N.AMMAD versus THE MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 07-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

N.AMMAD 
v. 
THE MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 7, 1998 
(S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, .IJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Anic/e 30( I )-Mino1ity educational in-
stitution-Riglzt to administe1-Is an absolute light and any law or executive 
direction which inftinges the substance of that light is void to the extent of the 
A 
B 
inftingement. 
C 
Right of administration-Of mino1ity educational institution-Freedom 
of management to choose qualified person for appointment on the post of 
Headmaste1-Held, is insulated by the protective cover of A1ticle 30( 1) of the 
Constitution-Rest1iction on the ft"eedoni would diminish the 1ight to ad-
ministe1-Scrvice Law-Appoilltment-Kerala Education Act, 1958-Section D 
2(2), U-Kerala Education Rule.1-Rules 10, 44A, 44(1) & 45C. 
Minority Educational Institution-Status of-Held, would continue to 
be so iirespective of Govemment declaration. 
In a minority aided school, a vacancy for the post of Headmaster E 
arose in 1991. The appellant, the senior most teacher of the school, who 
was initially appointed as High School Assistant (HSA), was put in charge 
as Headmaster and was not promoted to the post, as he was not having 
rec1uisite ciualilication for the post at that time. In 1994, the appellant, after 
acciuiring the qualification, pressed the management to appoint .him as the 
F 
Headmaster. District Education Officer also asked the management to 
promote and appoint c1ualified seniormost HSA as Headmaster. The 
management appointed Respondent No. 4 as Headmaster by transferring 
him from another school and the same was approved by the department. 
The appellant filed a uTit petition before High Court against the G 
appointment order, seeking his appointment as Headmaster. The mit 
petition was allowed by Single Judge while in appeal before the Division 
Bench the same was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the appellant that the H 
453 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A school should not have claimed any protection as a minority school before 
2.8.1994, the date when the Government declared the school as a minority 
school; and that the management of a minority school is also bound by 
Rule 44(1) of the Kerala Education Rules and hence seuiormost HSA 
should have beeu appointed as Headmaster. It was alternatively contended 
B that the vacancy of Headmaster should have been filled up on the date 
when the vacancy arose; that vide Rule 45C (Chapter XIV) of the Kerala 
Education Rule~, the appointing authority is rec1uired to promote the 
seniormost teacher of the staff of the school or the schools under the 
Educational Agency, as Headmaster temporarily; and that the manage· 
C ment should have advertised the post inviting applications from qualified 
persons. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Management's right to choose qualified person as the 
D Headmaster of the school is well insulated by the protective cover of Article 
30(1) of the Constitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any 
legislative act or executive rule except for fixing up the qualifications and 
conditions of service for the post. Any such statutory or executive fiat 
would be violative of the fundamental right enshrined in the aforesaid 
E Article and would hence be void. (463-G] 
1.2. The right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is a right that is 
absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the substance 
of that right is void to the extent of infringement. But the absolute 
character of the right will not preclude making of regulations in the true 
F interests of efficiency or i!Jstruction, discipline, health, sanitation, 
morality, public order and the like, as such regulations are not restrictions 
on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution. [ 459-F; G] 
Re. Kera/a Education Bill, (1957) AIR (1958) SC 956; Sidhrajbhai 
G Sabbai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR (1963) SC 540; The 
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & Anr. Etc. v. State of Gujarat &Anr., 
[1957] 1 SCR 173, followed. 
1.3. Selection and appointment of He.admaster in a school (or prin-
cipal of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that 
H educational institution. [ 460-B] 
N. AMMAD v. MANAGER, EMJA Y HIGH SCHOOL 
455 
Aldo Malia Patro11i v. E.C. Kesavan & Ors., [1964] Kerala Law Times A 
791; Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & A11r. etc. v. State of Gujarat & 
Anr., [1957] 1SCR173; Ga11dhi College,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.