THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCYversusJAMES MATHEW & ORS.

4                              [2017] 6 S.C.R. 498


A         THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
                                          v.
                            JAMES MATHEW & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal Nos. 826-827 of 2017)
B                                  JULYII,2017
               [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
               Education/Educational institutions:
           Minority Institutions - Appointment of Headmaster -
   Appellant-Minority Institutions chose to appoint a teacher of their
 c choice belonging to their respective community to the post of
   Headmaster, ignoring the available senior teachers of the same
   community - High Court interfered with the same - Held:
   Management of a minority aided institution is free to appoint the
   Headmaster or the Principal as the case may be of its own choice
 D and has no obligation to appoint the available senior qualified
   member from the same community - Right u/Art.30(/) is absolute -
   Courts cannot go into the merits of the choice or rationality or
   propriety of the process of choice - Minority Institutions -
   Constitution of India - Art.30(1).

    E           Minority Institutions - Declaration of minority status - High
        Court held that declaration contained in certificate of Authority
        cannot have retrospective effect - Held: It is only declaration of
        existing status - Therefore, High Court's view was erroneous.
           Jzirtsdiction of National Commission for Minority
  Educational Institutions - High court held that declaration of
F
  minority status by National Commission is of no avail since
  appellant was an already existing institution and that certificate of
  Commission is meant for minority educational institutions to be newly
  established - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - After the---
  establishment of the National Commission for Minority Educational
G 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
  issues a certificate, it is a declaration of an existing status -
  National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004
H - s.2(ca).
                                    498
  THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY v. JAMES                  499
                    MATHEW & ORS.

       Allowing the appeals, the Court                                A
        HELD: 1. 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   B
rationality or propriety of the process of choice. In that regard,
the right under Article 30(1) is absolute. [Para 5] [503-G]
     Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and
     Others, (2007) 1 SCC 386: [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 644;
     TM A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8               c
     SCC 481; P.A. lnamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)
     6 SCC 537 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603; State of Kera/a
     v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial ( 1970) 2 SCC 417 :
     [1971] 1 SCR 734; The Ahmedabad St. Xavier s College
     Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717: (1975) 1
     SCR 173; Frank Anthony Public School Employees'                  D
     Association v. Union of India (1986) 4 SCC 707 :
     [1987] 1 SCR 238; 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 : [1980) 2 SCR               E
     924; St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi (1992)
     1 SCC 558 : [1991) 3 Suppl. SCR 121; Board of
     Secondary Education & Teachers Training v. Joint
     Director of Public Instructions (1998) 8 SCC 555 -
     relied on.
                                                                      F
       2. 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. [Para 6] [504-A-B]
       3. The Commission was established under the National
Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 for        G
the purpose of constituting the National Commission for Minority
Educational Institutions and to provide assistance for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. Chapter III deals with
rights of minority educational institutions. Under Section 10,
whosoever desires to establish a minority educational institution,
                                                                      H
500            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     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
B     the minorities. Under Section ll(f), the Commission has been
      vested with the power rather the mandate to decide all questions
      relating to the status of any institution as a minority educational
      institution and declare its status as such. Therefore, after the
      introduction of the Act, 2004, it is also within the jurisdiction and
      mandate of the National Commission to issue the certificate
C     regarding the status of a minority educational institution. Once,
      the Commission thus issues a certificate, it is a declaration of an
      existing status. [Paras 7-10] [504-F-H; 505-A-B; 506-A-B]
   THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY v. JAMES                          .501
                     MATHEW & ORS.


       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 826-                    A
827 of 2017.
        From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2014 of the High
.court ofKerala at Emakulam in WA No.568 and 580 of2013
                                   WITH                                        B
        C. A. No. 828 of. 2017.
        Romy Chacko, Subham Singh, Varun Mudgal, E.M.S. Anam,
Advs. for the Appellant.
        Prasanth P., C. K. Sasi, Ms. Venkita Subramoniam T. R., Rahat          c
Bansal, Advs. for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      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             D
teachers from the same community. The High Court interfered 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         E
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
                                                                               F
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           G
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.
                                                                               H
502             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 6 S.C.R.


A             4. We are afraid, the stand taken by the High Court cannot be
      appreciated. On all the three points, the 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 Secv.
B     Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and Others, reported
      in (2007) I SCC 386, after referring to all the celebrated cases on minority
      rights, viz. T MA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8
      SCC 481], P.A. lnamdar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC
      537], State of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincial [(1970) 2 SCC
      417}, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat
C     [(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
D     Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558], .V. Ammad v. Manage1; 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 thatthe Management ofa minority
      aided educational institution is free to appoint the Headmaster or the
      Principal, as the case maybe, of its own choice and has no obligation to
 E    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
            vita/facet of the right to administer the educational institution.
 F          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
G           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
H
  THEMANAGER,CORPORATEEDUCATIONALAGENCY v. JAMES                             503
              MATHEW & ORS. [KURIAN, J.]


      staff who belongs to the same minority community. It is                A
      contended that a minority institution cannot ignore the rights
      o( 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 o( its choice. But
      this contention ignores the position that the right o( the             B
      minority to select a Principal ofits choice is with reference to
      the assessment o( the persons 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 tor the posts. The career advancement prospects             C
      of the teaching staff. even those belonging to the same
      community. should have to vield to the right o(the management
      under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational
      institutions.
      29. Section 57(3) ofthe Act provides that the post of Principal D
      when filled by promotion is to be made on the basis o(seniority-
      cu m-fi tness. 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 o( the minority
                                                                       E
      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 supplied) F
         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,    G
the right under Article 30( I) 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 6741, has held that the certificate of the
                                                                             H
504             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 6 S.C.R.



A     declaration of minority status is only a declaration of an existing status.
      Therefore, there is no question ofavailability 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
B           in the Act which enables the Government to declare a school
            as a minority school. If so, a school which is otherwise a
            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:
c
              "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
 D           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
 E           only after the Government declared it as a minority school on
             2-8-1994. "
              7. We also have to refer tci another faulty stand taken by the
      High Court in the impugned Judgment regarding the jurisdiction of the
      National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. The
 F    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
 G    institutions. Under Section I 0, 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
 H    any educational institution of their choice by the minorities.
  THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY v. JAMES                          505
                MATHEW & ORS. [KURIAN, J.]


          9. Chapter IV deals with functions and powers of the                A
Commission. Under Section l l(f), the Commission has been vested
with the powerrather the mandate to decide all questions relating to the
status of any institution as a minority educational institution and declare
its status as such. Section I I of the Act is quoted hereunder :-
        "I I. Functions of Commission - Notwithstanding anything              B
        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 c
      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;                 D
      (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 E
      protection of educational rights of the minorities and
      recommend measures for their effective implementation;
      (<!) 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 ofanv institution
      as a Minoritv 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    ·G
       (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)
                                                                              H
506              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A               I 0. 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.
B
               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.


      Devika Gujral                                                 Appeals allowed.