Supreme Court of India
VLRENDRA NATH GUPTA AND ANR.versusDELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1990 INSC 72
- Decided
- 2 March 1990
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K N SINGH
Holding
The management acted within its constitutional right under Articles 29 and 30; the appointment of the Vice‑Principal was valid.
Summary
Two teachers of the Kerala Education Society Senior Secondary School, a Delhi‑aided linguistic‑minority institution, challenged the appointment of T.N. Vishwanathan Nair as Vice‑Principal. The school had advertised the post requiring a Master’s degree, teaching experience and the ability to speak and write Malayalam, a qualification the appellants lacked. They argued that the post was a promotional one and could not be filled by direct recruitment, that the Malayalam requirement was added malafide, and that the candidate did not meet the second‑division degree criterion. The Supreme Court held that the Delhi School Education Rules permit direct recruitment when promotion is not possible, that the second‑division requirement may be relaxed for candidates of the same school, and that a linguistic‑minority institution may prescribe knowledge of its language as an essential qualification under Articles 29 and 30. Consequently, the appointment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appointment of the Vice‑Principal by direct recruitment violated the Delhi School Education Rules.
- Whether the requirement of knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification is permissible for a linguistic‑minority aided school.
- Whether relaxation of the second‑division degree requirement is allowed under the Rules.
- Whether the appointment infringed the constitutional rights under Articles 29 and 30.
Legislation cited
- Delhi School Education Act, 1973s. 8(1)
- Delhi School Education Rules, 1973s. Annexure B, s. Rule 100
- Societies Registration Act, 1960
Subjects
Minority rightsArticles 29 and 30Linguistic minority institutionAided schoolAppointment qualificationMalayalam language requirementDirect recruitment vs promotionConstitutional law
Judgment
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.
c
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: D
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. E
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 F
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 G
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 H
805
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 language and as
G Malayalam is a compulsory subject for students upto Vth standard and
it is an optional snbject for Vlth to Xllth standard. In the circum-
stance it is not only proper but desirable that the incumbent holding
the office of Principal or Vice-Principal being administrative in nature
should have knowledge of speaking and writing Malayalam. [812B] ,
•
H The management of the institution acted within its right in pre-
V.N. GUPTA v. DELHI ADMN. [SINGH, J.] 807
scribing an additional essential qualification regarding knowledge of
A
Malayalam and no exceptional can be taken to the same as it is the
constitutional right of the linguistic minority to insist on the knowledge,
of the language, on the basis of which the linguistic minority is
recognised. [812C)
The Kera/a Education Bill, 1957 Reference under Article 143 of B
the Constitution, [1959) SCR 995; The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers Collel!e
Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., [1975) 1SCR173; Lilly
-
Kurian v.Sr. Lewina and Ors., [1979) 1 SCR 820; Frank Anthony
Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India & Ors., [1986)
4, SCC. 707; Mrs. Y. Theclamma v. Union oflndia and Ors., [1987) 2
SCC 516 and All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar,
[1988] 1sec206.
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3678
of 1984.
From The Judgment and Order dated 5.1.1982 of the Delhi High D
Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2923 of 1981.
R.B. Dattar, S. Wasim Qadi for the Appellants.
V.C. Mahajan, K.K. Venugopal, G. Viswanatha Iyer, R.B.
Mishra, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. Baby Krishnan, C.B. Vaidyanathan, E
K.V. Mohan, Dilip Pillai, P. Kesava Pillai and N. Sudhakaran for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
i SINGH, J. The two appellants, S/Sh. Virendra Nath Gupta and F
Mohammad Aslam Kidwai are teachers in the Kerala Education
Society Senior Secondary School, New Delhi. They challenged the
appointment of T.N. Vishwanathan Nair, respondent No. 5 as Vice-
. Principal of the Institution by means of a writ petition before the Delhi
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High
Court by its order dated January 5, 1982 dismissed the petition in G
limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.
The Kerala Education Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Society') is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
XXI of 1960. The Society is running the Kerala Education Society
Senior Secondary School in New Delhi. The Delhi Administration as H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R.
A well as the Education Authorities have recognised the Institution as a
linguistic minority school. The Institution is aided and recognised by
the Delhi Administration. The objects of the Society are: (i) to pro-
vide facility for the education of children in the Union Territory of
Delhi by making provision for suitable institutions; (ii) to promote the
study of Malayalam. A sizable number of persons belonging to State of
I? Kerala who speak Malayalam are residents in Delhi and they consti-
tute a linguistic minority. The Malayalees have their own language,
script and culture, and in order to preserve the same they established
the Institution which is administered by the linguistic minority, with the
primary purpose of promoting the study of Malayalam and also for
preserving their culture, dance, music and other Kerala Arts. Teach-
C ing of Malayalam in the aforesaid Institution is compulsory from Clas-
ses I to V, as the medium of instruction is Malayalam. However,
Malayalam is an optional subject in VI to XII standard. The school has
1700 students and more than 60% of parents and guardians belong to
the lower income group of Malayalam speaking community.
