Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Antonio Da Silva Technical High School and Junior College and its managing trust, challenged an order dated 21 February 2015 passed by the Director of Vocational Education & Training (Respondent No.3) refusing to grant approval for the appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The petitioners are a private, recognized, aided, minority educational institution and a registered public trust. The Director refused approval on the ground that the appointments were not made in accordance with Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules). The petitioners contended that these rules are not applicable to non-aided minority institutions, as they are entitled to administer their institutions without such regulatory interference under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The court agreed, noting that the MEPS Rules are regulatory and apply only to aided institutions. Since the petitioners are a non-aided minority institution, the rules do not apply. The court quashed the Director's order and directed Respondent No.3 to reconsider the approval application without applying the MEPS Rules. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Minority Educational Institutions - Applicability of MEPS Rules - Non-Aided Minority Institutions - The issue was whether Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 apply to non-aided minority institutions. The Court held that these rules are not applicable to non-aided minority institutions as they are regulatory in nature and would infringe upon the right to administer under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Director's order refusing approval was quashed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 apply to non-aided minority educational institutions for the purpose of granting approval to appointments.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 February 2015 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the application for approval of appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 without applying Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of the MEPS Rules. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Minority educational institutions
- Non-aided institutions
- MEPS Rules
- Appointment approval
- Right to administer
- Article 30(1) Constitution of India
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 104
WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2015
Anoop V. Mohta, V.L. Achliya
Mr. S.C. Naidu with Mr. T.R. Yadav, Mr. Rahul Tanwani and Mr. Aniketh Poojari i/by C.R. Naidu & Co. for the Petitioners, Ms. I.C. Calcuttawala, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
Dr. Antonio Da Silva Technical High School and Junior College & Dr. Antonio Da Silva Trust
State of Maharashtra & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order refusing to grant approval for appointment of teachers in a minority educational institution.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 21 February 2015 passed by Director of Vocational Education & Training and direction to grant approval for appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
Filing Reason
The Director refused approval on the ground that appointments were not made in accordance with Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of MEPS Rules, which the petitioners contended are not applicable to non-aided minority institutions.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 21 February 2015 passed by Respondent No.3 refusing approval.
Issues
Whether Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of the MEPS Rules apply to non-aided minority educational institutions for the purpose of granting approval to appointments.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the MEPS Rules are not applicable to non-aided minority institutions as they are entitled to administer their institutions without such regulatory interference under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Respondents argued that the rules apply to all private schools, including minority institutions.
Ratio Decidendi
Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of the MEPS Rules are not applicable to non-aided minority educational institutions as they are regulatory in nature and would infringe upon the right to administer under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
The order is mainly challenged on the ground that the authority concerned i.e. Respondent No.3 has erroneously considered that Rule 9(7) to 9(10) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, MEPS Rules), are also applicable in the matter of institution established, run and administered by non aided, minority institutions/trusts, as that of the Petitioners.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 February 2015 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the application for approval of appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 without applying Rules 9(7) to 9(10) of the MEPS Rules.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay challenging an order dated 21 February 2015 passed by the Director of Vocational Education & Training refusing to grant approval for appointment of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The petition was heard by a Division Bench and disposed of at the admission stage by consent.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rules 9(7) to 9(10)
- Constitution of India: Article 30(1)
