Email
Print
ShareNew Delhi:
The Supreme Court (SC) said the states' power to interfere in the monitoring of aided minority institutions was not unconstitutional as any restriction on recruitment imposed by it does not disturb the character of the institute.
Though Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees special rights to minority communities to set up and administer their own educational institutions without governmental interference, it must take prior sanction from the government for making any recruitment. "We do not see this to be an interference in the selection process. It would be perfectly all right for a minority institution to select the candidates without any interference from the government,'' a bench of justices VS Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma said.
"However, prior approval is necessary because the government has to ensure whether the institution had vacant posts and whether the chosen candidates had the requisite qualifications," the judges said.
A Gujarat-based Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra had challenged the state's order (August 12, 2002) on the ground that itviolatedthe provisions of Articles 14,29 and 30 of the Constitutionand also defied Section 40A of the Gujarat Secondary EducationAct, 1972. The order, passed by the Bharuch district education officer, had denied permission to admit a candidate under a direct pay scheme.
It so happened that the institute had selected a few candidates and sought a relief on their salaries under a 100% grant. The Gujarat government said a minority institution is free to select itsteaching and non-teaching staff. No government officer or representative of the board is appointed in the selection committee of the minority institution. There is no interference by the government in the administration of the schools. However, a no objection certificate (NOC) is required from the government to verify whether there is a vacancy for a teacher in a particular subject as per the workload fixed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board.
Taking note of the government's stand, the bench said, "We cannot pursue ourselves to hold that the aforementioned circular amounts to any unconstitutional interference in the internal working of the minority institution.''
Institute's counsel Hufeza Ahmadi raised another contention that if the prior approval or the NOC, as the case may be, is not awarded within seven days, the minority institution would find it difficult to function.
