L.P.A.No.362 of 1984 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.362 of 1984 Date of Decision:- 01.02.2011 The State of Haryana and another ....Appellant(s) vs. Shri Atma Nand Jain College Trust and Management Society Punjab, Ambala City ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Randhir Singh,Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.Satya Pal Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.S.C.Sibal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** Ranjan Gogoi, ACJ. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against an order dated 15.11.1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court interfering with certain orders passed by the appellant-State with regard to the constitution of the Managing Committee of the respondent-College. The learned Single Judge had further directed that the maintenance and grant-in-aid to the respondent-College be released and disbursed by the State without insisting upon compliance with the order(s) impugned in the writ petition. That the respondent-College is a minority institution is not L.P.A.No.362 of 1984 -2- disputed before the Court. The agreement between the parties on the said issue severely truncates the dimensions of the conflict between the parties in view of the law that has crystalized over the years in respect of minority institutions and the extent of governmental control over such institutions. The decisions of the Apex Court lay down the law which in substance is that there can be no governmental control over the affairs of a minority institution established under Article 30 of the Constitution. It will not be necessary to enter into a detailed narration of the various decisions of the Apex Court. However, by way of illustration, the decision in Secy, Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T.Jose and others, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 386 may be usefully referred to. In the said decision, the Apex Court had occasion to consider several other decisions on the point including the decision in T.M.A.Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481. On an exhaustive consideration of the several cases referred to in the judgment, including the judgment in T.M.A.Pai Foundation's case (supra), the Apex Court in para 19 of the judgment had culled out the following general principles relating to administration of minority educational institutions:- “19. The general principles relating to establishment and administration of educational institution by minorities may be summarised thus: (i) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice comprises the following rights: (a) to choose its governing body in whom the founders of the institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution; L.P.A.No.362 of 1984 -3- (b) to appoint teaching staff (teachers/lecturers and Headmasters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff, and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees; (c ) to admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable fee structure; (d) to use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution.” In the present case, the main features of the directions issued by the State Government by its memo. dated 28.3.1979 (Annexure P-2) contained in Sr.No.(i) to (ix) as summarised by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge, the College has no objection in implementing the directions contained against Sr.Nos.(vii), (viii) and (ix) inasmuch as the same are beneficial to its employees. The aforesaid three directions are being extracted below for the purpose of clarity:- “vii) that the College shall pay gratuity to its employees on the pattern as is admissible to Government employees; viii) that the college shall also pay full additional Dearness Allowance to its employees with effect from Ist April, 1979; ix) that the salary of teachers un-approved by the University/Government shall not be taken into consideration for calculating the maintenance and the grant-in-aid.” Insofar as the main features of the directions contained in Sr.Nos.(i) to (vi), which are also being extracted below, not much L.P.A.No.362 of 1984 -4- persuasion will be required to accept the position that by the said directions the appellant State has virtually attempted to decide on the composition of the governing body as well as its tenure and had also made the decisions of the governing body subject to the scrutiny, control and approval of the Government/University. We have no doubt in our minds that the aforesaid directions issued are clearly contrary to the principles of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the several cases reference to which has been made in T.Jose's case (supra). The same are, therefore, ex facie not tenable. Before parting with the record, the main features contained at Sr.Nos.(i) to (vi) mentioned above will have extracted below: “i) that the Governing Body of the College should consist of not more than 21 and not less than 11 members; ii) that the said body shall have one nominee of the University, one of the State Govt. and three representatives of the teachers working in the college; iii) that the President- elect shall nominate the remaining members- up to a maximum of 11; iv) that the tenure of the Governing Body shall be three years, the elections of the Governing Body shall be held under the supervision of the observer to be appointed by the University; v) that in case the election is not held within the prescribed period of three years, the University shall be competent to arrange the elections to constitute a new Managing Committee; vi) that the Minutes of the meetings of the Governing Body shall be subject to inspection by the Government/University and copies thereof would be forwarded to them.” L.P.A.No.362 of 1984 -5- In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same and affirm the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE February 01, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE