Holding

The requirement of prior approval under Section 16G(3)(a) and Regulation 44 does not apply to minority institutions, as the uncanalised power would breach Article 14 and Article 30.

Summary

C/M. St. John Inter College, a minority educational institution under Article 30, terminated the services of its employees without obtaining prior approval of the Inspector as required by Section 16G(3)(a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation 44. The Allahabad High Court set aside the termination, holding that prior approval was mandatory. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the statutory requirement applied to minority institutions and whether the power conferred on the Inspector was uncanalised. The Court found that Section 16G(3)(a) and Regulation 44 provide no guidelines for the Inspector’s approval, making the power arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and that the 1982 U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, by virtue of its Section 30, expressly exempts minority institutions. Consequently, the requirement of prior approval does not apply to the appellant, and the termination stands valid. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 16G(3)(a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation 44 requiring prior approval of an Inspector apply to minority educational institutions under Article 30.
Whether the power conferred on the Inspector under the said provision is uncanalised and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, particularly Section 30, exempts minority institutions from the prior‑approval requirement.
Whether the High Court erred in interpreting Regulation 44 as providing sufficient guidelines for the approval process.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 30
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921s. 15, s. 16A, s. 16G, s. 16G(3)(a), s. 16G(3)(b), s. 2(b), s. 2(d)

Subjects

Article 30Minority institutionPrior approvalTermination of serviceU.P. Intermediate Education ActRegulation 44Article 14Uncanalised powerU.P. Secondary Education Services Commission ActEmployment lawEducational regulation

Judgment

C/M. St. JOHN INTER COLLEGE A
v.
GIRDHARI SINGH AND ORS.

MARCH 30, 2001

[G.B. PATTANAIK AND D.P. MOHAPA1RA, JJ.] B

Service I.aw :

U.P Intennediate Education Act, 1921 : Section 16 G(3)( a) and Regu-
lation 44.
c
Secondary Education Services-Minority educational institution-Serv-
ices of employees-Tennination of-Approval of competent authority-Appli-
cability of-Minority educational institution tenninated the services of its
employees without obtaining prior approval of competent authority-Validity
of-Held: S. 16 G(3)(a) and the Regulations dn not provide any guidelines for D
exercise of po1ver in the matter of app1vval or disapproval of the tennination
order-Such uncanalised power of competent authority is tantamount to an
inroad into the power of disciplinary control of the minority institution-Such
restrictive provisions do not apply to minority institution-Hence, prior
approval of competent authority not required for tennination of services of
employees of minority institution-Education-U.P. Secondary Education E
Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, S. 30-Constitution of
India, 1950, Art. 30.

The appellant, a minority educational institution within the ambit of
Article 30 of the Constitution, terminated the services of the respondents F
who were the employees of the appellant. The respondents tiled a writ
petition before the High Court challenging their termination on the ground
that prior approval of the competent authority was not obtained as re-
quired under Section 16 G(3)(a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 read with Regulation 44 framed under the Act. The High Court
allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
G

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the power of ap-
proval had been conferred on the U.P. Secondary Education Services
Commission established under Section 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982; that Section 30 of the H
945
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A 1982 Act exempted the applicability of that Act to the minority institution;
and, therefore, the provision of prior approval of any competent authority
would not apply to a minority institution •.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

B HELD : 1.1. There would be no bar for the Government to have
regulatory measures for ensuring a standard of excellence of the institu-
tions and such a measure would not in any way affect the right of the
minority to administer its institutions eugrafted in Article 30 of the Consti-
tution. But notwithstanding the same, if the so-called regulatory measures
conferring power on any specified authority, without indicating any guide-
c lines for exercise of that power, then exercise of such power by the appro-
priate authority would offend the provisions of Article 14 and would not be
allowed to be retained, as that would amount to an arbitrary inroad into
the right of the minority, in the matter of administering its institutions. In
other words, if the regulatory provision conferring power 011 the educa-
D tional authority is uncanalised and unguided and does not indicate any
guidelines under which the educational authority could exercise the said
power, then in such a case, the conferment of a blanket power on the
educational authority would interfere with the right of control of the
employer-minority institution in the matter of exercising disciplinary con-
E trol over the employees of the institution. [957-E-G]

