http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MISS SHAINDA HASAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/04/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1381            1990 SCR  (2) 699  1990 SCC  (3)  48        JT 1990 (2)   178  1990 SCALE  (1)815  CITATOR INFO :  R          1991 SC 295  (14)

ACT:     Uttar  Pradesh  State Universities  Act,  1973:  Section 31(11) Religious minority institution--Appointment of  prin- cipal--Withholding of approval by University--Whether viola- tive of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.     Constitution  of India, 1950: Article  30(1).  Religious minority      muslim      institution---Appointment       of principal--Qualification"  Working knowledge of  Urdu"--Held in conformity with the object of the Institution.     Service   Law--Appointment--Qualification--Absence    of statutory Rules providing power of relaxation--Advertisement mast indicate that Selection Committee has power of  relaxa- tion.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent college, a religions  minority  institu- tion,  invited  application for the post of  Principal  from candidates possessing First or Second class Master’s Degree, five  years  teaching experience and possession  of  working knowledge  of  Urdu. The Selection  Committee  selected  the appellant by relaxing the qualification of experience in her favour  but  the  University declined its  approval  to  the appointment under Section 31(11) of the Uttar Pradesh  State Universities Act, 1973 and directed the Management Committee to readvertise the post.     The  appellant  challenged  the  University’s   decision before  the High Court contending that the college  being  a minority  institution  any interference  by  the  University under the Act was violative of Article 30(1) of the  Consti- tution  and that there was no justification to withhold  the approval.     The  High  Court rejected the attack on  the  ground  of Article  30 by holding that the provisions of the  Act  were regulatory  but  held that the Selection Committee  was  not justified in relaxing the qualification and that the  quali- fication ’possessing working knowledge of Urdu’ was  unjust. Hence this appeal by special leave. 700 Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

   HELD:  1.  In the absence of statutory  rules  providing power  of relaxation, the advertisement must  indicate  that the  Selection Committee/Appointing Authority has the  power to relax the qualifications. The High Court has rightly held the  relaxation  granted by the Selection  Committee  to  be arbitrary. [702B]     2. The college being a Muslim minority institution,  the prescribing  of  the  qualification  of  possession  working knowledge of Urdu for the post of Principal, is in. conform- ity  with  the object of establishing the  institution.  The said qualification is not unjust. [702B]     [In the interest of justice and in view of the facts and circumstances  of the case, the Lucknow University  and  its Vice Chancellor are directed to grant the necessary approval to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Principal of  College, which the appellant is holding as a  result  of the  Court orders, with effect from the date she is  holding the said post, and the appellant shah be entitled to salary, allowances  and all other consequential benefits to which  a regular Principal of the said college would have been  enti- tled.] [702G]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1135  of 1981.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  15.12.1980  of  the Allahabad  High  Court in Civil Writ Petition  No.  1096  of 1974.     R.N.  Trivedi, R. Ramachandran and Ms. Sadhna  Ramachan- dran (N.P.) for the Appellant.     Anil Deo Singh, Gopal Subramanium, Ms. S. Dikshit,  S.S. Hussain,  S.A. Syed, R.S.M. Verma and Shakil Ahmed Syed  for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP  SINGH, J. Karamat Husain Muslim Girls College,  Luc- know (hereinafter called the ’College’) is being managed  by Anjuman Muslimat-e-Hind which is a society registered  under the  Societies Registration Act, 1860. The avowed object  of the  society is to advance the cause of education among  the women of India. The College has been recognised by the State of Uttar Pradesh as a religious 701 minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1)  of the Constitution of India and is an affiliated associate  of Lucknow University.     The post of lady Principal in the degree section of  the college  was  advertised  on April 5,  1974  indicating  the following qualifications/ requirements:    (1)  First or good second class Masters Degree in any  of the subject taught in the institution;    (2)  At  least five years experience of  teaching  degree classes as also administrative experience; (3)  Must possess working knowledge of Urdu; (4) Willing to reside in the college premises.     In  response  to the advertisement the  appellant  along with  others  applied for the post. The  appellant  did  not fulfil the qualification of five years experience. She alone appeared  for  the  interview and  the  Selection  Committee relaxed  the qualification of experience in her  favour  and selected her. The Management thereafter sought the  approval of the University to appoint the appellant as required under Section 31(11) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities  Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the ’Act’). The University,  howev-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

er,  declined to approve and directed the management to  re- advertise the post. The appellant challenged the decision of the  University by way of a writ petition under Article  226 of the Constitution of India before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the college being  a minority  institution  any interference  by  the  University under the Act is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitu- tion.  It  was  also contended that there was  no  basis  or justification to withhold the approval.     The  High  Court rejected the attack on  the  ground  of Article 30 of the Constitution of India by holding that  the provisions  of the Act are regulatory and are primarily  for the purpose of maintaining uniformity, efficiency and stand- ards  of  education  in the minority  institutions.  On  the merits the High Court held that the Selection Committee  was not justified in relaxing the qualification without  reserv- ing  that  fight to itself in the  advertisement.  The  High Court also found that the qualification "possessing  working knowledge  of  Urdu" was unjust- On the above  findings  the writ petition was dismissed. This 702 is  how  the appellant is before us via Article 136  of  the Constitution of India. The  High Court has tightly held the relaxation  granted  by the  Selection Committee to be arbitrary. In the absence  of statutory  rules providing power of relaxation,  the  adver- tisement must indicate that the Selection Committee/Appoint- ing  Authority  has the power to relax  the  qualifications. Regarding  "Working knowledge of Urdu" we do not agree  with the  High Court that the said qualification is  unjust.  The college being a Muslim minority institution prescribing  the said qualification for the post of Principal, is in conform- ity with the object of establishing the institution.     In  the view which we are taking in this case it is  not necessary to go into the argument based on Article 30(1)  of the Constitution of India.     We heard the arguments in this case on February 23, 1990 and adjourned the case with the following order: "It is admitted by the parties that as a result of the Court orders the appellant Ms. Shainda Hasan is continuing to work as  Principal  in the Karamat Husain Muslim  Girls  College, Lucknow  since 1974. Having served the institution for  over 16  years  it would be unjust to make her  leave  the  post. Under  the circumstances let the University  reconsider  the whole matter sympathetically."     The case was taken up in Chambers on April 20, 1990 when Mrs.  Shobha Dixit learned counsel for the State  after  ob- taining instructions from the University agreed with us that asking  the appellant to leave the job after  sixteen  years would be doing injustice to her.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the  case and in the interest of justice we direct the Lucknow Univer- sity and its Vice Chancellor to grant the necessary approval to the appointment of the appellant as Principal of  Karamat Husain  MusIim Girls College, Lucknow, with effect from  the date  she is holding the said post. We further  direct  that the appellant shall be entitled to the salary,allowances and all other consequential benefits to which a regular  princi- pal of the said college would have been and is entitled.  We dispose of the appeal with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. T.N.A.                                         Appeal   dis- missed. 703

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4