Appointments To Aided Minority Institutions Can't Be Restricted To Any Particular Caste Or Religion: Madras High Court

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that when the institution was receiving funds from the state exchequer, the principles of secularism demanded that the appointment process be open to all.

“To say that only a candidate of a particular religious denomination is entitled to apply for a post runs counter to constitutional morality. When the salary is paid out of the State exchequer, the elementary principles of secularism demand that the process of appointment is thrown open to all eligible candidates,” the court said.

The court was hearing a challenge made to the appointment of teachers and correspondents to the educational institutions run by the Tirunelveli Diocese. The petitioner, Manohar Thangaraj, who was the treasurer of the diocese argued that the Rt. Rev. Bishop was taking advantage of the situation regarding the administration of the diocese and unilaterally appointing correspondents and teachers.

The Bishop opposed the petition and argued that the manager and the correspondents of the school were appointing teachers based in the diocesan seniority list. It was further argued that the power to appoint teachers is vested with the correspondents who have not been made respondents in the present case. Thus, it was argued that the present litigation fails for non-joinder of parties and since Thangaraj had no locus standi.

The court however overruled the objections raised by the Bishop. On perusing the documents, the court observed that the correspondents were under the Bishop. The court also noted a circular issued by the Bishop inviting candidates to fill up the vacancies in the teaching post. Thus, the court noted that Thangaraj was justified in apprehending that the recruitment drive was afoot.

The court added that though minority institutions had an autonomy in administration, it could not dispense with the requirement to act fairly and transparently. The court held that it could exercise its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution if there was a violation of right of an individual eligible candidate.

The court added that the state was paying the teacher's salary only with the expectation that the institution will produce students of caliber. The court noted that minority institutions could not fall below the standard of excellence of other institutions under the guise of exclusive management and though the management must be left to them, the institution must be compelled to step up with others.

The court observed that the right of the institutions to receive grant from the government is coupled with the obligation to appoint competent teachers and this obligation could be discharged only if there is a wide choice of candidates. The court thus held that the appointment of candidates from the diocese list would not be good for the administration.

Thus, holding the appointment process to be discriminatory, the court allowed the petition. The court directed the diocese to notify the vacancies so that every eligible candidate irrespective of religion, caste, and other denominational background could apply.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader, Mr.V.Prabhakar, Senior Counsel for K.K.Udayakumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

Case Title: Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others

Case No: WP(MD)No.15201 of 2024