1.2. So adjudged, no guidelines are found in Section 16 G(3)(a) of the
U.P. IntcrmediateEducatiouAct, 1921 to be followed bythelnspectorin the
matter of approving or disapproving the order of termination of the services
of an employee of the aided educational institution. [957-H; 958-A]
F
Bihar State Madarasa Board v. Madarasa Hanafia, Am (1990) SC
695; St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1974) SC 1389; Al Saints
College v. Govt. of A.P., AIR (1980) SC 1042; Frank Anthony Employees'
Association v. Union of India, Am (1987) SC 311; Kera/a EducaJion Bill,
1957: [1959] SCR 995; Sidhajbhai Sahai v. StaJe of Bombay, [1963] 3 SCR
G
837; State of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincia4 [1971] 1 SCR 734; St.
Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, [1975] 1SCR173; Lilly Kurian v.
Sr. Lewine, [1979] 1 SCR 820 and Frank Anthony Public School Employees'
Association v. Union of India, [1987] 1 SCR 238, referred to.

H 2. Regulation 44 of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act
CIM. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE v. GIRDHARI SINGH 947
merely prescribes the period within which the Inspector or Regional A
Inspectress is required to communicate his/her decision to the Manage-
ment and further in a case where all the papers have not been received
from the Management, the said Inspector/Inspectress could call for the
papers from the Management. But that by no stre,tch of imagination can be
held to be providing the guidelines for exercise of power in the matter of
B
approval or disapproval of the order of termination passed by the
Management. Since no appropriate guidelines have been provided
for exercise of power under Section 16 G(3)(a) of the 1921 Act, it
must be· held that such an uncanalised power on the Inspector or the
Inspectress would tantamount to an inroad into the power of disciplinary
control of the Managing Committee of the minority institution over its C
employees and as such the said provision would not apply to the minority
institution. (958-B-D)

Frank Anthony Employees' Association v. Union of India, AIR (1987)
SC 311 and Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of
D
India, (1987) 1 SCR 238, relied on.

3.1. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the U.P. Secondary
Education Servic.es Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 unequivo-
cally indicates that the earlier prO\i,ions contained under Section 16 G(3)(a)
of the 1921 Act were found to be inadequate, where the Management E
proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in
rank. In other words, t.he legislature thought that the power of approval or
disapproval to an order of punishment imposed by the management should
not be vested with a lower educational authority like the District Inspector
of Schools hut should be vested with an independent Commission or Board
F
which could function as an independent body. (958-F-G]

3.2. There cannot be any rationale for conferring the power of ap-
proval or disapproval of an order of termination of an employee of a
minority institution with the Inspector/lnspectress and with all other insti-
tutions Vlith the Service Selection Board. Having conferred the power of G
approval/disapproval with the Selection Board under the 1982 Act, the
legislature made it crystal clear by inserting Section 30 therein which
states : "Nothing in this Act shall apply to an institution established admin-
istered by a minority referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitu-
tion of India". The legislative intent is thus apparent that the legislature H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A never intended to subject the order of termination of an employee of a
minority institution to the approval/disapproval of the Selection Board. It
is, therefore, not possible to hold that an order of termination of an
employee of a m ~ori•y insf.tution cannot be given effect to, unless ap-
proved by either the Inspector/Inspectress, as provided in Section 16 G(3)(a)
or by the Selection Board, as provided under the 1982 Act. Under the
.B
provisions, as it stand, the conclusion is irresistible that question of prior
approval of the competent authority in case of an order of termination of
an employee of a minority institution does not arise. [959-D-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5397of1997.
c From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.97 of the Allahabad High
Court ;n C.M.W.P. No. 3945 of 1989.