D The Institution is regulated by the provisions of the Delhi School
Education Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules
framed thereunder, namely, Delhi School Education Rules 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) One post of Vice-Principal was
created in the Institution in the pay scale of Rs.650-1200 with effect
from 1.10.1980. In March, 1981 a Departmental Promotion Commit-
E tee (hereinafter referred to as DPC) was constituted to make selection
for appointment to the post of Vice-Principal in accordance with the
recruitment rules made under Section 8(1) of the Act read with Rule
100 of the Rules issued on 25.2.1980 and published in the Delhi gazette
Extraordinary dated 7.4.1980. The DPC made selection from amongst
the teachers of the Institution to fill up the post of Vice-Principal by
F promotion in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. The DPC recom-
mended the'name of T.N. Vishwanathan Nair, respondent No. 5 for
promotion to the post of Vice-Principal although he did not fall within
the zone of consideration as he was junior to the appellants at SI. No.
10 in the seniority list. The Management of the Institution accepted
the recommendation of the DPC and forwarded papers to the Director
G of Education for approval. Meanwhile, the appellants made represen-
tation to the Director of Education against the selection and appoint-
ment of respondent No. 5. The Director of Education rejected the
Management's proposal and refused to approve the selection and
appointment of respondent No. 5 on the ground that he did not fall
within the zone of consideration according to the Rules and further he
H did not possess the essential qualification of five years' experience as
V.N. GUPTA v. DELHI ADMN. [SINGH, J.[ 809
Post Graduate Teacher as required by the Recruitment Rules. Since
A
no suitable candidate was available for promotion within the zone of
consideration the Director of education permitted the Managing Com-
mittee to advertise the post for filling the same by direct recruitment.
Thereafter, advertisement was published on 24.9.1981 inviting appli-
cations for the post of Vice-Principal. The advertisement stated the
essential qualifications being Master's Degree with second division, B
five years' teaching experience as Post Graduate Teacher or ten years'
teaching experience as Trained Graduate Teacher, and also ability to
speak and write Malayalam. Since the knowledge of Malayalam was
-
prescribed as an essential qualification, the appellants were not eligi-
ble for selection or appointment as they could not speak or write
Malayalam. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee
respondent No. 5 was appointed as a direct recruit to the post of c
Vice-Principal and the Directorof Education approved his appointment.
---- Learned counsel f!;Jr the appellants assailed the validity of the
appointment of respondent No. 5 on three grounds; (i) since under the
Rules post of Vice-Principal was a promotional post, no direct recruit- D
ment was permissible; (ii) respondent No. 5 did not possess the essen-
tial qualification of Master's Degree in second division; (iii) the Man-
agement malafide introduced knowledge of Malayalam as an essential
qualification with a view to favour respondent No. 5 and to oust the
appellants even though the Rules did not permit knowledge of
Malayalam as an essential qualification. We will deal with these sub- E
missions in seriatim.
There is no dispute that the recruitment/appointment to the post
of Vice-Principal in the Government aided schools and recognised
schools in the Union Territory of Delhi is regulated by the Rules
published on 7.4.1980, a copy of which has been placed before us, F
framed under Section 8(1) of the Act read with Rule 100. Since the
Institution is an aided and recognised school the aforesaid Rules were
applicable for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Vice-Principal.
According to the Rules recruitment to the post of Vice-Principal is to
be made by selection. The Rules prescribe educational and other qual-
ifications. The Rules provide that the post of Vice-Principal should be G
filled by promotion failing which by direct recruitment as stated in Col.
8 of Annexure B to the Rules. As noticed earlier the Management
macle attempt to fill the post of promotion and the DPC had con-
sidered the case of teachers of the Institution for promotion to the post
of Vice-Principal and it recommended respondent No. 5, but the same
was not approved by the Director of Education. The selection Com- ff
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.
mittee, had considered the appellants also but it did not find them
·A
suitable for promotion, instead it recommended respondent No. 5 for
promotion but the recommendation of the Selection Committee was
not approved by the Director of Education. The Director of Education
by his letter dated 2.5.1981 directed the Management of the Institution
to fill the post by direct recruitment. Pursuant to that direction the
B Management issued advertisement for making the recruitment. The
Rules thus contain express provision for direct recruitment to the post
of Vice-Principal and as such we find no merit in the submission made
on behalf of the appellants. ·
...
'
Admittedly, respbndent No. 5 did not possess Master's Degree
C in second divisior, which was an essential qualification but Column
No. 5 to Annexure B to the Rules which prescribes essential qualifica-
tions, states: "Condition of second division relaxable in case of candi-
dates belonging to the same school and also in case of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes." The Rules further contain a note; "Compe-
tent authority may relax the essential qualifications in exceptional
D cases of the candidates of the same school, afte.r recording reasons
therefor". The Selection Committee as well as the competent autho-
-
rity granted relaxation to respondent No. 5 as he belonged to the same
school. Further he had ten years' experience as Trained Graduate
Teacher and as such he was eligible for direct recruitment under the
Rules. The appellant's plea that since the Management was interested
E in appointing respondent No. 5 to the post of Vice-Principal, it
manipulated to get his selection made for appointment to the said
post, is without any foundation. The Selection Committee consisted
five members out of which three were representatives of the Education
Department appointed by the Director of Education. The Selection
Committee made the selection in accordance with the Rules and found
F respondent No. 5 suitable for appointment to the said post. In this
view there is no merit in the second submission made on behalf of the
· appellants.
