum eligibility conditions. The right to administer itself is not absolute even for a minority institution and, therefore, regulatory measures could be imposed for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence thereof. Both for aided and unaided minority institutions, the Management must evolve a rationale procedure for selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action. The right to administer cannot include a right to mal-administer. There shall, therefore, be a fair procedure adopted by a minority institution in the manner of exercising discipline over its staff but the State cannot make any interference over such decision. Apply the principles of law, the question of securing sanction from a Government simply does not arise. The impugned order could not have been passed by the Commissioner to hold that the want of prior sanction from the DPI vitiated the order of termination. On the other hand, there was no such requirement in law. The impugned order in so far as it holds the prior sanction of DPI was necessary is clearly wrong and against the constitutional scheme. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and others, 2007 1 SCC 386, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that the right to administer an educational institution by a minority would include a right to appoint teaching staff and to take action. If there is a dereliction of duty on the part of its employees, the State can regulate the service conditions of the employees of minority institution to ensure quality of education by requiring certain minimum educational qualifications. The extent of regulations which is permissible would be, (i) the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit, for making appointments; (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff; (iii) a mechanism for re-dressal of the grievances of the employees; and (iv) the conditions for the proper utilization of the aid by the educational institutions, without abridging or diluting the right to establish and administer educational institutions. The law is too well established to reopen the said issue.