MRS. IVY C.DA.CONCEICAO versus STATE OF GOA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 31-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l S.C.R. 445 
MRS. IVY C.DA.CONCEICAO 
v. 
STATE OF GOA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1257 of2017) 
JANUARY31,20l7 
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALiT, JJ.) 
Constitution of India -Arts. 226, 30 - Process of apprJinlment 
of a principal in minorily institution - Judicial review -
Amenability - Held: Autonomy of a minority institution under Art. 
30 does not dispense with the requiremenl to act fairly and in a 
transparenl manner - Minority institution is free to select ana appoint 
a principal, wilhout being bound by the principle of seniority 
alone - Whether the appointment has been made fairly and 
reasonably and whether there is violation of right of an individual 
eligiille candidate by the minority institu/ion by not adopting fair 
procedure, is liable to be tested in exercise of power of judicial 
review under Ari. 226 - Goa School Education Rules, 1986 - rr. 64 
and 86 - Goa School Education Act, 1984. 
Allowin~ the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Rules 64 and 86 of the Goa School Education 
Rules, 1986 are admittedly applicable. In the case of T. Jose•, it 
is rightly held that right to choose a principal is a part of a right of 
minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and 
the said right is not affected merely because aid is extended by 
the State to a minority institution. However, the decision of this 
Court cannot be read as laying down a principle that a minority 
institution could act arbitrarily or unfairly in dealing with the 
selection .out of the eligible candidates. The minority institution 
may not he compelled to go by seniority alone but it must follow 
a criteria which is rational. (Paras 8, 9) (454-C, E-Fl 
1.2 Autonomy of a minority institution under Art. 30 of the 
Constitution does not dispense with the requirement to a-:t fairly 
and in a transparent manner and the High Court in exercise of its 
power of judicial review is entitled to examine fairness of ~election 
process. Grievance of a citizen that he was treated unfairly cannot 
445 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
446 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
be ignored on the ground that a minority institution has autonomy 
or right of choice. Exercise of right of choice has to be fair, non-
discriminatory and rational. [Para 14] [460-G] 
1.3 While under the constitutional scheme, a "minority 
institution" is free to select and appoint a principal, without heing 
bound by the principle of seniority alone, whether the appointment 
has been made fairly and reasonably and whether there is violation 
of right of an individual eligible candidate by the minority 
institut;on by not adopting fair procedure, is liable to be tested in 
exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the 
Constitution. Since this aspect of the matter has not been gone 
into by the High Court, the impugned order is set aside. The 
matter stands remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision 
in accordance with law. [Para 15] [460-H; 461-A-B] 
Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and 
Others (2007) 1 SCC 386 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 644; 
T.MA. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & 
Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481: 120021 3 Suppl. SCR 587; M 
N'2garaj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 
212 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336 - relied on. 
Be/si M v. Corporate Management of Latin Catholic 
Srhoo/s, Diocese of Neyyattinkara 2010 (2) KHC 220; 
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Am: v. U. 0.1. & Ors. (2005) 4 
SCC 649 : [2005] 1 SCR 913 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 644 
relied on 
Para9 
2010 (2) KHC 220 
referred to 
Para 10 
[2005] 1 SCR 913 
referred to 
Para 11 
[2002] :> Suppl. SCR 587 
relied on 
Para 14 
[2006] '.' Suppl. SCR 336 
relied on 
Para 1~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1257 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2012 of the High Court 
of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 542 of2008. 
MRS. IVY C.DA.CONCEICAO v. STATE OF GOA & ORS. 
· Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Jnamdar, Javedur Rahman, Chandra 
Prakash, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Anuj Sarma, Ms. Niharika, 
Aman Shukla, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasani (for Mis. K. J. John & Co.), 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal 
has been preferred against judgment and order dated l 4'h August, 2012 
passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition N0.542 of 
2008. 
2. The question
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.