The third submission made on behalf of the appellants is that the
additional essential qualification regarding knowledge of Malayalam
G was prescribed in contravention of the Rules and this was done with a
view to oust the appellants who were the senior teachers fully equip-
ped with other essential qualifications for appointment to the post of
Vice-Principal. While considering this question we cannot over-look
the fact that the Institution is a linguistic minority institution, its object
is to.promote the study of Malayalam and to promote and preserve
H Malayalee dance, culture and art. Article 29 of the Constitution of
V.N. GUPTA v. DELHI ADMN. (SINGH. J.) 811
India guarantees right of linguistic minorities having a distinct
language, script and culture of their own and, it also protects their A
right to conserve the same. Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees
the right of minorities· whether based on religion or language to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. A
linguistic minority has not only the right to establish and administer
edu~ational institution of its choice, but in addition to that it has B
further constitutional right to conserve its language, script and culture.
In exercising this right a linguistic minority may take steps for the
purpose of promoting its language, script or culture and in that process
-
it may prescribe additional qualification for teachers employed in its
institution. The rights conferred on linguistic minority under Articles
29 and 30 cannot be taken away by any law made by the Legislature or
by rule made by executive authorities. However, the Management of a c
minority institution has no right to mal-administer the institutiou, and
it is permissible to the State to prescribe syllabus, curriculum of study
and to regulate the appointment and terms and conditions of teachers
with a view to maintain a minimum standard of efficiency in the educa-
tional institutions. This is the consistent view of this Court, as held in a D
number of decisions where the scope and extent of minority's right to
manage its institutions were considered. See "In Re The Kera/a Educa-
tion Bill, 1957.. Reference under Article 143( I) of the Constitution of
India, (1959] SCR 995; The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society &
Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (1975] 1 SCR 173; Lilly Kurian v. Sr.
Lewina and Ors., (1979] 1 SCR 820; Frank Anthony Public School E
-- Employees' Association v. Union of India & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 707;
Mrs. -Y. Theclamma v. Union of India & Ors., (1987] 2 SCC 516 and
All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar, [1988] 1 SCC
206. Though minority's right under Articles 29 and 30 is subject to the
regulatory power of the State, but regulatory power cannot be exer-
cised to impair the minority's right to conserve its language, script or F
culture while administering the educational institutions. An institution
set up by the religious or linguistic minority is free to manage its affairs
without any interference by the State but it 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 reci-
pient of Government aid, it is subject to the regulatory provisions
made by the State. But these regulatory provisions cannot destroy the
basic right of minority institutions as embodied under Article 29 and
30.
The Kerala Education Society is a recognised and aided institu-
tion, it is subject to the regulatory provisions contained in the Delhi H
,-
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.
School Education Act 1973 and the Rules made thereunder. The ques-
A
tion is whether the Management of the Institution could validly pre-
scribe knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification for the
post of Vice-Principal. Admittedly, the Institution is for promotion of
Malayalam language and as Malayalam is compulsory for students
upto Vth standard and it is one of the optional subjects from Vlth to
B Xllth standard, it is not only proper but desirable that the incumbent
holding the office of Principal or Vice-Principal being administrative in
nature should have knowledge of speaking and writing Malayalam.
The requirement of knoweldge of Malayalam is closely connected with
-
the right of the linquistic minority to subserve its script, language and
culture. The Management of the Institution acted within its right in
prescribing an additional essential qualification regarding knowledge
c of Malayalam and no exception can be taken to the same as it is the
constitutional right of the linguistic minority to insist on the knowledge
of the language, on the basis of which the linguistic minority is recog-
nised. The provisions of the Act and the Rules are subject to the
guarantees of constitutional rights of the minorities' institutions. In
D our opinion, the Management acted within its constitutional right in
insisting the knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification for
the post of Vice-Principal. The Education Department of Delhi
Administration did not raise any objection to the Management's
action; on the other hand, the Selection Committee constituted by the
Director of Education made its recommendation on the basis of the
E qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and the Director of
Education approved the appointment of respondent No. 5. In this view
we find no merit in the appellants' submission that the knowledge of
Malayalam was prescribed ma/a fide with a view to oust them from
consideration. ~-
In view of the above discussion we find no legal infirmity in the
F
appointment of respondent 'No. 5 as Vice-Principal. It appears that
during the pendency of the appeal a vacancy arose in the post of
Principal to which respondent No. 5 was promoted. Consequently
there was a vacancy in the post of Vice-Principal to which K.D.
Antony, another teacher of the School was appointed. The appellants
filed an application for impleading K.D. Antony to the appeal but no
G
relief was claimed against him. The application for impleading K.D.
Antony is accordingly rejected.
The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
H Y. Lal Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Minority rights"Sign in to search