CHANDANA DAS (MALAKAR) versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 25-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
CHANDANA DAS (MALAKAR)
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2858 of  2007 etc.)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment  – Of teachers  – In minority institution – Not
approved by District Inspector of Schools on the ground that the
same was without recommendation by School Service Commission
mandated u/r. 28 of 1969 Rules  – Writ petition  – Single Judge of
High Court held that the institution being a linguistic minority
institution was entitled u/Art. 30 of the Constitution to appoint its
teachers  – Division Bench of High Court held that since the
institution was recognized aided institution, management was
bound to follow mandate of r. 28 of the Rules  – Appeal to Supreme
Court  – Difference of opinion between Judges of Supreme Court
(one agreeing with opinion of Single Judge of High Court while
the other agreeing with Division Bench of High Court)  – Matter
referred to larger Bench  – Held: In the facts of the case, it is made
out that the institution is a linguistic minority institution  –
Therefore, r. 28 would not apply as the same would result in serious
infraction of the right of the institution u/Art. 30 of the Constitution
to administer the institution with teachers of its own choice  –
Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions  (Aided
and Unaided) Rules, 1969  – r. 28 – West Bengal Board of
Secondary Education Act, 1963  – Constitution of India  – Art.
30.
Constitution of India:
Art. 30  – Linguistic minority status  – Determination of  –
Held: Where challenge is to the State law, linguistic minority status
has to be determined State-wise.
Art. 30  – Linguistic minority status  – Determination of  –
Criteria  – Held: Medium of instruction (language) followed in the
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 631
631
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
institution would be irrelevant to discover as to whether the
institution in question was founded by a linguistic minority for the
purpose of imparting education to members of its community.
Art. 350B  – Special Officer’s Report – In respect of linguistic
minority institution  – Absence of – Affect on minority status of
the institution  – Held: Absence of report of the Special Officer
would not lead to the conclusion that no linguistic minority can
claim protection as such u/Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the Management of Recognized
Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969
as they stood prior to the 2008 amendment, would show that in
case the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution apply, further
or other rules for the composition, powers, functions of the
managing committee or committees of such institutions or class
of institutions would be framed. It is admitted, that no such Rules
have been framed under Rule 33. [Para 12] [646-C-D]
2. By a letter dated 19th April, 1976, Respondent No.4
institution wrote to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of
Secondary Education asking that it may be declared as a minority
community institution and the special constitution for the same
may be approved on that basis. By a letter dated 7th May, 1982
from the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education
to the Respondent No.4, a special constitution of the managing
committee of the school was set up. It is obvious on a reading
of this document that whereas Rule 6 of the Rules required only
one representative of the Sikh community to be on the
Management Board, there are three representatives appointed.
Equally, whereas Rule 6 requires that there be six guardian
representatives to be elected, only four are provided. Thus, it
cannot be said that by acceptance of this letter, Respondent No.4
has, in any manner, unequivocally waived its right to be treated
as a minority institution. On the contrary, the application dated
19th April, 1976, was to recognise it as a minority institution, and
merely because Rule 8(3) of the Rules was purportedly applied,
it does not mean that the minority character of the institution
was not kept in mind while framing the special constitution for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
633
future management of the school. On facts, therefore, it is
difficult to appreciate how Respondent No.4 can be said to have
waived its right to be treated as a linguistic minority institution
set up by a linguistic minority, namely, the Sikhs in the State of
West Bengal. [Paras 13 and 15] [646-E; 6

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