1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 826-827 OF 2017

THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY     Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

JAMES MATHEW  & ORS.                          Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. The appellants-minority educational institutions chose to appoint a teacher of their choice belonging to  their  respective  community  to  the  post  of Headmaster,  ignoring  the  available  senior  teachers from the same community.  The High Court interfered

2

and thus aggrieved, the appeals.    

2. In the case of the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 826-827 of 2017, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was in favour of the appellant, but in the case of the other, being Civil Appeal No. 828 of 2017, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held against them.

3. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has taken  the  view  that  the  Management  of  a  minority educational  institution  has  no  absolute  freedom  to appoint  a person  of their  choice, and  they cannot overlook the qualified and senior teachers belonging to the same community.  It has also been held that declaration  of minority  status in  the case  of the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 826-827 of 2017 by the National  Commission  for  Minority  Educational Institutions is of no avail since the appellant was an  already  existing  institution  and  that  the certificate of the Commission is meant for minority educational  institutions  to  be  newly  established. Still further, the court has taken the view that the declaration  contained  in  the  certificate  of  the Authority cannot have any retrospective effect.

4. We are afraid, the stand taken by the High Court cannot be appreciated.  On all the three points, the

3

position  is well  settled by  the Judgments  of this Court.

5. As far as the selection and appointment of the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, is concerned,  this  Court  in  Secy.  Malankara  Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and Others  , reported in (2007)  1  SCC  386,  after  referring  to  all  the celebrated cases on minority rights, viz. T M A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481],

P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC

537], State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial

[(1970)  2  SCC  417],  The  Ahmedabad  St.  Xavier’s

College Society v. State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC

717],  Frank  Anthony  Public  School  Employees’

Association  v  Union  of  India  [(1986)  4  SCC  707],

Rev.Sidhajbhai v. State of Bombay [(1963) 3 SCR 837],

D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab [(1971) 2 SCC 269],

All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. [(1980)

2 SCC 478], St. Stephen’s College v. University of

Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558], N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay

High School [(1998) 6 SCC 674], Board of Secondary

Education & Teachers Training v. Joint Director of

Public Instructions [(1998) 8 SCC 555],  has held in Paras  27  to  29  that  the  Management  of  a  minority aided educational institution is free to appoint the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, of

4

its own choice and has no obligation to appoint the available  senior  qualified  member  from  the  same community.  Paras  27,  28  and  29  are  quoted hereunder :-

“27. It is thus clear that the freedom to choose the person to be appointed as Principal has always been recognized as a vital facet of the right to administer the  educational  institution.  This  has not been, in any way, diluted or altered by  TMA  Pai.  Having  regard  to  the  key role  played  by  the  Principal  in  the management  and  administration  of  the educational institution, there can be no doubt  that  the  right  to  choose  the Principal  is  an  important  part  of  the right of administration and even if the institution  is  aided,  there  can  be  no interference  with  the  said  right.  The fact  that  the  post  of  the Principal/Headmaster is also covered by State aid, will make no difference.

28.  The  appellant  contends  that  the protection  extended  by  Article  30(1) cannot be used against a member of the teaching staff who belongs to the same minority community. It is contended 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.  But

5

this  contention  ignores  the  position that the right of the minority to select a  Principal  of  its  choice  is  with reference  to  the  assessment  of  the person’s  outlook  and  philosophy  and ability  to  implement  its  objects.  The management  is  entitled  to  appoint  the person,  who  according  to  them  is  most suited,  to  head  the  institution, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed  for  the  posts.  The  career advancement  prospects  of  the  teaching staff, even those belonging to the same community, should have to yield to the right  of  the  management  under  Article 30(1)  to  establish  and  administer educational institutions.

29.  Section  57(3)  of  the  Act  provides that the post of Principal when filled by promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Section 57(3) trammels the right of the management to take note of merit of the candidate, or the  outlook  and  philosophy  of  the candidate  which  will  determine  whether he is supportive of the objects of the institution.  Such  a  provision  clearly interferes  with  the  right  of  the minority management to have a person of their choice as head of the institution and thus violates Article 30(1). Section 57(3) of the Act cannot therefore apply to minority run educational institutions even if they are aided.”                       (Emphasis

6

supplied)

The  emerging  position  is  that,  once  the Management  of  a  minority  educational  institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the  minority  community  to  lead  the  institution, either  as  the  Headmaster  or  Principal,  the  court cannot  go  into  the  merits  of  the  choice  or  the rationality or propriety of the process of choice. In  that  regard,  the  right  under  Article  30(1)  is absolute.   