P.P. Rao, Vmay Garg, Ajay Kumar and D. Garg for the Appellant.

O.P. S.harma, Nares!: Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik and Ms. Shilpa Chohan
D for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATTANAIK, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the
Allahabad High Court, allowing the writ petition filed by the private respond-
E ents. The respondents who were the employees of the appellant institution,
-t- •.
filed the writ petition, challenging the orders of termination dated 13.1.1989
passed by the Management. The sole ground of attack was that the prior
approval of the competent authority, as required under Section 16G(3)(a) of
the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (herein-after referred to
F as 'the Act'), not having been taken, the order of termination, is invalid and
inoperative. The High Court, following the majority judgment of the said
Court in the case of J.K. Kalra v. R.J.G.S. and Ors. set aside the order
of termination of services of the private respondents, passed by the
Managing Committee. The institution is a minority institution within the
ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution, is not disputed. In the circumstances,
G the question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of Section
!6G(3)(a) of the Act would have application to the minority institutions.
The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Kalra in its majority
judgment, after considering the provisions of Section 16G(3)(a) of the Act
and the Regulations framed thereunder, came to hold that there are sufficient
H guidelines available to the authority under the said provision for according
C!M. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE v. G!RDHARI SINGH [PATTANAIK, J.] 949
-~

~-
or refusing the approval to the decision of the Committee of Management, A
and, therefore, there is no reason to hold that the provisions will have no
application to the minority institution.

Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant,
contended that the conclusion of the_ High Court that Regulation 44 provides
B
enough guidelines for exercise of the powers for approval or disapproval of

- >r the decision of the Management, is on the face of it unsustainable inasmuch
as the said Regulation 44 merely prescribes the time period within which the
appropriate authority is required to communicate his/her decision to the
Management and further provides that if complete papers have not been
received, then the approving officer may require it to resubmit its proposal c
in complete form. But there is no whisper, indicating the criteria on which
the approving officer is required to take his decision, and, therefore, the High
Court committed error in: relying upon the aforesaid Regulation, as the
•r guidelines for exercise of power by the approving authority. Mr. Rao further
contended that provisions of Section 160(3) of the Act, conferring power of
D
approval on the District Inspector of schools, having been found to be
inadequate, the Uttar Pradesh legislature enacted Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U.P. Act
No. 5 of 1982). Under the 1982 Act, the power of approval has been
conferred on the Conunission that is to say the U.P. Secondary Education
•+ Services Conunission, established under Section 3 of the said Act i.nd no E
teacher would be dismissed or removed from tl1e service or reduced in rank
unless prior approval of the Conunissiou had been obtained. Section 30 of
the aforesaid Act of 1982, exempts the applicability of the said Act to tlie
minority institutions. The legislative intent, therefore, is crystal clear that the
provisions regarding the prior approval of any competent authority in a case F
.,,. where teacher of an institution is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank, will
not apply to a minority institution. This being the position, the impugned
judgment of the High Court, interfering with the order of termination of the
employee of the minority institution, passed by the Board of Management,
is wholly unsustainable and, therefore, the said judgment is liable to be
interfered with by this Court.
G

