Case: CHANDANA DAS(MALAKAR) Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

The facts that are necessary in order to decide these appeals are set out by Thakur, J. in his judgment as follows:2. The appellants, it appears, were appointed as teachers on temporary basis in what is known as Khalsa Girls High School, Paddapukur Road, Bhowanipore, Calcutta. Their appointment did not, however, meet the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Calcutta, according to whom any such appointment could be made only on the recommendations of the School Service Commission established under the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules)3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Inspector, the appellants approached the High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petitions Nos. 16256 and 16255 of 2003 which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 29-1-2004 holding that the Institution in which the appellants were appointed being a linguistic minority institution was entitled to select and appoint its teachers. The Single Bench accordingly directed the respondents in the writ petitions to approve the appointment of the appellants as whole-time teachers with effect from 28-7-1999 and release the arrears of salary and other service benefits in their favour with effect from the said date4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the State of West Bengal, Director of School Education and District Inspector of Schools preferred CANs Nos. 3861 and 3863 of 2004 against the order passed by the Single Bench which appeals were allowed and disposed of by a Division Bench of that Court by a common order dated 23-9-2004 [State of W.B. v. Sukhbindar Kaur, 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 570 : (2005) 3 CHN 604 ] . The High Court held that since the Institution in which the appellants were appointed was a recognised aided Institution, the management of the Institution was bound to follow the mandate of Rule 28 of the Rules aforementioned which permitted appointments against a permanent post only if the candidate was recommended for any such appointment by the School Service Commission5. The Division Bench further held that the appellants having been appointed beyond the sanctioned staff strength at the relevant point of time and dehors the Rules could not claim any approval in their favour. The Court noted that the directions issued by the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal did not permit any appointment without the prior permission of the Director. No such permission had been, in the case at hand, obtained from the Director. More importantly, the Division Bench held that since the Institution had not made any claim to its being a minority institution it was not open to the employee writ petitioners to claim any such status on its behalf. The Division Bench further took the view that once a minority community applies for a special constitution under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the said Rules it represents to the State Government that it was not claiming the status of a minority institution. The Single Bench had, therefore, fallen in error in holding that the Institution where the appellants worked was a minority institution or that the appointment made by such an Institution would not be regulated by Rule 28 of the Rules mentioned above. The present appeals, as noticed above, call in question the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court6. The short question that falls for determination is whether Khalsa Girls High School, Poddapukur Road, Calcutta is a minority institution, if so, whether the Institutions 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?8. The Institutions case, on the other hand, is that the same was and continues to be a linguistic minority institution from its inception. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Institution traces the history behind the establishment of the Institution for the benefit of Punjabi-speaking Sikhs settled in Calcutta and other parts of West Bengal. The affidavit states that on 19-4-1976 a detailed memorandum was sent by the Institution to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education asking for approval of the special constitution for the school in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules mentioned above. That prayer was according to the Institution made only because the school was a minority educational institution. The affidavit also relies upon recognition of the minority status of the school by the West Bengal Minority Commission in terms of its Order dated 6-10-1989. The affidavit states that minority status of the Institution continues despite the grant sanctioned by the State which cannot carry conditions that would have the effect of defeating or diluting the right of minority to establish and administer its own Institutions. It was also contended that Rule 33 of the Rules reserves in favour of the State Government the power to frame further rules for certain institutions to which the provisions of Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution apply. No such rules having been framed a minority can establish and run its institution in accordance with a special constitution that may be sanctioned in its favour. Rule 28 of the Rules relating to the appointment of teachers in minority institutions, therefore, does not apply in the present case2. The question posed by Thakur, J. in paragraph 6 of the judgment was answered stating:21. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position is well settled. Linguistic institution and religious are entitled to establish and administer their institutions. Such right of administration includes the right of appointing teachers of its choice but does not denude the State of its power to frame regulations that may prescribe the conditions of eligibility for appointment of such teachers. The regulations can also prescribe measures to ensure that the institution is run efficiently for the right to administer does not include the right to maladministration. While grant-in-aid is not included in the guarantee contained in the Constitution to linguistic and religious minorities for establishing and running their educational institutions, such grant cannot be denied to such institutions only because the institutions are established by linguistic or religious minority. Grant of aid cannot, however, be made subservient to conditions which deprive the institution of their substantive right of administering such institutions. Suffice it to say that once Respondent 4 Institution is held to be a minority institution entitled to the protection of Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India the right to appoint teachers of its choice who satisfy the conditions of eligibility prescribed for such appointments under the relevant rules is implicit in their rights to administer such institutions. Such rights cannot then be diluted by the State or its functionaries insisting that the appointment