Bench quashes Edu Dept letters, affirms constitutional freedom in staff appointments and management
PANAJI
In a significant ruling upholding the constitutional autonomy of minority educational institutions, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has held that the Diocesan Society of Education is entitled to manage its schools and appoint staff according to its own procedures, subject to compliance with prescribed eligibility norms.
“We deem it appropriate to declare that the petitioner-society being a linguistic minority, is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed therein as, according to us, the right to ‘manage and administer’, the institutions run by it in the wake of the right conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution do not impose any such limits or restraints on its power, as it is only bound to ensure that the quality of education is maintained by it but, as a minority institution, it must enjoy the rights conferred by the Constitution itself,” reads the order by the Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita Mehta on two writ petitions filed by the Diocesan Society of Education, which manages over 138 primary to higher secondary schools across Goa.
The Society had challenged the Directorate of Education’s directions requiring that appointment orders of staff be issued under the signature of the school managing committees instead of the Society’s Chairman.
The petitioner argued that this direction infringed its constitutional rights under Article 30(1), which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It also challenged Rules 46 and 97(2) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, and a 2020 public notice, contending that these provisions curtailed its autonomy in appointments and disciplinary matters.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate J E Coelho Pereira argued that the Diocesan Society, as a religious minority, retained the power to appoint and discipline teachers across its schools and that the State could not compel it to follow administrative structures applicable to non-minority institutions.
During the hearing, the State, represented by Advocate General Devidas Pangam, maintained that the rules merely ensured compliance with statutory requirements and did not infringe minority rights.
The Court, after a detailed review of constitutional jurisprudence including landmark cases such as T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Sindhi Education Society, and Chandana Das (Malakar), held that while minority institutions are subject to reasonable regulatory measures to maintain educational standards, such regulations cannot erode their essential right to manage their affairs.
“The right to administer does not mean a right to maladministration. Yet, regulations cannot be of such a character as to denude minority educational institutions of their right to administer or impinge upon their rights under Article 30(1),” the Court said while quashing and setting aside the letters issued by the Education Department.
The judgment clarified that the “management” of an institution – as distinct from its “Managing Committee” – rests with the Society that establishes and runs the schools, and that the Directorate’s insistence on appointment orders being signed only by school-level committees was inconsistent with the Society’s minority rights.
While upholding the State’s authority to prescribe teacher qualifications and maintain educational standards, the Court ruled that the Diocesan Society retains the autonomy to make appointments, initiate disciplinary proceedings, and exercise administrative control over its schools.