Mr. O.P. Sharma, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the respond-
--V' ents, on the other hand contended that the provisions of Section 16 G(3)(a)
of the Act is merely a provision to check the arbitrary and capricious acts
of the Management in interfering with the service conditions of employees H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 2 S.C.R.
A of the institution. Such regulat~ry measure does not in any way affect the
rights of the minority to establish and administer educational institution of
their choice, engrafted under Article 30 of the Constitution. Since the
Regulation provides the criteria for exercise of power by the approving
authority, the said provision contained in Section 16 G(3)(a) can neither be
held to be contravenffig Article 30 nor does it contravene Article 14 and as
B
such the majority judgment of Allahabad High Court in Kalra's case correctly
lays down the law and the same does not require any interference. According
to Mr. Sharma, the Regulation provides an elaborate procedure to be followed
by the punishing authority and the fact that the regulation further provides
that the approving authority can call for all the necessary papers which is
c obviously intended for tl1e purpose of satisfying that the punishing authority
has fol ·ved the prescribed procedure and, therefore, it must be held that
sufficient guidelines are available for exercise of power under Section 16
G(3)(a) of the Act. Consequently, tl1e Division Bench of the High Court in
the impugned judgment, has rightly followed the majority view in the Full
Bench decision in Kalra's case and there is no infirmity in the S3Ille. Mr.
D
Shatma further urged that Section 32 of tl1e U.P. Act 5 of 1982, unequivocally
indicates that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
regulations made thereooder, in so far as they are not inconsistent witl1 the
provisions of this Act or the regulations or rules made tl1ereunder shall
continue to be in force for the purpose of selection, appointment, promotiOn,
E dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher. In this view
of the matter,'Section !6G(3)(a) of the Act must be held to be continuing
in force, which would goven1 the cases of dismissal, reinoval or termination
or reduction in rank of a teacher of those institutions, which do not
come within the purview of 1982 Act. Consequently, the minority
F institution being excluded from the pmview of 1982 Act by virtue of Section
30, tl1e provisions of Section J6G(3)(a) must apply at1d as such the order
of te1mination without prior approval, as contained therein, must be held
to be invalid.

The correctness of the rival submissions would depend upon the
G interpretation of relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act, 1921, the regulations fr3Illed thereunder, the Uttar Pradesh
Secondary Education Services Corrunission and Selection Board Act, 1982,
Article 30 of the Constitution of India and in this context relevant decisions
of this Court will have to be borne in mind. It would, therefore be appropriate
-
·-r--

H at this stage to extract some of the relevant provisions. Prior to the Intenne-
CIM. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE v. GIRDHAR! SINGH [PATTANAIK, J.] 951

diate Education Act, 1921 came into force, the educational institutions A
including the High Schools and Intermediate education were all under the
supervision of the Allahabad University. It was however felt that it would be
expedient to establish a Board to take the place of Allahabad University in
regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate
education in the united provinces and for that purpose, the Intermediate
B
Education Act, 1921 was enacted which extended to whole of the Uttar
Pradesh. The expression "institution" has been defined in Section 2(b) to
mean a recognised Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High
School and includes where the context so requires, a part of an institution,
and 'Head of Institution' means the Principal or Head Master, as the case may
be, of such institution. The expression "Recognition" has been defined in c
Section 2(d) to mean recognition for the purpose of preparing candidates for
admission to the Board's examinations. Section 15 of the Act empowers the
Board to make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the
provisions of the Act. Under Section 16A, the authority to manage and
conduct the affairs of the institution vest with the Committee of Management.
D
Section l 6G provides that persons employed in a recognised institution
shall be governed by such conditions of service, as may be prescribed by
Regulations. Under Section 16G(3)(a) no teacher could be discharged or
removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank without the
prior approval in writing of the Inspector and under Section 16G(3)(b)
the Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance the punish- E
ment or approve or disapprove of the notice for termination of service
proposed by the management. Sections 16G(3)(a) and 16G(3)(b) are extracted
hereinbelow in extenso:

"Sec.16G(3)(a): No Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be dis-
F
charged or removed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to
any diminution in emolu1nents, or served with notice of termination
of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector.
The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period
to be prescribed by regulations.
G
J6G(3)(b): The Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or
enhance the puuisluuent or approve or disapprove of the notice for
termination of service proposed by the management:

Provided that in tl1e cases of punishment, before passing orders,
the Inspector shall give an opportunity to the Principal, the Headmas- H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A ter or the teacher to show cause within a fortnight of the receipt of
the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted."

