1980 (2) TMI 264 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Invalidates Sections of Educational Institutions Control Act; Upholds Others.

ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL Versus GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL Versus GOVERNMENT OF A.P. - 1980 AIR 1042, 1980 (2) SCR 924, 1980 (2) SCC 478 Issues Involved:1. Validity of Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions Control Act, 1975.2. Interference with the internal administration of minority educational institutions.3. Regulatory measures versus administrative autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Sections 3(1) and 3(2):- Section 3(1) states that no teacher employed in any private educational institution shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank, nor shall their appointment be otherwise terminated, except with the prior approval of the competent authority.- Section 3(2) mandates that the competent authority shall approve the proposal for dismissal, removal, etc., if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such action.Analysis:- The court found that Sections 3(1) and 3(2) confer unqualified and untrammeled discretion upon the competent authority, which constitutes an infringement of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1).- These sections were deemed unconstitutional as they interfere substantially with the right of minority institutions to administer their affairs, thus violating Article 30(1).2. Validity of Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b):- Section 3(3)(a) provides that no teacher shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such teacher is contemplated.- Section 3(3)(b) limits the suspension period to two months unless extended by the competent authority for reasons attributable to the teacher.Analysis:- The court upheld these provisions as they are regulatory in character and do not violate Article 30(1). They are designed to ensure that teachers are not arbitrarily suspended and that inquiries are conducted within a reasonable timeframe.3. Validity of Section 4:- Section 4 allows any teacher dismissed, removed, reduced in rank, or whose conditions of service are altered to appeal to a prescribed authority.Analysis:- The court found this section too broadly worded and lacking guidelines, which could lead to arbitrary decisions by the appellate authority. It also noted the absence of a corresponding right for the management to appeal, placing them at a disadvantage.- Consequently, Section 4 was deemed unconstitutional as it violates Article 30(1).4. Validity of Section 5:- Section 5 is consequential upon Section 4 and deals with the transfer of pending appeals to the appellate authority.Analysis:- Since Section 4 was found unconstitutional, Section 5 also falls and is inapplicable to minority institutions.5. Validity of Section 6:- Section 6 requires prior approval of the competent authority for retrenchment of teachers necessitated by any government order relating to education or course of instruction.Analysis:- The court upheld this section, stating it provides a minimal guarantee of security of tenure to teachers and does not interfere with the right of administration under Article 30(1).6. Validity of Section 7:- Section 7 mandates that the pay and allowances of teachers be paid on or before a specified day each month, in a prescribed manner.Analysis:- This provision was upheld as it is regulatory in nature and does not interfere with the administrative autonomy of minority institutions.Conclusion:- Sections 3(1), 3(2), 4, and 5 were found unconstitutional and inapplicable to minority educational institutions as they violate Article 30(1).- Sections 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 6, and 7 were upheld as valid regulatory measures.- The matters were remanded to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for final disposal on merits in light of this judgment.