Article 30 | Minority Aided Institutions Free To Appoint Qualified Principal From Minority Community, Courts Can't Interfere: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court today observed that once the management of a Minority Educational Institution makes a "conscious choice" of appointing a qualified person from the "Minority community" to lead the said institution either as a Vice Principal or Principal, then the Court cannot go into merits of such a choice or rationality or propriety of the process of choice.

Adding that the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is absolute in this regard, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh further observed:

"Every linguistic minority may have its own social, economic and cultural limitations. It has a constitutional right to conserve such culture and language. Thus, it would also have a right to choose teachers, who possess the eligibility and qualifications, as provided, without really being influenced by the fact of their religion and community and the same can be done by the process defined by the school management."

"Linguistic and cultural compatibility can be legitimately claimed as one of the desirable features of a linguistic minority in relation to selection of eligible and qualified teachers."

The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea challenging the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 19th December 2013, vide which a Vice Principal of Nutan Marathi Senior Secondary School namely Shubhada Bapat was appointed. The school is a government aided school under the Directorate of Education, governed by the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.

The Petitioner namely Birpal Singh was appointed by the Selection Committee for the post of PGT (Maths) in the school on 15th July, 1994.

On 10th December, 2009, the post of the Vice Principal fell vacant, as the then Vice Principal was promoted to the post of Principal. From December 2009 to May 2011, the post of the Vice Principal was laying vacant. During this period, the Petitioner sent letters, representations, and reminders to the school's management to promote him to the said post. However, no decision was taken.

On 16th May, 2011, the office of the Directorate of Education sent a letter to the school directing it to conduct the D.P.C. for the post of Vice Principal with effect from December 2009.

In January 2012, a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner before High Court, wherein he challenged the conduct of the school in not holding the D.P.C. for three years and praying that the school holds the D.P.C. from 10th December 2009, when the post of Vice Principal fell vacant.

On 27th January, 2012, the school conducted D.P.C. meeting and the name of one Binu Chaudhary was recommended for the post of Vice-Principal. However, the appointment was rejected with retrospective effect as not being in accordance with the Recruitment rules. The said communication was also challenged in the High Court by way of a different petition.

Both the pleas were rejected vide a common judgment and the school was directed to conduct a fresh D.P.C. within a period of six weeks for the post of Vice Principal with effect from December, 2009. LPA against the said judgment was also dismissed in the year 2016.

Pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the School conducted a fresh D.P.C and Bapat was appointed as Vice Principal. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner sought quashing of the minutes of D.P.C.

While the school took a stand that it was a "Linguistic Minority Institution", the petitioner vehemently opposed the same. On the other hand, the affidavit filed by Directorate of Education clarified that the institution was listed as a "Linguistic Minority Institution" in its list of recognized institutions as Linguistic Minority.

The case of School was that being a Minority Institution, it was entitled to appoint its own teachers dehors the procedure applicable to other institutes governed by the Rules. It claimed to be a "Linguistic Minority Institution" in the backdrop that Marathi speaking community is a linguistic minority in Delhi.

"The rights of Minority Institutions are protected under various specialized legislations and are also backed by assurance of enforcement. Being part of their rudimentary rights, the rights of Minority Institution are invested with sanctity and a position higher than that of the ordinary law and, consequently every legal provision or executive action must conform to the mandates implied for the welfare of the community," the Court said.

The Court found no illegality in the notification dated 4th September, 2001 issued by the Directorate of Education, Delhi Government recognizing the School as "Linguistic Minority Institution".

"It is right to conclude that decision of appointment of a teacher is part of the regular administration and management of the school. A linguistic minority is entitled to conserve its language and culture by constitutional mandate," the Court said.

The Court also observed that management of a minority aided school is free to choose any person as the staff or the Head of the institution, provided he or she fulfils the qualification laid down by the State.

"As per the discussions above, the Respondent School is "Linguistic Minority Institution" and therefore, the selection of Vice Principal made by the School is not contrary to the settled law. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere in the impugned D.P.C. held on19th December, 2013," the Court said.

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: BIRPAL SINGH v. NUTAN MARATHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 834

Click Here To Read Order