Holding

The requirement of prior approval for appointments in a minority educational institution is a valid regulatory measure and does not constitute unconstitutional interference under Articles 14, 19 and 30.

Summary

Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra, a minority educational institution, appointed teachers without obtaining prior approval from the Gujarat Education Department and sought payment of salaries under a 100% grant. The State refused to grant the no‑objection certificate, leading the institution to file a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court and affirmed by a Division Bench. The Supreme Court examined whether the requirement of prior approval under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 (s.40‑A) and a 1998 circular infringed Articles 14, 19 and 30 of the Constitution. The Court held that the prior‑approval requirement does not interfere with the institution's right to select teachers, but merely ensures that posts are vacant, workloads are appropriate, and candidates possess requisite qualifications. Consequently, the requirement is a permissible condition for receiving government aid and does not violate constitutional guarantees. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the requirement of prior approval (no‑objection certificate) for appointments in a minority educational institution violates Articles 14, 19 and 30 of the Constitution.
Whether Section 40‑A of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, as applied through the 1998 circular, is constitutionally valid.

Legislation cited

Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972s. 40-A

Subjects

minority educational institutionappointment of teachersprior approvalno‑objection certificategrant‑in‑aidconstitutional rightsArticles 14, 19, 30Gujarat Secondary Education Act

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 272

A KOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA
v.
/
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7595 of 2004 Etc.)

OCTOBER 20, 2009
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19 and 30 - ..., ....
Minority educational institution - Appointment of teachers -:
c Necessity for prior approval of State- Held: Such requirement
does not amount to unconstitutional interference in the internal
working of the minority institution - Hence, not violative of
Articles 14, 19 and 30 as also s. 40-A of Secondary Education
Act - Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 - s. 40-A -
D Education/Educational Institution.
-+
Appellant-minority institution appointed teachers
without prior approval of the competent authority of
Education Department. The institution sought a relief that
their salaries should be paid as the institution was
E
admitted to 100% grant. Education Officer refused the
same. Appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed
by Single Judge of High Court: The order was further
confirmed by Division Bench of High Court in Letters r-
Patent Appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. There is no interference in the selection
process. It would be perfectly all right for a minority
G
institution tc select the candidates without any
interference from the Government. However, the
requirement of the prior approval is necessitated because - 1
it is for the Government to see as to whether there was
actually posts avaUable in the said institution as per the
H 272
-...
--
KOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA v. STATE OF 273
GUJARAT & ORS.

f strength of students and secondly; whether the A
candidates, who were sought to be appointed, were
having the requisite qualifications in terms of the rules
~
and regulations of the Education Department. It is not
correct to say th~t the Circular dated 6.1.1998 by which
the Government had provided that every minority B
institution should obtain the prior approval from the
competent authority to appoint the teachers would
.,, amount to interference in the internal administration of
minority institution. [Paras 5 and 6] [275-C-G]

2. From the stand taken by the State Government, it
c
is clear that all that the Government wants to examine is
as to whether the proposed appointments were within
the frame work of the rules considering the workload and
the availability of the post in that institution and, secondly;
~ D
whether the selected candidates had the necessary
qualifications for the subjects in which the said teachers
were appointed. The same applies to the non-teaching
staff also. [Para 7] [276-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E
7595 of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 7.4.2003 of the High
-~
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letter Patent Appeal Nos.
1183 of 2002 in Special Civil Application No. 8697 of 2002.
F
~
WITH

C.A. Nos. 7624-7625 of 2004.

Huzefa Ahmadi, Bina Madhavan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.)
G
for the Appellant.
.,...
I

Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents.

The Ju~gment of the Court was delivered by
H
v
--
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. In these appeals, the challenge
is to the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court dated "'
30.9.2003 and 7.4.2003 dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal
Nos. 529 of 2003 and 1183 of 2002 filed by the appellant <
herein.
B
2. The appellant herein is a minority institution and that is
an admitted fact. It challenged the order dated 12/13.8.2002
on the ground that the said order is violative of the provisions
of Articles 14,29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and is also ~ '
violative of Section 40A of the Gujarat Secondary Education
c Act, 1972. By that order, the District Education Officer, Bharuch
District, Bharuch had refused the permission to admit the
selected candidate in direct pay scheme for the purpose of
grant. It so happened that the appellant selected few candidates
and sought a relief that their salaries should be paid as the
D institution was admitted to 100% grant. The appellant admittedly
~
had not intimated the Department before making the selection
and proceeded to select the candidates without scrutiny of the
Education Department. This order was challenged before the
learned Single Judge.
E
3. Learned Single Judge, by orders dated 18.9.2002 &
11.3.2003 dismissed the Special Civil Application Nos. 8697
of 2002 and 1022 of 2003 respectively relying on the law laid
down by this Court and further relying on the circular dated ~"

