right to appoint the staff - Minority status not licence for mal administration
- (2011) 12 SCC 658 and Rajasthan State Industrail Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others - (2013) 5 SCC
427. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Others Vs. State of Gujarat - (1974) 1 SCC 717, learned counsel for appellant argued that the fundamental rights particularly, rights of minority institutions cannot be waived. Right to administer a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India includes right to appoint the staff. The Management cannot be compelled to extend the age of superannuation of any of the staff member and any direction to this effect would be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 386.
....
Management Committee St Anselam vs Shri Ravindra Sharma And Ors on 31 July, 2019
ndian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/58102106
Contention that the appellant Management Committee is minority institution, therefore, it has
absolute right to appoint the staff and that it cannot be compelled to extend the age of
superannuation of any of its staff member and any direction to this effect would be violative of
Article 30(1) of the Constitution, is noted to be rejected as such rights of the minority institution (14
of 15) [SAW-183/2015] are subject to measures introduced by the regulatory bodies like the CBSE.
The appellant Management Committee themselves did not deny the applicability of the CBSE
Affiliation Bye Laws and the Rules of 1993 in the reply to the application filed by the respondent
before the Tribunal. It cannot claim immunity from such regulations as affiliation granted to it is
subject to compliance of its provisions.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2005) 6
SCC 537, in para 37 of the report, held as under:-
"It is next argued that as held in St. Xavier's and re- affirmed in Pai Foundation the
right to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities under Article
30 of the Constitution is not an absolute right meaning thereby that it is subject to
such regulations that satisfy a dual test that is: the test of 'reasonableness' and 'any
regulation regulating the educational character of the institutions so that it is
conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority
community and for the others who resort to it'. Any regulation which impinges upon
the minority character of the institutions is constitutionally impermissible. It is
submitted that between the right of minorities to establish and administer the
educational institutions and the right of the State to regulate educational activities for
maintaining standard of education, a balance has to be struck. The regulation in
relation to recognition/affiliation operates in the area of standard of excellence and
are unquestionable if they do not seriously curtail or destroy the right of minorities to
administer their educational institutions. Only in maintaining standards of
education, State can insist by framing regulations that they be followed but in all
other areas the rights of minority must be protected. It is conceded that
maladministration is not protected by Article 30 of the Constitution. Similarly,
secular laws with secular object that do not directly impinge upon the right of
minority institutions and operate generally upon all citizens do not impinge upon
Article 30 of the Constitution. This has been the constitutional interpretation of
Article 30 not because Article 30 admits no exception like Article 19(6) but because
the right conferred under Article 30 does not (15 of 15) [SAW-183/2015] extend to
these areas. The laws that serve national interest do not impinge upon Article 30."