In exercise of powers conferred upon the Governor under the provisions of
the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act read with the Amendment Act
of 1958, the Governor has framed a set of regulations in respect of matters
B covered by Sections !6A, !6B, 16C, 16E, !6F and !6G of the Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. In the case in hand, the relevant regulation for our
purpose is Regulation 44, which is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:

"Regulation 44: The Inspector or Regional Inspectress shall commu-
nicate his/her decision to the management within six weeks of the
c receipt of its proposal in complete form for action mentioned in sub-
section (3)(a) of Section 16G of the Act. If incomplete papers are
received from the management the approving officer shall require it
to resubmit its proposal in complete form within two weeks, and the
period of six weeks prescribed in this regulation shall be reckoned
D from the date on which complete papers are received by the approving
officer. These papers shall either be sent by registered post or by
special n1essanger."

The Uttar Pradesh legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 essentially for the
E purpose of establishing Secondary Education Services Commission as well
as Selection Board for selection of teachers in the institutions recognised
under the Intermediate Education Act of 1921. The statement of objects and
reasons appended to the relevant Bill is extracted hereunder:

"The appointment of teachers in secondary institutions recog-
F
nised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education was
governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations
made thereunder. It was felt that the selection of teachers under
the provisions of the said Act and the regulations was sometimes
not free and fair. Besides, the field of selection was also very
G much restricted. This adversely affected the availability of suitable
teachers and the standard of education. It was, therefore, considered
necessary to constitute Secondary Education Service Commission
at the State level, to select Principals, Lecturers, Headmasters and
L.T. Grade teachers and Secondary Education Selection Boards at
H the regional level, to select and make available suitable candidates

•
I

x
C/M. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE v. GJRDHARI SINGH [PATTANAIK, J.] 953
for comparatively lower posts in C.T./J.T.C./B.T.C. grade for such A
institutions.

(2).Under Section 16-G(3) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
Managements were authorised to impose punishment with the
approval of District Inspectors of Schools in matters pertaining
to disciplinary action. This provision was found to be inadequate B
in cases where the management proposed to impose the punish-
ment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank and so it was
considered necessary that this power should be exercised subject
to the prior approval of the Commission or the Selection Boards,
as the case may be, which would function as an independent and C
impartial body.

(3).Since the State Legislature was not in session and immediate
action was considered necessary with a view to setting up the
-f Commission and the Selection Boards, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Ordinance, D
1981 (Uttar Pradesh Ordinance No. 8 of 1981) was promulgated by.
the Governor on July 10, 1980."

Section 21 of the aforesaid Act of 1982 puts restrictions on dismissal, removal
or reduction in rank of teachers and the aforesaid provision has a vital bearing E
_...• +. in the present case, which is therefore quoted in extenso:

"Section 21: Restriction on dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
of teachers:

(1) No teacher specified in the Schedule shall be dismissed or F
removed from service or reduced in rank and neither his employment
may be reduced nor he may be given notice of removal from service
by the management llllless prior approval of the Commission has been
obtained.

Provided that, where reference for prior approval of the Inspec- G
tor was made in accordance with ·sub-section (3) of Section 16-G of
the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, before January 1, 1984, no
prior approval of the Commission shall be necessary and such
reference shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that
Act as if this Act had not come into force. H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 2 S.C.R.

A (2). No teacher other than a teacher specified in the Schedule shall
be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank and neither
his emoluments may be reduced nor he may be given notice of
removal from service by the management unless prior approval of the
Board has been obtained.

B Provided that where reference for prior approval of the Inspector
was made in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 16G of the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 before the commencement of this
sub-section, no prior approval of the Board shall be necessary and
such reference shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions
c of that Act as if this Act had not come into force.

(3) Every order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or removal
from service or reduction in emoluments of a teacher in contravention
of the provisions of sub:section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be void.
J., -
Date of enforcement - Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 21 come
D
into force on 1.1.1984 vide Noti. No. 6895/XV-7-2(25)83 dated
27-12-83."

