VLRENDRA NATH GUPTA AND ANR. versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 02-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

VlRENDRA NATH GUPTA AND ANR. 
v. 
A 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 
MARCH 2, 1990 
[K.N. SINGH, T.K. THOMMEN AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Articles 29 and 30-Delhi School Education 
Act 1973/Delhi School Education Rules-Section 8/Rule 100---Kerala 
Education Society-School authorities providing that incumbent hold-
ing office of Principal/Vice-Principal to have knowledge of Malayalam 
-Whether permissible and valid. 
The appellants are teachers in the Kerala Education Society 
Senior Secondary School, New Delhi. They challenged the appointment 
of Respondent No. 5 as Vice-Principal by filing a writ petition in the 
Delhi High Conrt. The circumstances that led to the filing of writ 
petition are: 
The Kerala Education Society is a recognised and aided Society. 
Its primary objects are to pmmole the study of Malayalam language 
and to provide facilities for the education of children and to conserve 
Malayalam language, script and culture. In furtherance of these objec-
tives, the Society is running Senior Secoudary School in New Delhi. 
Delhi Administration as also the educational authorities have recog-
nised the Institution, as a linguistic minority sd1ooi. The institution is 
regulated by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and the 
rules framed thereunder. One post of Vice-Principal was created in the 
school w.e.f. 1.10.80. In March 1981, Departmental Promotion Com-
mittee was constituted to make selection for the appointment to the post 
of Vice-Principal in accordance with tile recruitment rules. The Depart-
mental Promotion Cmnmittee made selection from amongst the 
teachers of the institution to fill up the post of Vice-Principal by promo-
tion in accordance with the Rules. The Departmental Promotion 
Committee recommended the name of Respondent No. 5 for promotion 
to the post of Vice-Principal though be did not fall ~iihin the zone of 
consideration being junior to the appellants. The management of the 
school accepted the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion 
Committee and forwarded tlte papers to the Director of Education for 
necessary approval. The appellants made representations to the 
Director of Education against the selection and appointment of Respon-
dent No. S. The Director of Education rejected tile proposal of the 
805 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 1 S.C.R. 
management and declined to approve the selection and appointment of 
A 
Respondent No. 5 on the ground that he did not fall within the zone of 
consideration and further that he did not possess the necessary 
qualification of five years experience as Post Graduate Teacher as 
required by the recruitment rules. The Director of Education however 
permitted the management to advertise the post for filling the same by 
B . direct recruitment. The management then issued advertisement pre-
scribing the necessary qualifications for the post which included 
Master's Degree with second division; five years teaching experience as 
Post Graduate Teacher or 10 years experience as trained graduate 
teacher and ability to speak Malayalam as an essential qualification. 
The appellants were straightaway not eligible for appointment as they 
were not able to speak or write Malayalam. On the recommendation of 
C the selection committee, respondent No. 5 was appointed as direct 
recruit to the post of Vice-Principal and the Director of Education 
approved the appointment. Thereupon the appellants, as stated earlier 
filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the appointment of 
Respondent No. 5 and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this 
D appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: An institution set up by the religious or linguistic minority 
is free to manage its affairs without any interference by the State but it 
E must maintain educational standards so that the students coming out of 
that institution do not suffer in their career. But if the recognised 
minority institution is recipient of Government aid, it is snbject to the 
regulatory provisions made by the State. The regulatory provisions 
however cannot destroy the basic right of minority institutions as 
embodied under Articles 29 and 30. [SllF-G] 
F 
The Kerala Education Society is a recognised and aided institu-
tion. It is subject to the regulatory provisions contained in the Delhi 
School Education Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. [SHH] 
The institution is for promotion of Malayalam 

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