MRS. Y. THECLAMMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 15-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MRS. Y. THECLAMMA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
APRIL 15, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Delhi School Education Act, 1973: S. 8(4)-Minority educational 
institution-Suspension of teacher-Order whether vitiated fol' want of 
approval by Director of Education, Sub-section whether ultra vires the 
Constitution. 
Constitution of India, Article 30: Minority educatimlul insti-
tution-Regulations can be made for ensuring fair procedure ilt maltets 
of disciplinary action. 
Sub-section (4) of s. 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 
D interdicts the management of a recognised private school from suspend-
ing lilly of its employees except with the prior approval of the Director 
of Education. However, in cases of gross misconduct the first proviso to 
that sub-section provides for suspension of the employee with imme-
diate effect, while the second proviso limits the period of such suspen-
sion to fifteen days, unless it has been communicated to the Director 
E and approved of by him before the expiry of the said period. 
The petitioner, a teacher in a recognised private school run by a 
linguistic minority educational society, was placed under suspension hy 
the management by its order dated April 23, 1986 on charges of diver-
sion of funds, pending departmental inquiry and the fact intimated to 
F 
the Director of Education, without formally seeking his approval under 
s. 8(4) of the Act. She filed a suit assailing the order as violative of 
s. 8(4) of the Act and also an application for the grant of a temporary 
injunction which was dismissed by the trial court following the decision 
of the High Court in S.S. Jain Sabha v. Union of India, [ILR (1976) 2 
Del. 61] taking the view that the educational institution having been 
G established and administered by a linguistic minority, it was protected 
under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution, and therefore, the provisions of 
the Act and in particular, s. 8(4) were not applicable. 
Her special leave petition having been dismissed as withdrawn by 
this Court, she filed the present writ petition in this Court and there-
H after withdrew the suit. 
974 
·' 
-
Y. THECLAMMA v. U.0.1. 
975 
Relying upon the decision In Frank Anthony Public School Emp-
A 
loyees Association v. Union of India, [1986] 4 SCC 707 it was con-
tended for the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension being 
without prior approval of the Director, as required under s. 8(4) of the 
Act, was vitiated. For the respondents it was contended that the deci-
sion of the Court in Frank Anthony Public School's case being contrary 
to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina 
B 
& Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 820 required reconsideration and thats. 8(4) of 
the Act was violative of Article 30(1). 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The exercise of the power of management of the aided C 
schools run by the linguistic minority educational institutions in Delhi · 
to suspend a teacher is subject to the requirement of prior approval of 
the Direc~or of Education under sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Delhi School 
l'l\IJCatiOn Act, 1973. (979EF] 
I 
;?. l While the right of the minorities, religious or linguistic, to D 
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice cannot 
be interfered with, restrictions by way of regulations for the purpose of 
ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence thereof can 
validly be prescribed. (987B] 
2.2 Sub-section (4) of s. 8 of the Act requiring the prior approval E 
of the Director of Education for the suspension of a teacher was regula-
tory in character and did not, therefore, offend against the fundamental 
right of the minorities under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution to adminis-
ter educational institutions established by them. [986H-987 A] 
Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union 
F 
of India & Ors., (1986] 4 SCC 707; All Saints High School v. Govern-
ment of Andhra Pradesh, [1980] 2 SCC 478; In re. the Kera/a 
Education Bill, 1957, (1959] SCR 995; Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College 
Society v. State of Gujarat, (1975] 1 SCR '173 and Lilly Kurian v. Sr. 
Lewina & Ors., (1979] 1SCR820; applied. 
State of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, (197111 SCR 734 
and D.A. V. College v. State of Punjab, [1971] Suppl. SCR 688, refer-
red to. 
G 
3.1 The decision in Frank Anthony Public School's case holding 
that sub-s. (4) of s. 8 of the Act was applicable to the unaided minority 
H 
976 
S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.