Delhi High Court has held that a Minority aided institution's right to administer does not include right to 'mal-administer'. Regulatory authority can intervene in the decisions taken by such institutions of they rules laid down for their governance are not followed.
In the present matter, the Petitioner challenged the termination of her services as a teacher in a government aided school despite being duly selected for a permanent post. She also sought the payment of her salary calculated from get joining date.
The Petitioner was removed after around 7 months of her joining upon the order given by the Delhi government. The government had cited irregularities in the appointment process as a reason for relieving the Petitioner off her services.
Mr APS Ahluwalia, appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the primary question before the court is whether the Petitioner can be allowed to suffer for any irregularity, if at all, in the procedure of appointment as when both the government as well as the school have remained silent for more than seven months in pointing out any discrepancy.
Mr Ahluwalia also argued that Rule 98(2) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which purports the requirement of taking approval from the Directorate of Education, doesn't apply to the present case as the concerned institution is a Minority aided school. Moreover, even if such approval was required, the same should've been provided within 15 days of being intimated about the appointment, as pointed out in Ankur vs. Director of Education: 260 (2019) DLT 1985.
On the other hand, the counsel for Delhi government argued that the appointment of the Petitioner on the basis of benefit given for additional qualification (by giving additional marks) was bad in law as the same was in violation of the Recruitment Rules and other general norms, to the extent that they prescribed qualification,experience, age and all other criteria for appointment.
It was also argued by the Respondents that management of aided minority schools shall adhere to the Recruitment Rules, and other general norms, for appointment.
Rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, the court opined that the right to administer educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution would not include the right to mal-administer. It has been held that regulations could be lawfully imposed for the receiving of grants and recognition, while permitting the institution to retain its character as a minority institution. It is permissible for the authorities to prescribe regulations, which must be complied with, before a minority institution could seek or retain affiliation and recognition. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait also noted that the Respondent school flouted Recruitment Rules and other general norms, for appointment which they were required to adhere to.
Therefore, grant in aid cannot be accorded to the Petitioner and it is the responsibility of the Respondent school, to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period it took work from her, since her selection was bad in law, as such it does not visit the government with any liability to bear towards grant in aid for illegal appointment of the Petitioner by the Respondent school.
Click Here To Download Judgment