KHALSA COLLEGE AMRITSAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and calls in question the service rules, also called the Service Regulations, governing the service and conduct of teachers in non-Govt. affiliated colleges. The attack is on service Rules Nos. 9, 10, 15 and 17. The petitioner is the Honorary Secretary of the Khalsa College, Amritsar. Besides the State of Punjab, the Registrar of Punjab university, Principal of University Evening College, Rohtak, Shri Pritam Singh, lecturer, University Chemical Engineering Department, Punjab University, chandigarh and Shri Madan-pal Singh, Lecturer, Saraswati Training College, amritsar, have been made respondents.

(2.) THE principal contention of. the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid service rules are violative of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and sections 27 and 31 of the Punjab University Act. Section 27 deals with the affiliation of colleges to the University and Section 31 confers power on the senate, with the sanction of the Government, to frame regulations, consistent with the University Act, to provide for all matters relating lo the University. According to the University all these regulations have been made under Clauses (t) and (u)of Sub-section (2) of Section 31 For facility of reference, I have set down below article 30 of the Constitution and the relevant parts of Sections 27 and 31 of the university Act:-

(3.) MR. Atma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that Rules 10 and 15 are violative of Article 30 of the Constitution, whereas Rules 9 and 17 are violative of the Punjab University Act. The contention regarding Rule 10 is that by the process of election by the teachers of two representatives to the Governing body, there is a chance that a non-Sikh will be able to serve on the Governing body and, therefore, if will be undue interference with the educational institution maintained by a particular religious denomination. Article 30 has been the subject matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court in a number decisions and I need only refer to In re Kerala Education Bill, 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956 and Sidhrajbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540, and particularly to the observations of S. R. Das, C. J. , in paragraph 23 of the former report, which are to the following effect:--