2009 JTR(SC) 1650
2009 83 AIC 108 ; 2009 AIR(SCW) 7647 ; 2009 6 AllMR(SC) 1017 ; 2010 3 AWC 2543 ; 2010 1 GLH 675 ; 2010 4 GLR 3274 ; 2009 13 JT 581 ; 2010 Supp1 KLT 128 ; 2010 1 LLN 63 ; 2010 2 MLJ 133 ; 2009 13 Scale 361 ; 2010 1 SCC 135 ; 2010 1 SCC(L&S) 18 ; 2009 15 SCR 272 ; 2009 2 WLC 748 ; 2010 2 WLN 30 ; 2010 KHC 6135 ; 2009 7 Supreme 98
2009(7) Supreme 98
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra — Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7595 of 2004
Decided on : 20-10-2009
IMPORTANT POINT
It is perfectly all right for a minority institution to select candidates without any interference from the Government.However, requirement of this prior approval is necessitated.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.29, Art.14, Art.30
GUJARAT SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT : S.40(a)
(A) The Constitution of India, Article 29 and Article 30, read with the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, Section 40(a), form the statutory backdrop for adjudicating the validity of regulatory measures impacting minority educational institutions. The dispute arises where a minority institution, entitled to manage its affairs, selects candidates for appointment without prior government scrutiny, but seeks financial benefits reserved for institutions compliant with employment norms. The impugned circular mandating prior approval or no-objection certificate from the competent authority for teaching and non-teaching appointments is examined against the twin objectives of preserving minority autonomy under Article 30 while ensuring that state aid does not circumvent regulatory safeguards concerning vacancies and qualifications under the Act. The provisions of Article 14 and Article 30 are thus engaged to balance non-discrimination and equal protection with the right of minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice.
(B) The core legal principles delineated by the court emphasize that prior approval by the state does not amount to unconstitutional interference in the internal administration of a minority institution, provided the requirement is limited to verifying the availability of posts, candidate qualifications, and compliance with rules governing grant-in-aid. The circular mandating no-objection certificates is a permissible regulatory measure to ensure fiscal prudence and adherence to service conditions, and cannot be challenged merely on the ground of delay if a reasonable timeframe is prescribed.
Facts of the case:
A minority institution selected candidates for appointment to teaching and non-teaching posts under a direct pay scheme without obtaining prior approval or no-objection certificate from the competent authority. The institution sought salary grants for the selected candidates, relying on its status as a 100% grant-in-aid institution. The District Education Officer denied permission, leading to challenges before the Single Judge and the Division Bench, which upheld the requirement of prior approval. The Division Bench held that the circular prescribing such approval does not interfere with internal administration but is a valid condition for availing government aid.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench concluded that the circular requiring prior approval from the State Government or competent authority is a reasonable regulatory measure aimed at verifying the existence of posts and the qualifications of appointees. The court found no constitutional infirmity in the requirement, as it does not undermine the minority institutions right to administer its internal affairs when the objective is to ensure compliance with rules and efficient utilization of state funds.
Issues:
Whether the requirement of obtaining prior approval or no-objection certificate from the competent authority for appointments in minority institutions violates Articles 14, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India and Section 40(a) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi:
The courts reasoning hinges on the distinction between the selection process, which remains within the exclusive domain of the minority institution, and the regulatory condition imposed for obtaining government aid, which is a permissible check to ensure that appointments are made only where posts exist and candidates possess the requisite qualifications, thereby upholding the circular as a valid and non-discriminatory administrative procedure.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, upholding the requirement of prior approval or no-objection certificate for appointments in government-aided minority institutions, with no order as to costs.
(A) The Constitution of India, Article 29 and Article 30, read with the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, Section 40(a), form the statutory backdrop for adjudicating the validity of regulatory measures impacting minority educational institutions. The dispute arises where a minority institution, entitled to manage its affairs, selects candidates for appointment without prior government scrutiny, but seeks financial benefits reserved for institutions compliant with employment norms. The impugned circular mandating prior approval or no-objection certificate from the competent authority for teaching and non-teaching appointments is examined against the twin objectives of preserving minority autonomy under Article 30 while ensuring that state aid does not circumvent regulatory safeguards concerning vacancies and qualifications under the Act. The provisions of Article 14 and Article 30 are thus engaged to balance non-discrimination and equal protection with the right of minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice.
(B) The core legal principles delineated by the court emphasize that prior approval by the state does not amount to unconstitutional interference in the internal administration of a minority institution, provided the requirement is limited to verifying the availability of posts, candidate qualifications, and compliance with rules governing grant-in-aid. The circular mandating no-objection certificates is a permissible regulatory measure to ensure fiscal prudence and adherence to service conditions, and cannot be challenged merely on the ground of delay if a reasonable timeframe is prescribed.
Facts of the case:
A minority institution selected candidates for appointment to teaching and non-teaching posts under a direct pay scheme without obtaining prior approval or no-objection certificate from the competent authority. The institution sought salary grants for the selected candidates, relying on its status as a 100% grant-in-aid institution. The District Education Officer denied permission, leading to challenges before the Single Judge and the Division Bench, which upheld the requirement of prior approval. The Division Bench held that the circular prescribing such approval does not interfere with internal administration but is a valid condition for availing government aid.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench concluded that the circular requiring prior approval from the State Government or competent authority is a reasonable regulatory measure aimed at verifying the existence of posts and the qualifications of appointees. The court found no constitutional infirmity in the requirement, as it does not undermine the minority institutions right to administer its internal affairs when the objective is to ensure compliance with rules and efficient utilization of state funds.
