REPORTABLE                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7595 OF 2004

KOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA         ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS        ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7624-7625/2004

KOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA         ....APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS        ...RESPONDENTS  

J U D G M E N T    

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 as 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.

.............................J. [ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]

.............................J. [ DEEPAK VERMA ]

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 20, 2009.