F 6.10.1998 whereby it was obligatory on the part of minority
institutions to obtain prior approval from the State Government/
~
competent authority before making any new appointment. The t
said orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged befrv·::
the Division Bench which confirmed the said orders relying on
the "relevant circulars annexed with the petition". The view taken
G
by the Division Bench was that the no-objection certificate
insisted upon by the State Government was only with a view to
regulate recruitment process and, therefore, it could not be
+
contended that the said policy violated the constitutional
mandate for minority institutions.
H
...... ,.--.

KOLAWANA GRAM VIKAS KENDRA v. STATE OF 275
GUJARAT & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
4. The Division Bench observed that the minority institution A
f can regulate its own procedure for the purpose of imparting
education and managing the institution. However, for obtaining
Government aid and assistance by way of grant for the purpose
of schools, it was within the power of the government to put up
such conditions of insisting upon no-objection certificate. The B
orders passed by the Division Bench are in challenge before
us.
5. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned counsel appearing for the
i
appellant in his persuasive way tried to convince us that the
aforementioned circular by which the Government had provided c
that every minority institution should obtain the prior approval
from the competent authority to appoint the teachers would
amount to interference in the internal administration of minority
institution. We do not agree. All that the circular dated
6.10.1998 provides is that all the government aided educational D
institutions of the State such as Primary Schools, Middle
Schools, Higher Secondary Schools, Colleges, Sanskrit
Pathshalas, Sangeet Vidhyalaya etc. will not give effect to any
appointment in teaching and non-teaching post without prior
approval from the State Government or the competent authority. E
6. In our considered view, we do not view this to be the
interference in the selection process. It would be perfectly all
'+- right for a minority institution to select the candidates w~thout
any interference from the Government. However, the
requirement of this prior approval is necessitated because it F
is for the Government to see as to whether there was actually
posts available in the said institution as per the strength of
students and secondly; whether the candidates, who were
sought to be appointed, were having the requisite qualifications
in terms of the rul~s and regulations of the Education G
_._ Department. That is precisely the stand taken by the State of
Gujarat before us in its counter-affidavit. Para 3 of the said
affidavit reads as under:
"Minority institutions are free to select their teaching and
H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.} S.C.R.

A non-teaching staff. No Government Officer or the
representative of the Board was appointed in the selection
committee of the. minority institution. There is no
"
interference by the Government in the administration of the
schools. However,· N.O.C. is required to be obtained to
B verify whether there is a vacancy of a teacher of a particular
subject as per the workload fixed by the Gujarat Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education Board specially when the
government is providing grant-in-aid and that he possesses
minimum required qualification for the post he is
appointed.'.'
c
7. From the reading of aforementioned para 3, it is clear
that all that the Government wants to examine is as to whether
the proposed appointments were within the frame work of the
rules considering the workload and the availability of the post
in that institution and, secondly; whether the selected
D
candidates had the necessary qualifications for the subjects in
-+
which the said teachers were appointed. The same applies to
the non-teaching staff also.
8. In view of this clear stand taken by the State Government,
E we cannot pursue ourselves to hold that the aforementioned
circular amounts to any unconstitutional interference in the
internal working of the minority institution. In that view, we would
choose to dismiss these appeals. However, Mr. Ahmadi raised
another point saying that if the prior approval or the no-objection
F certificate, as the case may be, is not awarded within seven
days without any reason, then it would be hazardous for the
minority institution to run itself. We do expect the competent
a_uthority to issue the no-objection certificate within the ~:;11e
provided in the said circular which is of seven days. Of course,
if there are any objections, the authority will be justified to take
G
some more time within the reasonable limits.
9. With these observations, these appeals are dismissed. +
However, there shall be no order as to the costs.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
H