GANDHI FAIZEAM COLLEGE SHAHAJAHANPUR versus UNIVERSITY OF AGRA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 810 · Decided: 03-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

810 
GANDHI FAIZEAM COLLEGE SHAHAJAHANPUR 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF AGRA AND ANOTHER 
March 3, 1975 
(K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
llld:~~iute 14A of the Agra University-If violative of Art. 30, Constitution of 
1 J:e appellant is a minority College, affiliated to he respondent-Universiti• 
A 
B 
n. . ugust 1964, th1~. Co!lege management applied to the respondent for per: 
~111s;~1on to. ~tart teaclung 1!1. certain courses pf study. The respondent insisted: that 
C 
as. a cond1tion of rcco¥mt1on. of the additional subjects, the Managing Com· 
m1~te~ must be re-constituted m conformity with statute 14-A by including the 
Prmc1pal of the Col !ege ~n.d th.e senior most member of the staff in it. 
The~ 
ilppell.ant file~ a wrnt peuuon !n the High Court challenging Statute 14-A a.~ 
v10Jative of J\rt. 30, but the High Court dismissed the petition. 
· 
(Per majority, V. R. Krishna Iyer &nd A. C. Gup':a, JJ.) 
'Thi? inclusion. of th7 Principal and the . senior member of the staff on thu 
D 
M.anagmg Comm1tte1!, improves the administration and does not inhibit 
its 
autonomy, and the Statute is therefore good and valid. 
[833A] 
. ( 1) Abridgement of the right under Art. 30 is as obnoxious as its annihi·· 
lafl<?J~. but the right can be ·regulated in a 
benign 
manner which 
neither 
abnc;l!ICs nor exagge.rates autonom~ .but promotes better performance. To regu-
late. 1s not to restncl, but to fac1htate the effective exercise of the very right 
regul11ted. 
(820B-C; 8240] 
E 
(2) The Principal is an invalua,ble insider-the Management's own choice-
and not an outsider. He brings into the work of the Managing Committe~ 
that intimate acquaintanee with educational operations and that necessary ex• 
pression of student-teacher aspir~tions and complaints which are so essential 
for the minority institutions to achieve a happy marriage between individual.ity 
and cixcellence. An activist Principal is an asset in discharging the duties-
of 
the Managing Committee whic}l are inextricably inter-laced with academic func-
F 
tions. The senior most teacher is a seasoned representative of the teachers and 
is, also chosen by the management itself. His role, though less striking and 
more unobstrusive, is also a useful input into managerial skills. 
[825F-H] 
(3) Moreover the Managing Committee is subject to the hierarchiral con-
trol of the Gover~ing Body and General Council. 
[825H] 
(4) T~. draw a distinction between creating a managing body, and regulating 
the manner of its functioning to obviate mal-administration, and hold that. th.e 
G 
former is beyond the pale of legislative prescription while the latter is permiss1• 
ble as a pieservative, is broadly sound; but, as a rigid Jogi.cal formula, It breaks 
down. For example. jf the law says thM a person convicted 
of breach of 
trust or that an undischarged insolvent would be disqualified to be the treasu~er, 
it affects .the structure of the governing body, but it is indubitably a protection 
agJinst likely mal·administration. 
[823E-H] 
(5) In the D.A.V. College case (1971) Supp. S:C.R. 688 and Sla!e. of 
Kera/a v. Verv Rev. Mother Provincial. ( 1971) 1 S.C.R. 734 some provmons 
H 
relatinig to the. principal of thei institution were ~t~uck down, but the -r:al reason 
for striking them down was that those provmons and others deprived 
the 
mipority of its right to. manage its own institutions. 
[831D-832B] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
G~NDHI F)IZEAM COLLEGE v. AGRA UNIV. (Mathew, !.) 
8 1 I 
Kera/a Educati011 Bill Case (1959) S.C.R. 995; St. Xavier's College case 
(1975) I. SCR,173; Rev. Fr. W. Proost case (1969) 2 S.C.R. 73 and Rt. Rev. 
Bishop Patro's case (1970) 1 S.C.R. 172, referred to. 
.. 
(Per K. K. Mathew, J dissentinJl : 
The whole temper and tone of a college do depend upon the 171 incipal and 
the teachers, but that does not mean that they should be members of the govern-
ing cot•ncil of a w!lege. 
[815F-G] 
Th~ rnat:er is concluded by the decisbn of this Court in Al11nedabad St. 
Xarier's College Sdcieiy v. Stote of Gujarat (1975) 1 S.C.R. 173. This Court 
h~ld by a majority that s. 33A( 1) (a) of the Gujarat UniversitY Act, 1949, was 
violative of Art. 30(1) because, that provision required the inclusion, in the 
governing body of the College, of persons whom the religious minority did not 
want to include. When the article says· that a religious or linguisti.:: mi.D.ority 
has the right to administer educational institutions of its choice, it means t

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