Supreme Court Upholds Minority Rights in Teacher Appointments: Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal (25 September 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 907

Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., and Surya Kant, J. The judgment was authored by R.F. Nariman, J., with R. Subhash Reddy, J. and Surya Kant, J. concurring. This case was heard by a three-judge bench due to a disagreement between T.S. Thakur, J. and R. Banumathi, J. in a previous ruling.

Can a minority educational institution be forced to follow the same rules as other aided institutions when appointing teachers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving a linguistic minority school in West Bengal. The core issue was whether the school had the right to select and appoint its teachers, or if it was bound by the state’s rules requiring appointments through the School Service Commission. This judgment clarifies the extent of minority rights in managing their educational institutions.

Case Background

The appellants were appointed as teachers on a temporary basis at Khalsa Girls High School, a school that the institution claimed was established for the benefit of Punjabi-speaking Sikhs. The District Inspector of Schools, Calcutta, did not approve these appointments, stating that they should have been made through the School Service Commission as per the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969. The school argued that as a linguistic minority institution, it had the right to select and appoint its teachers. The school had sent a memorandum on 19-04-1976 to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education seeking approval of a special constitution for the school, claiming it was a minority educational institution.

The appellants initially won their case in a single bench of the High Court, which directed the respondents to approve their appointments and release their arrears. However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, stating that the school was bound by Rule 28 of the 1969 Rules, which required appointments through the School Service Commission. The Division Bench also noted that the school had not formally claimed minority status and had accepted a special constitution under Rule 8(3) of the Rules, implying it was not a minority institution. This led to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed writ petitions in the High Court of Calcutta, which were allowed by a single judge who ruled that the school, being a linguistic minority institution, had the right to select and appoint its teachers. The single judge directed the respondents to approve the appointments of the teachers and release their salaries.

However, the State of West Bengal, the Director of School Education, and the District Inspector of Schools appealed this decision. A Division Bench of the High Court overturned the single judge’s order, holding that the school was bound by Rule 28 of the 1969 Rules, which mandates appointments through the School Service Commission. The Division Bench also stated that since the school had applied for a special constitution under Rule 8(3), it had implicitly represented that it was not claiming minority status.

The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court, where a disagreement between two judges led to the case being referred to a three-judge bench for final adjudication.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of several key legal provisions:

• The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963: This Act establishes the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and its various committees. Notably, the Act does not grant the Board the power to declare an institution as a minority or non-minority institution.
• Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969: These rules govern the management of non-government aided and unaided institutions in West Bengal. Key rules include:
  • Rule 6: Specifies the composition of the managing committee of an institution.
  • Rule 8(3): Allows the Executive Committee to approve a special constitution for an institution, with due regard to the recommendations of the Director.
  • Rule 28(1)(i): States that in aided institutions, the committee shall appoint teachers based on the recommendation of the School Service Commission.
    “to appoint on the recommendation of the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission in respect of the region concerned, teachers on permanent or temporary basis against permanent or temporary vacancies, if and when available, within the sanctioned strength of teachers and on approval by the Director or any Officer authorized by him”
  • Rule 32: States that the rules do not apply to institutions managed by the State or Union Government, among others.
  • Rule 33: (Prior to 2008 amendment) Allowed the State Government to frame special rules for institutions covered by Article 26 or 30 of the Constitution.
    “Nothing in these rules shall affect the power of the State Government to frame, on the application of any Institution or class of Institution to which the provisions of Article 26 or Article 30 of the Constitution of India may apply, further or other rules for the composition, powers, functions of the Managing Committee or Committees of such Institution or class of Institutions.”
• Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees all minorities, whether based on religion or language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
  “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”
• Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Minorities’ Commission Act, 1996: Defines “Minority” to include religious communities like Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians (Parsees), and linguistic minorities as specified by the State Government.
  ““Minority”, for the purpose of this Act, means a community based on religion such as Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, or Zoroastrian (Parsee) , and includes – (i) such other minority as the Central Government may notify under clause (c) of section 2 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, or . (ii) such other minority based on language within the purview of article 29 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) as the State Government may, by notification, specify from time to time;””

