The Mennonite Board of Christian Education and Another vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 24-2-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, by which the respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Principal in the petitioner institute.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered society established and administered by autonomous body of the Christian Minority Community and is entitled for protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners the minority institution has a right to choose a qualified person as Head Master or Principal of the School and the same is well insulated by the protective cover of Article 30(1). It cannot be chiseled out though any Legislative Act or Executive Rule except for fixing up the qualifications and conditions of service for the post. However, the respondent authorities without considering the legal provisions have passed the order dated 24-2-2010 directing promotion to the respondent No. 5 as Principal of the petitioner college. The said order is patently illegal and contrary to Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel next submits that the proposal was approved by the respondent authorities under duress, which is evident from Annexures - P/8 onwards and it amounts to violation of fundamental right of a minority institution, as enshrined under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while supporting the impugned order submit that the same has been passed after following the due process of law. Learned counsel further submit that as per the rules, the minimum qualification for the post of Principal is Lecturer and five years teaching experience as Lecturer. The respondent No. 5 alone is eligible for the post of Principal in the petitioner institution, as she is having requisite experience and qualification. The petitioner No. 2 is an Upper Division Teacher and he is junior to the respondent No. 5 and even otherwise he is not in possession of requisite qualification for the post of Principal.

Learned counsel also submit that a proposal for grant of promotion to the post of Principal has been sent by the petitioner institute itself to the respondent No. 3 in which the name of the respondent No. 5 has been recommended. Accordingly, after obtaining approval from the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 5 has been promoted vide order dated 24-2-2010. The petitioner institute is purely receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government.

It is not in dispute that except the order dated 24-2-2010 (Annexure - P/1) the petitioners have not challenged any other orders in this petition i.e. orders dated 11-8-2008 (Annexure - P/8), 20-6-2008 (Annexure - P/12), 7-7-2008 (Annexure - P/13), 9-10-2009, 26-10-2009, 14-12-2009 (Annexure - P/14), etc. except making pleadings in the petition with regard to the said orders/letters. Therefore, in absence of challenge to the said orders/letters, it is not possible to adjudicate this petition.

Dr. Shukla, further submits that by virtue of earlier orders, as aforestated, the petitioner institute has no choice except to make recommendation on the basis of orders of the respondent authorities. Thus, the recommendation was made under duress. This submission of Dr. Shukla is misplaced, as the petitioner institute has not challenged any of the orders, as aforestated, except the order, which had approved the proposal of the petitioner institute. That does not amount to any interference with the right of the petitioner institute to administer its own institution. There is no dispute that the impugned order only approves the recommendation of the petitioner institute for promotion of respondent No. 5 to the post of Principal.

Be that as it may, there is no quarrel on the proposition that the religious and linguistic minorities have right to administer their educational institutions, however, the right is not absolute, as the regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character and educational standard may be administered. (See : The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and another etc. v. State of Gujarat and Another).

In The All Saints High School etc. etc. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others etc. etc., the Supreme Court held that the right of the religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice cannot be interfered with, however, restrictions by way of regulations for the purpose of ensuring educational standards and maintaining the excellence thereof can be validly prescribed. For maintaining educational standards of an institution, it is necessary to ensure that it is competently staffed.

The Supreme Court in Virendra Nath Gupta and Another v. Delhi Administration and Others, observed that an institution set up by the religious or linguistic minority is free to manage its affairs without any interference by the State but it must maintain educational standards so that the students coming out of that institution do no suffer in their career.

There is no challenge to any other order, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners amounts to undue interference. The impugned order has merely approved the recommendation of the petitioner institute for appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Principal. Thus, the petition is meritless.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order asto costs.