Teachers of Aided Colleges Can Join Political Organisations & Take Part In Election Activities; Not Bearers of 'Office Of Profit': Meghalaya HC
Quashing an amendment in the Aided College Employees Rules, the Meghalaya High Court on Monday ruled that employees of the educational institutes do not hold an Office of Profit, and if they satisfy the requisite conditions, they cannot be debarred from contesting elections or holding political office.Rejecting the argument that the government exercises deep and pervasive control over...
Quashing an amendment in the Aided College Employees Rules, the Meghalaya High Court on Monday ruled that employees of the educational institutes do not hold an Office of Profit, and if they satisfy the requisite conditions, they cannot be debarred from contesting elections or holding political office.
Rejecting the argument that the government exercises deep and pervasive control over the services of the aided institutions and their teachers, Justice H. S. Thangkhiew said:
"The power of appointment and removal of the petitioners' vest in the respective Governing Bodies of these Aided Colleges, and the only function that the government exercises is in the approval of such appointment and removal. There is no direct control of the government over the services of the petitioners."
The court further said the payment comes in the form of aid to the colleges and and there is no direct remuneration from the government to the teachers.
"The Governing Body of these Aided Colleges, being governed by the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 (as amended), function autonomously in administering the colleges, and the role of the government is limited only to deciding appeals, preferred by a Governing Body against an order of the Director of Public Instruction or by an employee against an order of a Governing Body. [Rule 12(1) and (2)]," the bench said.
The court further said that the teachers do not do not discharge any governmental function, nor does the government exercise any control over their activities, or over the functions of the Governing Body. The degree of control vests the Governing Bodies with great autonomy in the administration of the colleges, it added.
"The participation in political activities by the petitioners on being elected to public office, will not give rise to any conflict between the duties and the interest thereof, as they are not under direct government control, as regards, the post they are holding in Aided Colleges," said the court.
The judgement has been passed on the petition filed by assistant professors of various government-aided colleges, challenging an amendment to the Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 that disallowed them from holding office in any political organization or local bodies, or taking part in any election activities.
The counsel representing the petitioners contended that the decision to bar them was arrived at without any considered opinion being taken into account, especially when the draft State Education Policy did not find mention of any such prohibition.
It was argued that the bar is violative of the right to contest elections and that only such restrictions, which are reasonable and non-arbitrary could be imposed on their right. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Rajbala and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 445.
The petitioners also argued that employees in aided government educational institutions are not holding an 'Office of Profit.' The constitutional bar of 'Office of Profit' is not applicable to them since they are rendering their services under and receiving their salaries from the Governing Body of the College, the court was told.
The State, on the other hand, contended that it exercises pervasive control over the services of all the teachers of government aided educational institutions as their appointment and termination are subject to government approval.
The Advocate General also contended that the service of the petitioners falls within the meaning of 'Office of Profit' and therefore they are ineligible to take part in political activities.
The Court said a division bench of Gauhati High Court in the State of Meghalaya vs. Dr. B.J. Bhattacharjee has held that the Aided College teachers are not Government servants.
It further said policy decision, which culminated in the impugned amendment, is directed only against teachers serving in government aided college or university.
"The arguments put up by the respondents that, the impugned amendments are as per the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981, is misplaced, inasmuch as, the Meghalaya School Education Act, deals specifically with schools, and has no bearing on aided private colleges. The entire defense put up, by way of the affidavit by placing reliance on the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981, is therefore, not taken into consideration and is disregarded," the court said.
The court also said impugned notification amends only the portion of the Aided College Employees Rules, 1960, dealing only with the Conduct and Discipline of the employees of aided educational institutions, as given therein.
"A conjoint reading therefore of Clause 7.4.3, of the stated policy and the impugned notification dated 23.03.2021, clearly displays that the amendment is specifically directed only against the teachers of aided colleges and universities," it added.
Case Title: Shri Brightstarwell Marbaniang and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
Citation: WP(C) No. 229 of 2022
Coram: Justice H. S. Thangkhiew
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 48