ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL, HYDERABAD ETC. ETC. versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 04-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
924 
ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL, HYDERABAD ETC. ETC. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. 
February 4, 1980 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AND 
P. s. KAlLASAM, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions Control 
Act 
1975-Sections 3 to 
1-Validity of-Provisions if 
violate 
constitutional 
guarantee in Art. 30(1). 
Constitution of India 1950-Article 30(1)-Andhra Pradesh 
Recognised 
Private Educational Institutions Control Act, 1915-lf offends against 
Art. 
30(1). 
The purported object of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised 
Private Educa-
tional Institutions Control Act 1975 was to regulate 
the service 
conditions 
of teachers in private educational institutions and for ensuring the security of 
service of the teachers. Section 3 (I) of the Act provides : "Subject to any rule 
that may be made in this behalf, no teacher employed in any private educa· 
tional institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his 
appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the com-
petent authority". The proviso to this sub-section states that if any educational 
management etc. contravenes the provisions of this sub-section, the teacher 
affected shall be deemed to be in service. Where a proposal to dismiss etc. any 
teacher is communicated to the competent authority, according to sub-section 
(2) of this section, that authority shall, if satisfied that there are adequate and 
reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal, removal or reduc-
tion in rank or termination of appointment. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of 
this section states that no teacher employed in any private educational institu-
tion shall be placed under suspension, except when an enquiry into the gross 
'misconduct of such teacher is conten1plated. 
Clause (b) provides that no such 
suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from 
the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not completed within that period, 
such teacher shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been 
restored as teacher. 
The proviso states that the competent authority may, for 
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months for a 
further period not exceeding two months, if in his opinion, the inquiry could 
not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly 
attnbutable to each teacher. 
Section 4 gives a right of appeal to teachers 
employed in private educational institutions against orders 
of 
punishment 
imposed on them. 
Section 5 deals with special provisions regarding appeal in certain past dis· 
ciplinary cases. 
Section 6 which deals with retrenchment of teachers provides that where 
retrenchment of any teacher is rendered necessary consequent on any order of 
the Government relating to education or course of instructions or to any 
other matter, such retrenchment may be effeoted with the prior approval of 
the competent authority. 
Section 7 · provides for payment of pay and allowances to teachers in the 
¥-·-
• 
• 
1 
• 
f 
• 
ALL SAINTS !IlGH SCHOOL V. GOVT. OF A.P. 
92 5 
The appellants who were minority educational institutions established 
by 
A 
members of the Christian commnnity filed writ petitions before the High Court 
impugning various provisions of the Act as being violative of the &'llarantee con· 
1ained in Article 30 (I) of the Constitution by permitting or compelling inter-
ference with the internal administration of their private educational institutiions. 
In particular they challenged the provisions of sections 3 to 7 of the Act on 
the gronnd that they deprive them of their right to administer the affairs Of 
minority institutions by vesting the ultimate administrative control in an out· 
B 
side authority. The contentions having been rejected by the High Court they 
filed appeals by special leave. 
HELD s Permajorily-(Chandrachud, CJ., and Fazal Ali, J.-Kailasam, J., 
dissenting.) : 
Sub-sections (I) and (2) of section 3 are invalid and cannot be applied to 
minority institutions. 
C 
Per majorily-(Chandrachnd, C.J., and Kailasam J.-Fazal Ali, J. dissent. 
mg). 
Clauses (a) and (b) of section 3(3) do not offend against Art. 30(1) and 
are valid. 
By the Court: Sections 4 &. 5 are unconstitutional as being Yiolative of Art. 
l' 
SO(IJ. 
D 
• 
Per majority IChandrachnd, C.J., and Kailasam J-Fao:al Ali, J, dissenting) • 
Section 6 is valid. 
By the Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.