Section 30 of the said Act provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to an
institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause(!)
of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Section 32, on which Mr. Sharma,
-+ ...•
E
appearing for the respondents relied upon, provides that those provisions of
1921 Act which' are not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1982 Act or
tlie rules or regulations made thereunder, the same shall continue to be in
force for tlie purpose of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, re-
moval, tenninatiou or reduction in rank of a teacher. The aforesaid provision
F is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:

"Section 32: Applicability of U.P.Act II of 1921. - The provisions A;,_-
of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations
made thereunder insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provi-
sions of tliis Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder shall
G
continue to be in force for the putpose of selection, appointment,
promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a
teacher."

The very objects and reasons of the aforesaid Act which have been quoted
H earlier would indicate that the legislanue thought that the provisions con-
CIM. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE v. GIRDHARI SINGH [PATTANAIK, J.] 955
tained in Section !6G(3)(a) of 1921 Act were inadequate. Since power of A
approval had been conferred upon a lower educational authority called the
District Inspector of Schools, it was, therefore, considered that said power
could be conferred upon a Commission which could function as an independ-
ent and impartial body and thus, the Secondary Education Services Commis-
sion came into existence.
B
_, Article 30 of the Constitution confers right on a minority community
to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The rights
emanated from Article 30 are the right to establish an institution and right
to administer it. The right to administer engrafted under Article 30 would not
however confer a right to mal-administer, as was held by this Court in tl1e c
case of Bihar State Madarasa Board v. Madarasa Hanafia, AIR (1990) SC
695. Even though, Article 30 does not lay down any limitation upon the right
of a minority to administer its educational institutions, but tliat right cam1ot
be said to be absolute, as was held by this Court in the case of St. Xavier's
College v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1974) SC 1389 and further the rights must
be subject to reasonable regulations, as was held by this Court in All Saints D
College v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. AIR (1980) SC 1042, consistent with
the national interest. Regulations, therefore could always be m11de to maintain
educational character and standard of institution and for that purpose to lay
down qualifications or conditions of service, to ensure orderly, efficient and
+.- sound administration and to prevent mal-administration, to ensure elliciency E
and discipline of the institution and for several other objectives, which would
be for the benefit of the institution and which would not offend the right
engrafted under Article 30. It would always be permissible to frame regula-
tions so long as the regulations do not restrict the right of administration of
die minority community but facilitate and ensure better and more effective
F
exercise of that right for the benefit of the institution. But such a regulatory
provision will cease to be regulation where power conferred upon tl1e
appropriate authority is uncanalised or umeasonable. Regulations also cannot
go to the extent of annihilating the right guaranteed by Article 30(1). The
Regulation made for achieving competence of teachers or maintenance of
discipline in the conditions of service or providing for an appeal against the G
order of termination and the like would not be held to be violative of the
right to administer enshrined under Article 30 of the Constitution but none-
theless if the said provisions confer an autl1ority on a body which is
nncanalised or unreasonable or there is no guiding principle, then the same
cannot be upheld. In this view of the matter, the State could impose H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A regulations even upon a minority institution, which would be in consonance
with Article 30(1) and such regulation must be reasonable and must be
regulative of the educational character of the institution and conducive to
making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority
community. When any regulatory measure is assailed, it would be obligatory
for the Court to find out as to whether the provision in fact secures a
B
reasonable balance between ensuring a standard of excellence of the institu-
tion and of preserving the right of the minority to administer the institution
as a minority institution, as was held by this Comt in the case of St. Xavier's
college v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1974) SC 1389, but such regulatory
provision if found to have offended the provisions of Article 14, then the
" -
c same lias to be struck down, as was indicated in the case of Frank Anthony
Employees' Association v. Union of India, AIR (1987) SC 311.

