PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has rejected a petition filed by the Archdiocesan Board of Education (ABE) and the Diocesan Society of Education (DSE), who had challenged regulations issued by the University Grants Commission in 2010 and 2018 and consequent statutes framed by the Goa University concerning appointment of academic staff in minority institutions.
The High Court held that the notifications didn’t infringe on the constitutional rights of minority institutions to establish and administer their own institutions as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution.
The High Court, however, upheld the ABE and the DSE’s challenge to the clause in the regulations that mandated the presence of the representative of the Director of Higher Education in the selection panel, saying there was no justification for such presence when it came to minority institutions.
The ABE and the DSE, which administer Goa’s Church-run colleges in the state, had challenged a provision of the regulations that governed the appointment of assistant professors, associate professors and college principals in the State.
According to the UGC and Goa University Rules, for recruitment and selection of academic staff, the selection committee will consist of the chairperson of the governing body of the institute or his/her representative, the principal, the head of department concerned and two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating University, of whom one should be a subject-expert.
In case of colleges notified/declared as a minority educational institution, the vice chancellor will have to recommend five nominees preferably from the minority committee from among a the list of experts suggested by the relevant statutory body of the College, of whom one should be a subject-expert.
The Chairperson of the College will have to choose two among these five names recommended by the Vice Chancellor.
Representing the Church bodies, Adv José Elmano Coelho Pereira, argued that involving the nominees of the vice chancellor in the selection Committee will infringe upon the rights of the minority institution.
“The right to select and appoint teachers/academic staff was very much an integral facet of the right to administer educational institutions. Foisting of any external experts upon the minority managements amounts to making inroads on the rights guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution of India,” Adv Coelho Pereira argued.
He however, made it clear that the ABE and DSE were not objecting to the provisions that required the approval of the Goa University/Vice-Chancellor for the appointment of teachers/academic staff in the institutions/ colleges established and administered by the Petitioners and that they were not opposed to having experts in the selection committees to select teachers/academic staff, but argued that that the choice of experts must be left to the management of the minority colleges/institutions.
“There should not be any interference or even say left with the Vice-Chancellor or the Goa University on this aspect. If ultimately, there was any issue with the selection made by the managements of the minority colleges/institutions, the Vice-Chancellor/Goa University could always withhold the approval, consistent with the statutes' provisions petitioners did not even question,” he argued.
Adv A A Agni who represented the Goa University, however, argued that the provisions were not violative of the special rights given to minority institutions by the Constitution.
“Even the initial choice of presenting a list of experts was left with the minority institutions. Even after that, the Vice-Chancellor was only to approve the panel of five subject experts. The minority institutions were free to choose the experts for a particular selection. She submitted that all of these are regulatory measures aimed at achieving excellence for minority institutions. She presented that such provisions do not inroad the Constitution's rights guaranteed by Article 30,” she argued.
The High Court ruled that the rules, given that they retained special provisions for minority institutions, didn't violate the constitutional mandate.
“The statutory body of the minority institutions, in the first place, suggests a list of experts to the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating University, i.e., Goa University. From out of such a list, the Vice-Chancellor would recommend a panel of five names, preferably from the minority community. The Chairperson of the College or the Governing Body of the College is then given a choice to nominate two persons from out of the panel of five persons as above, of whom one should be a subject expert,” the High Court observed.
“Thus, when it comes to non-minority institutions, the Vice-Chancellor is given full power to nominate two experts, out of whom one should be a subject expert. However, when it comes to minority institutions, the statutory body of the minority institution must first forward a list of experts of their choice to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor will then choose five names and form a panel of five names, preferably from the minority community. In selecting these five names, the Vice-Chancellor will have to make his/her choice from out of the list of experts suggested by the statutory body of the College. After that, it is again left to the Chairperson of the College to choose two experts from out of the panel of five experts recommended or empanelled by the Vice-Chancellor,” the High Court also said.
“We think that the regulations do not make any inroads on the rights granted to the minority institutions to either establish or administer the educational institutions of their choice. There is a clear distinction made between the minority and non-minority institutions on the aspect of the nomination of experts,” the HC said.
“The provisions are regulatory, and the regulation ensures the excellence of the teaching staff that is proposed to be selected. Special provisions have been made for minority institutions to ensure that their autonomy and rights to administer educational institutions are hardly affected. The regime and the mechanism of the selection of teachers are basically to achieve excellence in the minority institutions”.
“The regime and the mechanism do not dent the minority character of the institutions or make any undue inroads upon the rights of the minorities to establish and administer the educational institutions of their own choice”.
“Broadly, therefore, the choice of experts remains substantially with the minority institutions themselves. A slight regulation of this choice can hardly be described as a provision making inroads upon the rights guaranteed to the minority institutions by Article 30 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the mechanism prescribed is quite reasonable and regulatory. Regulation ensures that the persons nominated by the Chairperson of the College are indeed experts and not some persons masquerading as experts. This minimal control is in the interest of ensuring the selection of the best-qualified teachers who, in turn, will ensure the excellence of the institution itself,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and R N Laddha, ruled.
When it came to requiring a representative of the Directorate of Higher Education, Government of Goa, to be a member of the selection committee for selection to the posts of Associate Professor, Professor, Principal, etc, the court struck down the provision when it came to minority institutions.
“The Directorate of Higher Education would be in a position to depute any person as its representative regardless of the qualifications possessed by such person or his competence when it comes to making any contribution to the selection of teachers and academic staff in the minority institutions affiliated to the Goa University. Regardless of their qualifications or competence, such a person will have a say in selecting teachers/academic staff in the minority institutions affiliated with Goa University. Such a provision, according to us, is neither reasonable nor can it be styled as some regulatory measure to secure the excellence of the minority institutions,” the High Court ruled.
The High Court, however, ruled that recruitment that has already been done will not be affected by the present judgement.
