http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: YUNUS ALI SHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOHAMED ABDUL KALAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/04/1999

BENCH: Sujata V.  Manohar, R.C.  Lahoti.

JUDGMENT:

Mrs, Suiata V. Manohar. J.

       Leave granted.

       The  appellant,  Madrasa  Islamia  Darululoom, Gope, District Pun, Orissa, is a minority educational  institution set  up to Impart education upto standard eight in the State of Orissa.  It is a government aided institution.    Aid  is paid  by the Government in lump sum to the institution to be distributed amongst the teachers and staff.  The appellant’s school is under the control of  the  Director  of  Education through   the  special  officer  for  Mohammedan  education. Respondent No.1 was the Head Master  (head  Maulbi)  of  the appellant’s   school  and  the  second  respondent  was  the Assistant Teacher of the appellant’s school at the  material time.

       On  16.11.1986,  a  show  cause notice was issued to respondents and  2  in  respect  of  various  irregularities committed by  respondents 1 and 2.  Thereafter, the Managing Committee  considered  the   conduct   and   activities   of respondents  1  and  2 at its meetings held on 22.5.1987 and 27.9.1987.  Ultimately on 14.10.1987, the Managing Committee resolved to remove the respondents from  service.    In  the resolution,  the  committee  also  explained the reasons for removal.  Accordingly, by an order dated  15.10.1987  issued by the Secretary of the said school, services of respondents 1 and 2 were terminated.

       This termination was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 by filing a writ petition before the High Court.  The High Court  has  found  that  no  approval  of  the  Director  of Education was obtained prior to the order of termination  as prescribed  under  Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act, 1969.  Hence the termination is bad in law.  The High  Court also  directed  reinstatement  of  respondents  1 and 2, and payment  of  a  lump  sum  of  Rs.5,000/-  to  each  of  the respondents in lieu of back wages.

       The appeal appellant - school before us has  pointed out   that  since  the  appellant’s  school  is  a  minority educational institution, the Orissa Education Act,  1969  is not applicable  to  the school.  The appellant has drawn our attention to Section 2 of the  Orissa  Education  Act,  1959 which provides as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       "2,  Act   not   to   apply   to   certain         institutions:-  Nothing  contained in this         Act    shall    apply    to    educational         institutions  of  their choice established         and administered by minorities having  the         right  under  Clause  (1) of Article 30 of         the Constitution:

                       Provided     that    the    State         Government may by  notification  apply  or         adapt   to   an   educational  institution         established    and     administered     by         minorities,  such of the provisions of the         Act, so  however  that  the  rights  under         Article  30  of  the  Constitution are not         infringed."

Section  10-A  of  the  Orissa  Education Act which requires prior approval of the Director  before  termination  of  the services  of  a  teacher of an aided institution, therefore, has no application to a minority institution such as  the  , appellant’s institution.      While   the   Directorate   of Education,  Orissa  may  have   power   to   supervise   the functioning  of  the  said school in order to ensure that it does not mat-function or is not mal-administered, in view of Article 30(1) of the Constitution  the  Directorate  has  no control  over  the actual management of the school including hiring or termination of services  of  teachers.    This  is entirely within the control of the Managing Committee of the minority institution.    In  the case of Bihar State madarsa Education Board v.  Anjuman  Ahle-Hadees  and  Anr.    (1884 Supp.  (2) SCC 509), this Court struck down Sections 7(2)(n) and  24  of  the  Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act as violative of Article 30(1).    Section  24  provided,  inter alia,  that  no  teacher of a Madarsa shall be discharged or dismissed from service without the  prior  approval  of  the State Madarsa  Education  Board.   This Court considered the provision as interfering with the  management  of  the  said school.  In  The  Ahmedabad St.  Xaviers College Society and Anr.  etc.  v.  State of Gujarat and Anr.   (  AIR  1974  SC 1389)  a provision requiring approval of the Vice-Chancellor for  termination  of  a  teacher’s  services  was  held   as interfering  with  the  minority  institutions  disciplinary control over the staff.  (See also  Lilly  Kurian  v.    Sr. Lewins and Ors.  (AIR 1979 SC 52).

       Before us a counter-affidavit has been filed by  the Inspecting Officer, Urdu Education, Directorate of Secondary Education,  Bhubaneswar,  Orissa on behalf of respondents 11 and 12 pointing out that the appellant’s  institution  is  a religious minority institution which is covered by Section 2 of the  Orissa Education Act.  In view thereof, it is stated in the affidavit that the State Government  ordinarily  does not  interfere  with  the  internal  management  of  such an institution.   The  payment  to   the   teachers   of   this institution is not made under the direct payment scheme but. a  grant  is released in favour of the Secretary of the said school.  The management of the appellant’s Institution is by an independent body with full control over the  appointment, termination  and  disciplinary action against the employees. This can be done without obtaining  prior  approval  of  the Director  or  the Inspector of Schools unlike in the case of other aided educational institutions.

       Looking  to  the  minority status of the educational

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

institution, the Managing Committee of the  institution  was entitled  to  terminate  the services of respondents 1 and 2 without  obtaining  prior  approval  of  the   Director   or Inspector  of Schools since the management and discipline of such an institution is entirely under  the  control  of  the Managing Committee of the minority institution.

       The  appeal  is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set  aside  and  the termination of  respondents  1  and 2 is upheld.  There will however, be no order as to costs.