Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hussain Khan, was a senior lecturer at Shah Babu Urdu Jr. College, Patur, which is a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution. Upon the retirement of Head Master M.H. Kabir on 30 June 1992, the management appointed Respondent No. 2, Syed Ishaqe Syed Nabi, as the new head master. The petitioner, being the senior-most teacher, claimed he was entitled to be promoted to the post. The management invoked Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977, which allows minority institutions to appoint the head of the school by nomination without following the procedure under Section 3(1). The petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act, which was dismissed on 18 December 1992. The Tribunal held that the school is a minority institution and the management has the inherent right to appoint the head of the school as per its choice, and the appointment of Respondent No. 2 by nomination was valid. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court considered the admitted facts and the provisions of the Act. The court noted that Section 3(2) of the Act expressly provides that nothing in Section 3(1) shall apply to a minority institution, and the management may appoint the head of the school by nomination. The court found that the School Tribunal had correctly applied the law and dismissed the appeal. The High Court held that the petitioner had no right to be promoted as head master in a minority institution, and the management's right to appoint by nomination is protected under Article 30 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Minority Institution - Appointment of Head of School - Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 - The management of a minority institution has the right to appoint the head of the school by nomination under Section 3(2), overriding the mandate of Section 3(1) which requires following seniority. The court held that the School Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal of the senior teacher challenging the appointment of another person as head master, as the minority institution's right under Article 30 of the Constitution is protected by Section 3(2). (Paras 1-5)
B) Education Law - Seniority - Promotion - Section 3(1) of MEPS Act, 1977 - A senior teacher in a minority institution does not have a vested right to be promoted as head master, as the management can appoint any person of its choice by nomination under Section 3(2). The court held that the petitioner's claim of supercession was not valid in law. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a minority institution is bound by the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 regarding appointment of head of school, or whether it can exercise its right under Section 3(2) to appoint by nomination.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the School Tribunal. The court held that the minority institution's right to appoint the head of the school by nomination under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977 is valid and the petitioner has no right to be promoted as head master. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Minority institution's right to appoint head of school by nomination under Section 3(2) of MEPS Act
- 1977
- Section 3(2) of MEPS Act
- 1977 overrides Section 3(1) for minority institutions
- senior teacher has no right to promotion to head post in minority institution
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (05) 36
Writ Petition No. 542 of 1993
Shri Z. A. Haq for petitioner, Shri Anoop Parihar AGP for Respondent No. 3, 4 & 6
Hussain Khan S/o Haji Kale Khan
Shah Babu Education Society, Patur through its Secretary, Shri Syed Ishaqe Syed Nabi, The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Akola, The Deputy Director of Education, Amravati, The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati & Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, The State of Maharashtra through The Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Bombay-32
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal dismissing the appeal of a senior teacher against the appointment of another person as head master in a minority institution.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the appointment of Respondent No. 2 as head master and to be promoted to the post himself.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, being the senior-most teacher, claimed he was entitled to be promoted as head master upon the retirement of the previous head master, but the management appointed another person by nomination under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 18 December 1992, holding that the minority institution has the right to appoint the head of the school by nomination.
Issues
Whether the minority institution's right under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977 to appoint the head of the school by nomination overrides the seniority-based promotion under Section 3(1).
Whether the petitioner, as a senior teacher, has a right to be promoted as head master in a minority institution.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was the senior-most teacher and should have been promoted as head master, and the management's action of appointing Respondent No. 2 was illegal and amounted to supercession.
The respondents argued that the institution is a minority institution and under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act, the management has the right to appoint the head of the school by nomination, and the provisions of Section 3(1) do not apply.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 expressly exempts minority institutions from the application of Section 3(1), allowing them to appoint the head of the school by nomination. This right is protected under Article 30 of the Constitution. A senior teacher in a minority institution does not have a vested right to be promoted as head master.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition proceeds on admitted facts which are as follows : (a) Respondent no.1 is a Minority Institution as contemplated by Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
The Management took recourse to Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977, claiming that it has a privilege to appoint the Head of the School by not following the mandate contained in sub section 1 of Section 3.
The School Tribunal recorded the finding in para No.9 which reads as follows : ... the respondent school is a minority school, established and administered by the Minority Community based on religion and the respondent management has inherent right to appoint the Head of their School as per their choice.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9(1)(b) of the MEPS Act, 1977, which was dismissed on 18 December 1992. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was reserved on 26 April 2006 and delivered in May 2006.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977: 3(1), 3(2), 9(1)(b)
