CHANDANA DAS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 11-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 $.C.R. 796 
CHANDANA DAS 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2858 of 2007) 
DECEMBER 11, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 -Arts 26 and 30 - Khalsa 
C Girls High School in Calcutta - Whether the said School, a · 
minority Institution entitled to appoint its own teachers -
Whether the Institution's right to select and appoint teachers 
is affected by the provisions of the 1969 Rules - Held: In 
view of difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges, 
D matter referred to larger Bench - Rules of Management of 
Recognised Non-Gover.nment Institutions (Aided and 
Unaided), 1969 - rr. 28, 33, 8(3) - West Bengal Board of 
Secondary Education Act, 1963. 
E 
Referring the matters to the larger Bench, the Court 
Per T.S. Thakur, J.: 
HELD: 1.1 Linguistic institution and religious are 
entitled to establish and administer their institutions. 
Such right of administration includes the right of 
F appointing teachers of its choice but does not denude 
the state of its power to frame regulations that may 
prescribe the coflditions of eligibility for appointment of 
such teachers. The regulations can also prescribe 
measures to ensure that the institution is run efficiently 
G for the right to administer does not include the right to 
maladministration. While grant in aid is not included in 
the guarantee contained in the Constitution to linguistic 
and reli~Jious minorities for establishing and running their 
educational institutions, such grant cannot be denied 
H 
796 
CHAN DANA DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
797 
to such institutions only because the institutions are A 
establis·hed by linguistic or religious minority. Grant of 
aid cannot, however, be made subservient to conditions 
· which deprive the institution of their substantive right of 
administering such institutions. Once respondent No.4-
institution is held to be a minority institution entitled to B 
the protection of Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution, 
the right to appoint teachers of its choice who satisfy 
the condi~ions of eligibility prescribed for such 
appointments under the relevant rules is implicit in their 
rights to administer such institutions. Such rights cannot C 
then be diluted by the State or its functionaries insisting 
that the appointment should be made only with the 
approval of the Director or by following the mechanism 
generally prescribed for institutions that do not enjoy 0 
the minority status. [Para 16][817-H; 818-A-F] 
1.2 The view taken by the Division Bench of the 
High Col;lrt that appointments of the appellants were 
dehors the rules inasmuch as they were not made by 
the School Service Commission hence did not qualify E 
for approval, cannot be accepted. The mechanism 
provided for making appointments under Rule 28 of the 
Rules of Manage.ment of Recognised Non-Government 
Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 has no application 
to minority educational institutions. Placed in F 
juxtaposition to Rule 33, it is self evident that while Rule 
28 applies generally to other institutions; Rule 33 is more 
specific in its application to minority educational 
institutions covered by Article 26 or 30 of the 
Constitution. In the absence of any rules framed for such G 
minority educational institutions, the minority 
educational institution in the instant case was entitled 
to select and appoint its teachers so long as other 
conditions for such appointments, namely, availability 
H 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A of substantive vacancies and the eligibility of the 
candidates for such appointments were duly satisfied. 
[Para 17, 18][818-F-H; 826-D-F] 
1.3 The appellants were both duly qualified for 
8 appointment as teachers in the subject concerned; and 
that they have been serving for a considerable length of 
time on a meagre salary which the institution has been 
paying to them in the absence of the State Government 
recognising the appointments and releasing grant in aid 
C against their posts. [Para 19][826-G-H] 
1.4 As regards the absence of a sanctioned post as 
on the date the appointments were made, it was 
submitted that vacancies had subsequently arisen 
against which the appointments of the appellants could 
D be approved and the salary payable to them from the 
date of such vacancies becoming available released. If 
that be so, there is no reason why the appointments of 
the appellants should not be approved with effect from 
the dat

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