These provisions are interpreted within the broader context of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly the rights of minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The school was established by the Sikh community, a linguistic minority in West Bengal, to impart education to their children in their mother tongue, Punjabi, and to provide religious and moral training.
• The school had applied for a special constitution in 1976, specifically stating it was a minority institution.
• The school’s minority status was recognized by the West Bengal Minority Commission in 1989.
• Rule 33 of the 1969 Rules, which allows for special rules for minority institutions, should apply. Since no such rules were framed, the school should be allowed to select and appoint its teachers.
• The fundamental right under Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be waived, and therefore, the school’s acceptance of a special constitution under Rule 8(3) does not mean it gave up its minority status.
• The school is not bound by Rule 28, which mandates appointments through the School Service Commission, as this rule does not apply to minority institutions.
• The appellants were qualified for their positions and had been serving for a considerable time, and vacancies had arisen against which their appointments could be approved.

Arguments of the Respondents:

• The school had not been formally declared a minority institution by the competent authority under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, and therefore, it could not claim the status of a minority institution.
• The school, having accepted the special constitution under Rule 8(3), was estopped from claiming minority status.
• The school was an aided institution and was bound by Rule 28 of the 1969 Rules, which required appointments through the School Service Commission.
• The medium of instruction in the school was Hindi, which being the national language, could not be said to cater to the needs of a minority community.
• Article 350B of the Constitution requires a report from the Special Officer for linguistic minorities before a linguistic minority can claim protection under Article 30(1).

The appellants argued that the school was established by a linguistic minority for the purpose of imparting education to members of its community. The respondents argued that the school had not obtained a formal declaration of minority status and was bound by the general rules for aided institutions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether Khalsa Girls High School, Poddapukur Road, Calcutta is a minority institution.
2. If so, whether the Institution’s right to select and appoint teachers is in any way affected by the provisions of the Rules of Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 framed under the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

On the Right of Minorities to Administer Educational Institutions:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 – Supreme Court of India: Discussed the historical context of minority rights and the need for their protection.
• Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1975) 1 SCR 173 – Supreme Court of India: Established that the right to administer includes the right to choose teachers and that the State cannot interfere with this right.
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 – Supreme Court of India: Reaffirmed the importance of Article 30 and the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
• Society of St. Joseph’s College v. Union of India [(2002) 1 SCC 273] – Supreme Court of India: Highlighted the constitutional safeguard for minority institutions against inadequate compensation for acquired property.

On the Inapplicability of General Rules to Minority Institutions:

• Rev. Father W. Proost (case reference not fully available in source): Discussed that the autonomy of the governing body of the college cannot be taken away.

On the Declaration of Minority Status:

• N. Ammad v. Emjay High School (1998) 6 SCC 674 – Supreme Court of India: Held that a declaration of minority status is merely a recognition of an existing fact and that a school is a minority school whether the government declares it or not.
• Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew (2017) 15 SCC 595 – Supreme Court of India: Reaffirmed that a certificate of minority status is a declaration of an existing status.

On the Non-Waiver of Fundamental Rights:

• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 – Supreme Court of India: Held that fundamental rights cannot be waived.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Affirmed that fundamental rights are a matter of public policy and cannot be waived.