6. As  far  as  the  validity  of  the  declaration  of minority status is concerned, this Court in N. Ammad Vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others, [(1998) 6 SCC  674],  has  held  that  the  certificate  of  the declaration of minority status is only a declaration of  an  existing  status.   Therefore,  there  is  no question of availability of the status only from the date of declaration.  What is declared is a status which was already in existence.  Paras 12 and 13 of the Judgment are quoted hereunder :-

12. Counsel for both sides conceded

that there is no provision in the Act

which  enables  the  Government  to

declare a school as a minority school.

If so, a school which is otherwise a

7

minority school would continue to be

so whether the Government declared it

as  such  or  not.  Declaration  by  the

Government  is  at  best  only  a

recognition  of  an  existing  fact.

Article  30(1)  of  the  Constitution

reads thus:

“30(1)  All  minorities,

whether based on religion or

language,  shall  have  the

right  to  establish  and

administer  educational

institutions  of  their

choice."

13. When the Government declared the

school  as  a  minority  school  it  has

recognised a factual position that the

school  was  established  and  is  being

administered by a minority community.

The  declaration  is  only  an  open

acceptance of a legal character which

should  necessarily  have  existed

antecedent  to  such  declaration.

Therefore, we are unable to agree with

the  contention  that  the  school  can

claim  protection  only  after  the

8

Government declared it as a minority

school on 2-8-1994.”

7. We also have to refer to another faulty stand taken  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  Judgment regarding the jurisdiction of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. The Commission was  established  under  the  National  Commission  for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 for the purpose of constituting the National Commission for Minority  Educational  Institutions  and  to  provide assistance  for  matters  connected  therewith  or incidental thereto.

8. Chapter  III  deals  with  rights  of  minority educational  institutions.   Under  Section  10, whosoever desires to establish a minority educational institution, has to apply to the competent authority for  a  'no  objection  certificate'.   The  'competent authority' is defined under Section 2(ca) of the Act to mean, the authority appointed by the appropriate government  to  grant  'no  objection  certificate'  for the establishment of any educational institution of their choice by the minorities.

9. Chapter IV deals with  functions and powers of the Commission.  Under Section 11(f), the Commission has been vested with the power rather the mandate to

9

decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as a minority educational institution and declare its status as such.  Section 11 of the Act is quoted hereunder :-

“11. Functions  of  Commission  - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,  the  Commission  shall  - (a)advise  the  Central  Government  or any State Government on any question relating  to  the  education  of minorities that may be referred to it;

(b) enquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by any by any minority educational institution or any person on  its  behalf  into  complaints regarding deprivation or violation of rights of minorities to establish and administer  educational   institutions of  their  choice  and  any  dispute relating  to  affiliation  to  a University and report its finding to the  appropriate  Government  for  its implementation;

(c)  intervene  in  any  proceeding involving any deprivation or violation of  the  educational  rights  of  the minorities  before  a  court  with  the leave of such court;

(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution, or any law for the time being in force, for the

10

protection  of  educational  rights  of the minorities and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(e)  specify  measures  to  promote  and preserve  the  minority  status  and character  of  institutions  of  their choice established by minorities;

(f)  decide all questions relating to the  status  of  any  institution  as  a Minority  Educational  Institution  and declare its status as such;  

(g)  make  recommendations  to  the appropriate  Government  for  the effective implementation of programmes and schemes relating to the Minority Educational Institutions; and  

(h) do such other acts and things as may  be  necessary,  incidental  or conducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of the Commission.”                    (Emphasis supplied)

10. Therefore, after the introduction of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004, it is also within the jurisdiction and mandate of the National Commission to issue the certificate regarding  the  status  of  a  minority  educational institution.  Once,  the  Commission  thus  issues  a certificate,  it  is  a  declaration  of  an  existing status.

11

11. Therefore, on all counts, the legal position is wholly  covered  in  favour  of  the  appellants.   The impugned Judgment of the High Court is, hence, set aside and the appeals are allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.   

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; July 11, 2017.

12

ITEM NO.109               COURT NO.6               SECTION XI -A                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  826-827/2017 MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY              Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS JAMES MATHEW  & ORS.                               Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 828/2017

Date : 11-07-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR

Mr. Subham Singh, Adv.  Mr. Varun Mudgal, Adv.  

                   Mr. E. M. S. Anam, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Prasanth P., Adv.  

                     Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR

Ms. Venkita Subramoniam T.R, AOR                Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv.  

                    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                            O R D E R

The  appeals  are  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable Judgment.   Pending  interlocutory  applications,  if  any,  stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                            (RENU DIWAN)   COURT MASTER                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)