1987 (4) TMI 489 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to linguistic minority educational institutions.
2. Right of linguistic minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
3. Validity of suspension without prior approval of the Director of Education.
4. Regulatory nature of the provisions under Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 to linguistic minority educational institutions:
The core issue was whether linguistic minority educational institutions like the Andhra Education Society are governed by Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The Court observed that the Andhra Education Society, being a linguistic minority educational institution, is protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. However, the Court referenced its decision in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (1986) and held that the aided minority schools run by the Andhra Education Society and other linguistic minority educational institutions in Delhi are governed by the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 8(2)) of the Act. Therefore, the exercise of the power of the management of such schools to suspend a teacher would necessarily be subject to the requirement of prior approval of the Director of Education under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act.

2. Right of linguistic minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution:
The Court reiterated the principle that while the right to administer educational institutions of their choice is guaranteed under Article 30(1), this right is subject to regulatory measures to ensure proper conditions of service for teachers and to prevent maladministration. The Court referenced a long line of decisions, including In re. the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, and All Saints High School v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, which upheld that regulatory measures do not infringe upon the rights under Article 30(1).

3. Validity of suspension without prior approval of the Director of Education:
The Court held that the impugned order of suspension passed by the management without the prior approval of the Director of Education, as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, was vitiated. The Court noted that the provision is designed to afford some measure of protection to the teachers without interfering with the management's right to take disciplinary action. The Court declared that the order of suspension lapsed due to the lack of response from the Director within the stipulated 15-day period.

4. Regulatory nature of the provisions under Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973:
The Court emphasized that the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Act are regulatory measures intended to ensure proper conditions of service for teachers and to secure a fair procedure in disciplinary actions. These provisions are permissible restrictions designed to prevent maladministration. The Court referenced its decision in Frank Anthony Public School's case, which held that Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is a regulatory provision that does not infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30(1).

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court declaring that the impugned order of suspension had lapsed due to the absence of the Director's approval within the required period. The Court allowed the management the option to seek prior approval from the Director under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and instructed the Director to deal with such an application in accordance with the principles laid down in Frank Anthony Public School's case. There was no order as to costs.