THE SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE versus T. JOSE AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 27-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
1HE SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE 
v. 
T. JOSE AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER27, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
Article 30-Right of minorities to establish and administer educational 
C institutions-Minority educational institutions receiving aid from State-
Effect-Held, receipt of aid from State or its agencies does not alter the 
nature or character of minority educational institution receiving aid but 
State can regulate such institutions-Extent of regulation by State-Held, . 
State can impose regulations for administration of institutions and grant of 
D aid without diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1)-Appointment 
of Principal to aided minority educational institution-Whether right to 
select Principal is part of right of minorities under Article 30(1)-Held, 
ji·eedom to choose person to be appointed as Principal is vital facet of the 
right to administer educational institution under Article 30(/)-Princ1pal is 
responsible for maintaining the philosophy and objects of the institution and 
E Management is entitled to appoint person who according to it is most suited 
to implement its objects provided he possesses the qualification prescribed 
therefore-Provision providing for selection of Principal on the basis of 
seniority-cum-fitness-Whether such provision interferes with right of minority 
institution under Article 30(1)-Held, such provision clearly interferes with 
F the right of minority educational institutions to have persons of their choice 
as head of institution and violates Article 30(1)-ln the facts held, section 
57(3) cannot apply to minority run educational institutions even if they are 
aided-Kera/a University Act, 1974-Section 57(3). 
Mand G aided private minority institutions affiliated to Kerala University 
G under the Kerala University Act, 1974. D was appointed as Principal in College 
Mand P was appointed as Principal in College G. The appointments of D and 
P as Principal were challenged separately before the Kerala University 
Appellate Tribunal by other eligible lecturers in Colleges M and G. Tribunal 
set aside appointment of D and P by separate orders holding that the 
appointments violated Section 57(3) of the 1974 Act which required the post 
H 
644 
SECRETARY,MALANKARASYRIANCATHOLICCOLLEGh T.JOSE 
645 
, of Principal, when filled by promotion, to be made on the basis of seniority- A 
cum-fitness and directed fresh appointments. The orders of the Tribunal were 
challenged by the institutions and also by the selected Principals, D and P, by 
filing separate writ petitions on the ground that section 57(3) of the J974 
Act was invalid and inapplicable in respect of minority institutions as it 
interfered with the right of the minorities to establish and administer 
educational institutions of their own choice and thereby violated Article 30(1) B 
of the Constitution oflndia. High Court by common order upheld the orders 
of Tribunal on the ground that receipt of aid by a minority institution removes 
protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and that Section 57(3) of 
the 1974 Act providing that appointment of Principal should be on the basis 
of seniority-cum-fitness is valid and binding on minority institutions. Hence C 
· these appeals by the College Managements and the selected Principals, D. 
andP. 
Appellants contended that receipt of aid by minority institutions, does 
not, in any way, fetter or abridge their constitutional right to administer 
educational institutions, and therefore Section 57(3) of the l 974 Act D 
requiring the appointment of only the senior-most of lecturers as Principal 
is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution; that the right to appoint 
Principal and teachers is the most important facet of minority's "right to 
administer" under Article 30(J) of the Constitution; and that a minority 
institution cannot ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same 
community, senior to the person proposed to be selected, merely because the 
institution has the right to select a Principal of its choice. 
Respondents contended that minorities do not have an unfettered right 
under Article 30(1) to administer and manage its education institutions; tliat 
the State and its agencies can regulate certain facets of administration of 
private educational institutions by minorities, in particular by prescribing 
the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions bearing on 

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