Madras High Court Seeks State's Response In Plea Challenging Recruitment Of Only Hindus In HR&CE Educational Institutions

The Madras High Court on Friday sought State government's response in a plea questioning the appointment of only Hindus to teaching as well as non-teaching posts at educational institutions run by the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE).

The petition had been filed by one A. Suhail who had applied for the post of office assistant at the Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College at Kolathur in Chennai. He contended that teaching and non-teaching posts had no relation with religious functions and hence everyone irrespective of their religion must be permitted to apply for the posts.

Justice C. Saravana on Friday directed the HR&CE Department to file a detailed counter affidavit within 2 weeks.

Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram argued before the Court that pursuant to Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act of 1959, only Hindus could be appointed to teaching as well as non-teaching posts in educational institutions fully funded by the HR&CE Department. This is because Section 10 mandates that every officer or servant appointed to carry out the purpose of the Act must be a person profession the Hindu religion and that he/she would cease to hold office if they fail to profess Hinduism.

On the contrary, the petitioner submitted that Section 10 of the Act does not prevent non-Hindus from being appointed as teaching staff or other staff of the college since the posts do not include any duty concerning religion.

"The present government is being criticised by Hindu fundamentalist that the government is Anti-Hindu and in order to avoid such criticism, the respondents have decided to appoint only Hindus in the 3rd respondent college in order to spread Hindutva ideology much against the principles of Dravidian movement and saying of Periyar, Anna, Kalaignar who never encouraged the Hindutva. I state that Article 228 of the Constitution of India does not permit religious instruction in the educational institution", the petitioner further averred.

It was further pointed out by the petitioner that Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment without any discrimination on the ground of religion. Article 16(5) permits appointment of people professing faith in a particular religion only to offices connected to the affairs of a religious institution. That is, a Muslim could not be appointed as a temple priest and a Hindu could not be appointed as a Moulvi.

However, such an exemption to the fundamental right to equality of opportunity would not be applicable while appointing people for faculty and non-faculty positions at educational institutions run by religious institutions, the petitioner further stated.

"Article 16(5) will not be applicable for the appointment of an Office Assistant in the 3rd respondent educational institution. The above Article 16 (5) will not be applicable for the appointment of an Office Assistant in the 3rd respondent educational institution. The above Article 16(5) will be applicable only for the appointment in the Hindu Religious institution or denominational institution or the governing body of the Hindu Religious institution and not for the college to be run by the 3rd respondent. I state that the 3rd respondent is not a religious institution. It is only educational institution governed by educational code", the plea further averred.

It was further submitted that administering an educational institution is a 'secular activity' and not a religious activity and thus the respondents cannot reap the benefit of Articles 25 (freedom to profess any religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution.

Thus, the petitioner sought the Court's leave to quash the recruitment notification issued by the Kolathur college on October 13 calling only Hindu candidates to appear for a walk-in interview for the posts of assistant professor, physical director, librarian, assistant, junior assistant, office assistant, watchman, cleaner and sweeper on October 18.

He also mentioned in the plea that he was unable to approach the Court before the conduct of the interview since the court was closed for Dussehra vacation.

Case Title: A Suhail v. State of Tamil Nadu