Summary
Sub-section (4) of s. 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 interdicts the management of a recognised private school from suspending any of its employees except with the prior approval of the Director of Education. However, in cases of gross misconduct the first proviso to that sub- section provides for suspension of the employee with immedi- ate effect, while the second proviso limits the period of such suspension to fifteen days, unless it has been communi- cated to the Director and approved of by him before the expiry of the said period.
The petitioner, a teacher in a recognised private school run by a linguistic minority educational society, was placed under suspension by the management by its order dated April 23, 1986 on charges of diversion of funds, pending depart- mental inquiry and the fact intimated to the Director of Education, without formally seeking his approval under s.8(4) of the Act. She filed a suit assailing the order as violative of s. 8(4) of the Act and also an application for the grant of a temporary injunction which was dismissed by the trial court following the decision of the High Court in S.S. Jain Sabha v. Union of India, [ILR (1976) 2 Del. 61]taking the view that the educational institution having been established and administered by a linguistic minority, it was protected under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution, and therefore, the provisions of the Act and in particular, s.8(4) were not applicable.Her special leave petition having been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, she filed the present writ petition in this Court and thereafter withdrew the suit.975 Relying upon the decision in Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India, [1986] 4 SCC 707 it was contended for the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension being without prior approval of the Director, as required under s. 8(4) of the Act, was vitiated. For the respondents it was contended that the decision of the Court in Frank Anthony Public School's case being contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Lilly Kurian v. Sr.Lewina & Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 820 required reconsideration and that s. 8(4) of the Act was violative of Article 30(1).Disposing of the writ petition, the Court,HELD: 1. The exercise of the power of management of the aided schools run by the linguistic minority educational institutions in Delhi to suspend a teacher is subject tO the requirement of prior approval of the Director of Education under sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. [979EF]2.1 While the right of the minorities, religious or linguistic, to establish and administer educational institu- tions of their choice cannot be interfered with, restric- tions by way of regulations for the purpose of ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence thereof can validly be prescribed. [987B]2.2 Sub-section (4) of s. 8 of the Act requiring the prior approval of the Director of Education for the suspen- sion of a teacher was regulatory in character and did not, therefore, offend against the fundamental right of the minorities under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution to adminis- ter educational institutions established by them. [986H- 987A]Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v.Union of India & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 707; All Saints High School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1980] 2 SCC 478; In re. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, [1959] SCR 995; Ahmeda- bad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, [1975]1 SCR 173 and Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina & Ors., [1979] 1SCR 820; applied.State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1971] 1SCR 734 and D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, [1971] Suppl.SCR 688, referred to.3.1 The decision in Frank Anthony Public School's case holding that sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act was applicable to the unaided minority 976educational institutions proceeds upon the view taken by the majority in All Saints High School's case that the right guaranteed to religious and linguistic minorities by Art.30(1) to establish and to administer educational institu- tions of their choice was subject to the regulatory power of the State, which in its turn was based on several decisions right from In re. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 down to St. Xavier's case including that in Lilly Kurian's case. It could not, therefore, be said to be in conflict with the decision of the Constitution Bench in Lilly Kurian's case and required reconsideration. [983BC-986FG]3.2 The endeavour of the Court in all the above cases has been to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation to protect what is secured to the minorities under Art. 30(1) with the social necessity to protect the members of the staff against arbitrariness and victimisa- tion. The provision contained in sub-s.(4) of s. 8 of the Act is designed to afford some measure of protection to the teachers of such institutions without interfering with the managements' right to take disciplinary action. [987E, D]4.1 In a case like the present one where the management of an educational institution governed by sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act charged the petitioner with diversion of funds and communicated the impugned order of suspension pending departmental inquiry to the Director, a duty was cast on him to come to a decision whether such immediate suspension was necessary by reason of the gross misconduct of the petition- er as required by sub-s. (5) ors. 8 of the Act. [987F, 988A]4.2 Since there was no response from the Director within the period of 15 days, as envisaged by the second proviso to a. 8(4), the impugned order of suspension had lapsed. Howev- er, the management could yet move the Director for his prior approval under sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act, who would then deal with such an application, if made, in accordance with the principle laid down in the Frank Anthony Public School's case. [988BC]See the full content of this document
Extract
Mrs. Y. Theclamma VS. Union Of India & Ors.
PETITIONER: MRS. Y. THECLAMMA Vs.RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT15/04/1987BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J)BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J)SINGH, K.N. (J)CITATION: 1987 AIR 1210 1987 SCR (2) 974 1987 SCC (2) 516 JT 1987 (2) 165 1987 SCALE (1)781CITATOR INFO : R 1988 SC 37 (16,18)RF 1988 SC 305 (15)R 1990 SC1147 (7)R 1991 SC2230 (4)ACT: Delhi School Education Act, 1973: S. 8(4)--Minority educational institution--Suspension of teacher--Order wheth- er vitiated for want of approval by Director of Education, Sub-section whether ultra vires the Constitution.Constitution of India, Article 30: Minority educational institution-Regulations can be made for ensuring fair proce- dure in matters of disciplinary action.JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1232 of 1986.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).C.S. Vaidayanathan and S.R. Sethia for the Petitioner.A. Subba Rao for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 977SEN, J. The short point involved in this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is whether linguistic minority educational institutions like the Andhra Education Society are governed by sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The petitioner Smt. Y. Theclamma, Vice-Principal, Andhra Education Society Secondary School, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi challenges the legality of an order passed by the managing committee of the Andhra Education Society, New Delhi dated April 23, 1986 placing her under suspension pending a departmental in...
See the full content of this document