Issues:
Whether the requirement of obtaining prior approval or no-objection certificate from the competent authority for appointments in minority institutions violates Articles 14, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India and Section 40(a) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi:
The courts reasoning hinges on the distinction between the selection process, which remains within the exclusive domain of the minority institution, and the regulatory condition imposed for obtaining government aid, which is a permissible check to ensure that appointments are made only where posts exist and candidates possess the requisite qualifications, thereby upholding the circular as a valid and non-discriminatory administrative procedure.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed, upholding the requirement of prior approval or no-objection certificate for appointments in government-aided minority institutions, with no order as to costs.
For the Appellant :Huzefa Ahmadi and Ms. Bina Madhavan (for M/s Lawyer’s Knit & Co.) Advocates for the Appellants.
For the Respondent:Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—
1. In these appeals, the challenge is to the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 30.9.2003 and 7.4.2003 dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 529 of 2003 and 1183 of 2002 filed by the appellant herein.
2. The appellant herein is a minority institution and that is an admitted fact. It challenged the order dated 12/13.8.2002 on the ground that the said order is violative of the provisions of Articles 14,29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and is also violative of Section 40A of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. By that order, the District Education Officer, Bharuch District, Bharuch had refused the permission to admit the selected candidate in direct pay scheme for the purpose of grant. It so happened that the appellant selected few candidates and sought a relief that their salaries should be paid as the institution was admitted to 100% grant. The appellant admittedly had not intimated the Department before making the selection and proceeded to select the candidates without scrutiny of the Education Department. This order was challenged before the learned Single Judge.
3. Learned Single Judge, by orders dated 18.9.2002 & 11.3.2003 dismissed the Special Civil Application Nos. 8697 of 2002 and 1022 of 2003 respectively relying on the law laid down by this Court and further relying on the circular dated 6.10.1998 whereby it was obligatory on the part of minority institutions to obtain prior approval from the State Government/competent authority before making any new appointment. The said orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged before the Division Bench which confirmed the said orders relying on the “relevant circulars annexed with the petition”. The view taken by the Division Bench was that the no-objection certificate insisted upon by the State Government was only with a view to regulate recruitment process and, therefore, it could not be contended that the said policy violated the constitutional mandate for minority institutions.
4. The Division Bench observed that the minority institution can regulate its own procedure for the purpose of imparting education and managing the institution. However, for obtaining Government aid and assistance by way of grant for the purpose of schools, it was within the power of the government to put up such conditions of insisting upon no-objection certificate. The orders passed by the Division Bench are in challenge before us.
5. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his persuasive way tried to convince us that the aforementioned circular by which the Government had provided that every minority institution should obtain the prior approval from the competent authority to appoint the teachers would amount to interference in the internal administration of minority institution. We do not agree. All that the circular dated 6.10.1998 provides is that all the government aided educational institutions of the State such as Primary Schools, Middle Schools, Higher Secondary Schools, Colleges, Sanskrit Pathshalas, Sangeet Vidhyalaya etc. will not give effect to any appointment in teaching and non-teaching post without prior approval from the State Government or the competent authority.
6. In our considered view, we do not view this to be the interference in the selection process. It would be perfectly all right for a minority institution to select the candidates without any interference from the Government. However, the requirement of this prior approval is necessitated because it is for the Government to see as to whether there was actually posts available in the said institution as per the strength of students and secondly; whether the candidates, who were sought to be appointed, were having the requisite qualifications in terms of the rules and regulations of the Education Department. That is precisely the stand taken by the State of Gujarat before us in its counter-affidavit. Para 3 of the said affidavit reads as under:
“Minority institutions are free to select their teaching and non-teaching staff. No Government Officer or the representative of the Board was appointed in the selection committee of the minority institution. There is no interference by the Government in the administration of the schools. However, N.O.C. is required to be obtained to verify whether there is a vacancy of a teacher of a particular subject per the workload fixed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board specially when the government is providing grant-in-aid and that he possesses minimum required qualification for the post he is appointed.”
7. From the reading of aforementioned para 3, it is clear that all that the Government wants to examine is as to whether the proposed appointments were within the frame work of the rules considering the workload and the availability of the post in that institution and, secondly; whether the selected candidates had the necessary qualifications for the subjects in which the said teachers were appointed. The same applies to the non-teaching staff also.
8. In view of this clear stand taken by the State Government, we cannot pursue ourselves to hold that the aforementioned circular amounts to any unconstitutional interference in the internal working of the minority institution. In that view, we would choose to dismiss these appeals. However, Mr. Ahmadi raised another point saying that if the prior approval or the no-objection certificate, as the case may be, is not awarded within seven days without any reason, then it would be hazardous for the minority institution to run itself. We do expect the competent authority to issue the no-objection certificate within the time provided in the said circular which is of seven days. Of course, if there are any objections, the authority will be justified to take some more time within the reasonable limits.
9. With these observations, these appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to the costs.
***********