Let us now notice some of the decisions of this Court. In Kerala
Education Bill, 1957, (case 1959 SCR, 995) this Court had observed the
Constitutional right to administer an educational institution by the minority
D of their choice does not necessarily militate against the claim of the State
to insist that it may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence
ofihe institutions. In Sidlwjbhai Sabhai and Ors. v. State of Bombay, [1963]
3 SCR 837, a Constitution Bench observed that Regulations made in the true
interests of etliciency of instmctions, discipline, health, sanitation, morality,
E public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed and such regulations
are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed; they
secure the proper functioning of the institution, in the matters educational.
In State of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1971] l SCR, 734, it had
been stated that the right of management in respect of a minority institution
cannot be taken away and vested with somebody else, as that would be
F
encroachment upon the guaranteed right but that right is not an absolute one
and it is open to the State to regulate the syllabus of the examination and
discipline for the etliciency of the institution and the right of the State to
regulate the education or educational standards and allied matters cannot be
denied. In St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat and
G Anr., [1975] 1 SCR 173, this Court had observed: "Regulations which would
serve the interest of the students, regulations which would serve the interests
of the teachers are of paramount importance in good administration. Regu-
lations in the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in
administration are necessary for preserving harmony among affiliated insti-
H tutions." In Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewine and Ors., [1979] l SCR 820, the Court
CIM. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE v. GIRDHARI SINGH [PA1TANAIK, J.] 957
'
had observed: "Protection of the minorities is an article of faith in the A
Constitution of India. The right to the administration of institutions of
minority's choice enshrined in Article 30(1) means 'management of affairs'
of the institution. This right is, however, subject to the regulatory power of
the State. Article 30(1) is not a charter formal-administration regulation, so
that the right to administer may be better exercised for the benefit of the
B
institution is pennissible; but the moment one goes beyond that and imposes,
what is in truth, not a mere regulation but an impairment of the right to
administer, the Article comes into play and the interference cannot be
justified by pleading the interest of the general public; the interests justifying
interference can only be the interest of the minority concerned." In Frank
Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India & Ors., c
[1987] I SCR 238, the Court was examining the validity of Section 12 of
Delhi School Education Act. Sections 8(1), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) were held not
to have encroached upon any right of the minority to administer their
educational institutions. But Section 8(2) which stipulated that no employee
of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank
D
nor his services will be terminated except with the prior approval of the
Director was held to have interfered with the right of the minority, and
therefore, the said provision was held to be inapplicable to the minority
institutions. TI1e aforesaid dictum, no doubt, was in respect of an unaided
minority institution. The conspectus of the aforesaid decision ~,.ould indicate
that there would be no bar for the Government to have regulatory measures E
for ensuring a standard of excellence of the institutions and such a measure
would not in any way affect the right of the minority to administer its
institutions engrafted in Article 30 of the Constitution. But notwithstanding
the same, if the so called regulatory measures confetring power on any
specified authority, without indicating any guidelines for exercise of that F
power, then exercise of such power by the appropriate authority would
offend the provisions of Article 14 and would not be allowed to be retained,
as that would amount to an arbitrary inroad into the right of the minority,
in the matter of administering its institutions. In another words, if the
regulatory provision conferring power on the educational autl1ority is
uncanalised and unguided and does not indicate any guidelines under which
G
the educational authority could exercise tl1e said power, then in such a case,
the conferment of a blanket power on the educational authority would
interfere with tl1e right of control of the employer-minority institution in the
matter of exercising disciplinary control over the employees of the institu-
tion. So adjudged, we are unable to find any guideline in Section 160(3)(a) H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act to be followed by the
Inspector in the matter of approving or disapproving the order of tennination
of a service of an employee of the aided educational institution. We are
unable to accept the reasonings of the majority judgment of the Full Bench
of Allahabad High Court that Regulation 44 provides the guidelines. The said
Regulation 44 merely prescribes the period within which the Inspector or
B
Regional lnspectress is required to communicate his/her decision to the
Management and further in a case where all the papers have not been
received from the Management, the said lnspector/lnspectress could call for
the papers from the Management. But that by no stretch of imagination can
be held to be providing the guidelines for exercise of power in the matter
c of approval or disapproval of the order of te1mination passed by tl1e Man-
agement. Since no appropriate guidelines have been provided for exercise of
power under Section 16G(3)(a) of the Act, it must be held tliat such an
uncanalised power on the Inspector or the !nspectress would tantamount to
an inroad into the power of disciplinaiy control of the Managing Committee
of the minority institution over its. employees and as such the said provision
D
would not apply to the minority institution, as was held by this Court in
Frank Anthony's case. In this view of the matter, the majority view in the
Full Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court must be held to be erroneous
and cannot be sustained.

