Constitution of India – Art.30(1) – Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions – Respondent no.1a minority institution was running a government aided schoolrespondent no. 2 – Decision of the appellants refusing to provide the aid to the respondents towards the salary of the principal of the respondent no.2 on his attaining the age of superannuation as per the Grant-in-aid Code, if arbitrary or violative of Art.30(1) – Held: As per the Grant-in-Aid Code, the minority educational institutions like the respondents could not continue the employees/teachers beyond the age of 58 years or 60 years, as the case may be – Respondent-institution was bound by the provisions contained in the Grant-in-Aid Code –Thus, if the appellants refused to pay the Grant-in-Aid to the respondents, on the Principal having reached the age of superannuation, it cannot be said that they had interfered with the affairs of the respondents or violated Art.30(1) – High Court erred in holding that the respondent-institute had a right to continue the Principal of its school beyond his age of 60 years – Order of the High Court set aside–Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 – Secondary Education Regulations 1974. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per Regulation 42 of the Secondary Education Regulations 1974, the provisions contained in the said Regulations framed under the said Act prevail over those provisions contained in the Grant-in-Aid Code published under the government notification dated 22.04.1964, insofar as they relate to any matter provided in the said Regulations. It further emerges that as per Regulation 43 of the said Regulations, Regulation 36 pertaining to the age of superannuation is not applicable to the educational institution established and administered by a minority, whether based on religion or language. Therefore, the age of superannuation of an employee of a registered Secondary School as mentioned in Regulation 36 would not be applicable to the employee or teacher of an educational institution established and administered by a minority. The combined reading of Regulations 42 and 43 of the said Regulations makes it clear that Regulation 36 would not apply to any educational institutions established and administered by minority, and therefore the matter pertaining to the age of superannuation of the employees of registered Secondary School established and administered by minority, availing the Grant-inAid could not be said to have been provided under the said Regulations. The necessary corollary would be that the said Regulation 36 being not applicable to the minority educational institution, the provisions contained in the Grant-in-Aid Code pertaining to the age of superannuation would be applicable to such minority institutions availing the grant from the State Government. [Para 7][493-C-G]
1.2 Now, as per para 81.1 of the Grant-in-Aid Code, a secondary school teacher receiving grant-in-aid would ordinarily retire from service at the age of 58, and the management may grant to the teachers extensions upto the age of 60, in view of para 81.2 of the said Code. Therefore, the minority educational institutions like the respondents could not continue the employees/teachers beyond the age of 58 years or 60 years as the case may be. If an employee or a teacher is continued in service by the management of any registered minority Secondary School receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State-Government, then such school would not be entitled to receive any grant in respect of the expenditure incurred for continuing such employee or teacher beyond the age of 58 or 60 years, as the case may be. The provisions of Grant-in-Aid Code are applicable to all the registered secondary education institutions desirous of receiving or which are receiving the grant from the Government, and such institutions would be subject to the restrictions imposed under the Code, except for the matters provided in the said Regulations. [Para 8][493-G-H; 494-A-C]
1.3 The provisions contained in the said Grant-in-Aid Code pertaining to the recognition, eligibility criteria, the procedure for making application to the government for receiving Grant-inAid etc. are applicable to all the secondary schools whether established and administered by the minority or not and the respondents could not have claimed any right to receive the aid from the Government dehors the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code. If the appellants therefore had refused to pay the Grantin-Aid to the respondents, on the Principal having reached to the age of superannuation, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the appellants had interfered with the affairs of the respondents or had violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The respondent-institution was bound by the provisions contained in the Grant-in-Aid Code. There is also nothing on record to show that the appellant-State had discriminated against the respondent institution on the ground that it was under the management of a minority, attracting Article 30(2) of the Constitution of India. The High Court therefore had committed gross error in holding that the respondent-institute had a right to continue the Principal of its school beyond his age of 60 years, and in directing the appellants to calculate and pay the requisite amount towards the arrears ofgrant for the period from 2001 to 2012.[Paras 9, 11][494D-E; 496-A-B]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2002) 8 SCC 481: [2002]
3 Suppl. SCR 587 – followed.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 807 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.