LexKOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 272 KOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7595 of 2004 Etc.) OCTOBER 20, 2009 / [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 and 30 - Minority educational institution - Appointment of teachers -: Necessity for prior approval of State- Held: Such requirement does not amount to unconstitutional interference in the internal working of the minority institution - Hence, not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 30 as also s. 40-A of Secondary Education Act - Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 - s. 40-A - Education/Educational Institution. Appellant-minority institution appointed teachers without prior approval of the competent authority of Education Department. The institution sought a relief that their salaries should be paid as the institution was admitted to 100% grant. Education Officer refused the same. Appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court: The order was further confirmed by Division Bench of High Court in Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is no interference in the selection process. It would be perfectly all right for a minority institution tc select the candidates without any interference from the Government. However, the requirement of the prior approval is necessitated because - it is for the Government to see as to whether there was actually posts avaUable in the said institution as per the 272 ..., .... -+ r- 1 -... -- KOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA v. STATE OF 273 GUJARAT & ORS. f strength of students and secondly; whether the A candidates, who were sought to be appointed, were ~ having the requisite qualifications in terms of the rules and regulations of the Education Department. It is not correct to say th~t the Circular dated 6.1.1998 by which the Government had provided that every minority B institution should obtain the prior approval from the competent authority to appoint the teachers would .,, amount to interference in the internal administration of minority institution. [Paras 5 and 6] [275-C-G] 2. From the stand taken by the State Government, it c is clear that all that the Government wants to examine is as to whether the proposed appointments were within the frame work of the rules considering the workload and ~ the availability of the post in that institution and, secondly; D whether the selected candidates had the necessary qualifications for the subjects in which the said teachers were appointed. The same applies to the non-teaching staff also. [Para 7] [276-C-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 7595 of 2004. -~ From the Judgment & Order dated 7.4.2003 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 1183 of 2002 in Special Civil Application No. 8697 of 2002. F ~ WITH C.A. Nos. 7624-7625 of 2004. Huzefa Ahmadi, Bina Madhavan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.) G for the Appellant. I .,... Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents. The Ju~gment of the Court was delivered by H v -- 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. In these appeals, the challenge is to the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court dated "' 30.9.2003 and 7.4.2003 dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 529 of 2003 and 1183 of 2002 filed by the appellant < herein. B 2. The appellant herein is a minority institution and that is an admitted fact. It challenged the order dated 12/13.8.2002 on the ground that the said order is violative of the provisions of Articles 14,29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and is also ' ~ c violative of Section 40A of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. By that order, the District Education Officer, Bharuch District, Bharuch had refused the permission to admit the selected candidate in direct pay scheme for the purpose of grant. It so happened that the appellant selected few candidates D and sought a relief that their salaries should be paid as the institution was admitted to 100% grant. The appellant admittedly ~ had not intimated the Department before making the selection and proceeded to select the candidates without scrutiny of the Education Department. This order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. E 3. Learned Single Judge, by orders dated 18.9.2002 & 11.3.2003 dismissed the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.