E The second submission of Mr. Rao on the basis of tl1e coming into force
of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act,
1982 is also of great force. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
aforesaid U.P. Act No. 5/82, unequivocally indieates that the earlier provi-
sions contained under Section 16G(3)(a) of the Intermediate Education Act,
F 1921 were found to be inadequate, where the Management proposed tu
impose the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. In other
words, the legislature thought that the power of approval or disapproval to
an order of punishment imposed by the management should not be vested
with a lower educational authority like District Inspector of Schools but
should be vested with an independent Commission or Board which could
G function as an independent and impartial body. With the aforesaid objective
in view, the legislature having enacted the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
(Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 and the Service Selection Board having
brought into existence in exercise of power under Section 3 of the aforesaid
Act, the power of the Inspector/lnspectress under Section 16G(3)(a) of the
H Intermediate Education Act, 1921 no longer could be exercised, as it would
CIM. ST. JOHN INTER COLLEGE v. GIRDHARI SINGH [PATTANAIK, J.] 959

- ..,_
'.·e inconsistent with the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5/82 and would frustrate
the very object for which the legislation has been enacted. Section 32 of the
U.P. Act 5/82 provides:
A

"Sec.32. Applicability of U.P. Act II of 1921.- The provisions of
the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regolations made
thereunder insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of B
this Act (or the rules made thereunder) shall continue to be in force
)( for the purposes of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal,
removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher."

Mr. Sharma, appearing for the respondents, vehemently urged before us that
though for all other institutions, the power of approval or disapproval against c
an order of termination of an employee of an aided educational institution
had been vested with the Selection Board wider U.P. Act 5/82, but in respect
of the minority institution, it must be held to have been vested with the
>- Inspector/lnspectress and that power still vested with those authorities, not-
withstanding the coming into force the U.P. Act 5/1982. We are unable to D
accept this submission, as in our view, there cannot be any rativnale for
confen·ing the power of approval or disapproval of an order of tennination
of an employee of a minority institution with the lnspector/Inspectress and
with all other institutions with the Service Selection Board. Having confcn·ed
the power of approval/disapproval with the Selection Board under U.P. Act
.... E
5/82, the legislature made it crystal clear by inserting Section 30 therein
which states: "Nothing in this Act shall apply to an institution established and
administered by a minority referred to in Clause (I) of Article 30 of the
Constitution of ludia. The legislative intent is thus apparent that the legislature
never intended to subject the order of termination of an employee of a
minority institution to the approval/disapproval of the Selection Board. In this F
view of the matter, it is difficult for us to hold that an order of termination
..,.).,. of an employee of a minority institution cannot be given effect to, unless
approved by either the Inspector/lnspectress, as provided in Section 16G(3)(a)
or by the Selection Board, as provided under U.P. Act 5/82. Under the
provisions, as it stand, the conclusion is irresistible that question of prior G
approval of the competent authority in case of an order of termination of an
employee of a minority institution does not arise. In the aforesaid premises,
the majority view in the Full Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court is
·-----'(' set aside and this appeal is allowed. The writ petition filed, stands dismissed.

V.S.S. Appeal allowed. H