Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Taslim Maulana Rampure and Sanober Rafique Ahmed Mujawar, were appointed as 'Shikshan Sevak' on 2 May 2011 by Respondent No. 4, Sarvoday Krida Va Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a religious minority institution. The management sent a proposal to Respondent No. 1, the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur, for grant of approval of the appointment. When the proposal was not decided, the petitioners approached the Bombay High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2015. The Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated 8 May 2015, directed the Education Officer to consider the proposal. By the impugned communication dated 7 July 2015, the Education Officer rejected the proposal on the ground that the management had failed to absorb surplus teachers. The petitioners challenged this rejection. The petition was withdrawn in respect of Petitioner No. 2, so the Court only considered the case of Petitioner No. 1. The Court noted that it was not in dispute that Respondent No. 4 is a religious minority institution. The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, relying on the decision of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3707 of 2013 (Parbhani Education Society v. State of Maharashtra), which held that the requirement to absorb surplus teachers does not apply to religious minority institutions. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as Shikshan Sevak within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Minority Institution - Appointment of Shikshan Sevak - Religious minority management not bound to absorb surplus teachers before appointing new staff - The Education Officer rejected the proposal for approval of appointment on the ground that the management failed to absorb surplus teachers. The Court held that the requirement to absorb surplus teachers does not apply to religious minority institutions, as they have the right to administer their institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The impugned order was quashed and the Education Officer was directed to grant approval. (Paras 5-6) B) Constitutional Law - Right of Minorities - Article 30(1) - Administration of Educational Institutions - Religious minority institutions have the right to appoint teachers of their choice without being compelled to absorb surplus teachers from other institutions. The Court relied on the decision in Parbhani Education Society v. State of Maharashtra to hold that the condition of absorbing surplus teachers is not applicable to minority institutions. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Education Officer can reject the proposal for grant of approval of appointment of a Shikshan Sevak in a religious minority institution on the ground that the management failed to absorb surplus teachers.
Final Decision
The impugned communication dated 7 July 2015 is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer, Respondent No.1, is directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Religious minority institutions are exempt from the requirement to absorb surplus teachers before appointing new staff
- Right of religious minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India
- Applicability of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977 to minority institutions
