C/M. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE versus GIRDHARI SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 30-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

C/M. St. JOHN INTER COLLEGE 
v. 
GIRDHARI SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 30, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND D.P. MOHAPA1RA, JJ.] 
Service I.aw : 
U.P Intennediate Education Act, 1921 : Section 16 G(3)( a) and Regu-
lation 44. 
Secondary Education Services-Minority educational institution-Serv-
ices of employees-Tennination of-Approval of competent authority-Appli-
cability of-Minority educational institution tenninated the services of its 
employees without obtaining prior approval of competent authority-Validity 
of-Held: S. 16 G(3)(a) and the Regulations dn not provide any guidelines for 
exercise of po1ver in the matter of app1vval or disapproval of the tennination 
order-Such uncanalised power of competent authority is tantamount to an 
inroad into the power of disciplinary control of the minority institution-Such 
restrictive provisions do not apply to minority institution-Hence, prior 
approval of competent authority not required for tennination of services of 
employees of minority institution-Education-U.P. Secondary Education 
Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, S. 30-Constitution of 
India, 1950, Art. 30. 
The appellant, a minority educational institution within the ambit of 
Article 30 of the Constitution, terminated the services of the respondents 
who were the employees of the appellant. The respondents tiled a writ 
petition before the High Court challenging their termination on the ground 
that prior approval of the competent authority was not obtained as re-
quired under Section 16 G(3)(a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 
1921 read with Regulation 44 framed under the Act. The High Court 
allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the power of ap-
proval had been conferred on the U.P. Secondary Education Services 
Commission established under Section 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education 
Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982; that Section 30 of the 
945 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1982 Act exempted the applicability of that Act to the minority institution; 
and, therefore, the provision of prior approval of any competent authority 
would not apply to a minority institution •. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. There would be no bar for the Government to have 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
regulatory measures for ensuring a standard of excellence of the institu-
tions and such a measure would not in any way affect the right of the 
minority to administer its institutions eugrafted in Article 30 of the Consti-
tution. But notwithstanding the same, if the so-called regulatory measures 
conferring power on any specified authority, without indicating any guide-
lines for exercise of that power, then exercise of such power by the appro-
priate authority would offend the provisions of Article 14 and would not be 
allowed to be retained, as that would amount to an arbitrary inroad into 
the right of the minority, in the matter of administering its institutions. In 
other words, if the regulatory provision conferring power 011 the educa-
tional authority is uncanalised and unguided and does not indicate any 
guidelines under which the educational authority could exercise the said 
power, then in such a case, the conferment of a blanket power on the 
educational authority would interfere with the right of control of the 
employer-minority institution in the matter of exercising disciplinary con-
trol over the employees of the institution. [957-E-G] 
1.2. So adjudged, no guidelines are found in Section 16 G(3)(a) of the 
U.P. IntcrmediateEducatiouAct, 1921 to be followed bythelnspectorin the 
matter of approving or disapproving the order of termination of the services 
of an employee of the aided educational institution. [957-H; 958-A] 
Bihar State Madarasa Board v. Madarasa Hanafia, Am (1990) SC 
695; St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1974) SC 1389; Al Saints 
College v. Govt. of A.P., AIR (1980) SC 1042; Frank Anthony Employees' 
Association v. Union of India, Am (1987) SC 311; Kera/a EducaJion Bill, 
1957: [1959] SCR 995; Sidhajbhai Sahai v. StaJe of Bombay, [1963] 3 SCR 
837; State of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincia4 [1971] 1 SCR 734; St. 
Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, [1975] 1SCR173; Lilly Kurian v. 
Sr. Lewine, [1979] 1 SCR 820 and Frank Anthony Public School Employees' 
Association v. Union of India, [1987] 1 SCR 238, referred to. 
2. Regulation 44 of the Reg

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