On Determination of Linguistic Minority Status:

• D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971) Supp. SCR 688 – Supreme Court of India: Held that linguistic minority status is determined State-wise.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the following authorities to support its reasoning:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight the historical context and the importance of protecting minority rights.
• Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the right to administer includes the right to choose teachers, and the state cannot interfere with this right.
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: This case was used to reaffirm the importance of Article 30 and the right of minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.
• Society of St. Joseph’s College v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to highlight the constitutional safeguards for minority institutions against inadequate compensation for acquired property.
• N. Ammad v. Emjay High School [CITATION]: This case was cited to support the view that a declaration of minority status is merely a recognition of an existing fact.
• Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew [CITATION]: This case was used to reaffirm that a certificate of minority status is a declaration of an existing status.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to support the view that fundamental rights cannot be waived.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [CITATION]: This case was used to affirm that fundamental rights are a matter of public policy and cannot be waived.
• D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to support the view that linguistic minority status is determined State-wise.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the fundamental rights of minority institutions, particularly their right to administer their educational institutions, including the appointment of teachers. The Court emphasized that these rights are not merely for individual benefit but are a matter of public policy enshrined in the Constitution. The Court also highlighted the historical context of minority rights, noting that the framers of the Constitution intended to ensure that minorities have a sense of security and equality. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following:

• Protection of Minority Rights: The Court emphasized the importance of Article 30 of the Constitution in protecting the rights of minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.
• Autonomy in Teacher Appointments: The Court recognized that the right to administer includes the right to choose teachers, and the state cannot interfere with this right.
• Rejection of Formal Declaration Requirement: The Court held that a formal declaration of minority status is not necessary; the actual establishment of the institution by a minority is sufficient.
• Non-Waiver of Fundamental Rights: The Court reiterated that fundamental rights cannot be waived, and therefore, the school’s acceptance of a special constitution under Rule 8(3) did not negate its minority status.
• State-wise Determination of Linguistic Minority: The Court affirmed that linguistic minority status is determined State-wise, and the Sikhs are a linguistic minority in West Bengal.
• Irrelevance of Medium of Instruction: The Court held that the medium of instruction is irrelevant to determining whether an institution is established by a minority.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by a commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of minorities, ensuring that they can effectively manage their educational institutions without undue interference from the state.

Logical Reasoning:

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court held that Khalsa Girls High School is indeed a minority institution and that its right to select and appoint teachers is not affected by the 1969 Rules.

The Court directed the respondents to approve the appointments of the appellants, who had been serving for a considerable time, and to release their arrears of salary. The Court emphasized that the school, being a minority institution, had the right to manage its affairs, including the appointment of teachers, without interference from the state.

The Court also clarified that the state’s rules for aided institutions do not apply to minority institutions, and the state cannot force minority institutions to follow the same rules as other aided institutions when appointing teachers.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Protection of Minority Rights: It reaffirms the constitutional protection granted to minority institutions under Article 30(1), ensuring their right to establish and administer their educational institutions without undue interference from the state.
• Autonomy in Teacher Appointments: It clarifies that minority institutions have the right to select and appoint their teachers, and the state cannot force them to follow the same rules as other aided institutions.
• Rejection of Formal Declaration Requirement: It establishes that a formal declaration of minority status is not necessary; the actual establishment of the institution by a minority is sufficient.
• Non-Waiver of Fundamental Rights: It reiterates that fundamental rights cannot be waived, and minority institutions cannot be forced to give up their rights in exchange for state aid.
• State-wise Determination of Linguistic Minority: It affirms that linguistic minority status is determined State-wise, ensuring that linguistic minorities have the right to manage their educational institutions.
• Clarification on State Rules: It clarifies that the state’s rules for aided institutions do not automatically apply to minority institutions, and the state cannot impose rules that infringe on the rights of minority institutions.

This judgment serves as a landmark decision, reinforcing the rights of minority institutions and providing clarity on the extent of their autonomy in managing their affairs. It also emphasizes the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of minorities, ensuring that they have the freedom to establish and administer their educational institutions without undue interference from the state.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal (2019) is a significant victory for minority rights in India. The Court’s decision upholds the autonomy of minority educational institutions, particularly their right to select and appoint teachers without undue interference from the state. The judgment underscores the importance of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer their educational institutions. By rejecting the requirement of a formal declaration of minority status and affirming that fundamental rights cannot be waived, the Court has ensured that minority institutions can effectively manage their affairs and provide education to their communities without fear of state interference. This case serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving minority rights and educational institutions in India.