should be made only with the approval of the Director or by following the mechanism generally prescribed for institutions that do not enjoy the minority status22. The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that appointments of the appellants were dehors the Rules inasmuch as they were not made by the School Service Commission hence did not qualify for approval, does not appear to us to be sound. The mechanism provided for making appointments under Rule 28 has no application to minority educational institutions24. Placed in juxtaposition to Rule 33 of the Rules extracted earlier, it is self-evident that while Rule 28 applies generally to other institutions; Rule 33 is more specific in its application to minority educational institutions covered by Article 26 or 30 of the Constitution. In the absence of any rules framed for such minority educational institutions the minority educational institution in the present case was entitled to select and appoint its teachers so long as other conditions for such appointments, namely, availability of substantive vacancies and the eligibility of the candidates for such appointments were duly satisfied25. It is not, in the instant case, disputed that the appellants were both duly qualified for appointment as teachers in the subject concerned. It is also not in dispute that they have been serving for a considerable length of time on a meagre salary which the institution has been paying to them in the absence of the State Government recognising the appointments and releasing grant-in-aid against their posts26. The only other question that could possibly arise in the matter of approval of such appointments was the absence of a sanctioned post as on the date the appointments were made. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that vacancies had subsequently arisen against which the appointments of the appellants could be approved and the salary payable to them from the date of such vacancies becoming available released. If that be so, we see no reason why the appointments of the appellants should not be approved with effect from the date of such vacancies becoming available against which such appointments could be regularised. To that extent the relief prayed for by the appellants shall be suitably moulded3. Banumathi, J. delivered a separate judgment disagreeing with these conclusions. She agreed with the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had upset the Single Bench judgment of that Court, and held as follows:34. The impugned judgment [State of W.B. v. Sukhbindar Kaur, 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 570 : (2005) 3 CHN 604 ] of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is as under: (Sukhbindar Kaur case [State of W.B. v. Sukhbindar Kaur, 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 570 : (2005) 3 CHN 604 ] , SCC OnLine Cal para 4)4. … In such view of the matter, a Constitution permitted under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the said Rules cannot be in relation to minority community institutions. That has been amply cleared by framing Rule 33 in the Management Rules which specifically deals with institutions entitled to protection of Articles 26 and 30. It authorises the State Government to make special rules for constitution of the Managing Committee of such institutions. The moment a minority community applies for a special constitution under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the said Rules it represents to the State Government that it is not claiming the status of minority community at least at the time when such application is madeIn my considered view, the above reasoning of the Calcutta High Court is to be affirmed for the reasons indicated by me herein.

Court's reasoning:
9. Before embarking on the questions raised in these appeals, it is important to first advert to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. It is enough to state that this Act establishes the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and various Committees and Regional Examination Councils and then lays down their powers. Suffice it to say that it is no part of the powers and duties of the Board or of any authority set up therein to declare that a particular institution is, or is not, a minority institution12. A perusal of the Rules, as they stood prior to the 2008 amendment, would show that in case the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution apply, further or other rules for the composition, powers, functions of the managing committee or committees of such institutions or class of institutions would be framed. It is admitted, as has been noticed in the judgment of Thakur, J. that no such Rules have been framed under Rule 3313. At this juncture, it may be noted that by a letter dated 19 th April, 1976, Respondent No.4 wrote to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education asking that it may be declared as a minority community institution and the special constitution for the same may be approved on that basis15. It is obvious on a reading of this document that whereas Rule 6 required only one representative of the Sikh community to be on the Management Board, there are three representatives appointed. Equally, whereas Rule 6 requires that there be six guardian representatives to be elected, only four are provided for by this letter. Thus, it cannot be said that by acceptance of this letter, Respondent No.4 has, in any manner, unequivocally waived its right to be treated as a minority institution. On the contrary, the application dated 19 th April, 1976, was to recognise it as a minority institution, and merely because Rule 8(3) of the Rules was purportedly applied, it does not mean that the minority character of the institution was not kept in mind while framing the special constitution for future management of the school. On facts, therefore, it is difficult to appreciate how the Respondent No.4 can be said to have waived its right to be treated as a linguistic minority institution set up by a linguistic minority, namely, the Sikhs in the State of West Bengal23. A reading of the aforesaid judgment would leave no manner of doubt that if Respondent No.4 is a minority institution, Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969, cannot possibly apply as there would be a serious infraction of the right of Respondent No.4 to administer the institution with teachers of its choiceWe have already noticed that the competent authorities set up by the aforesaid Act do not give any power to recognise a minority institution. For this reason, it is difficult to agree with the conclusion stated in paragraph 40 of judgment of Banumathi, J. Further, the letter dated 19 th April, 1976 would show that Respondent No.4 was started as a primary school by the Sikh community living in Kolkata to impart education to their children who came from Punjab, so that they may learn their mother tongue and religion, ethics etc. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter is no longer res integra26. We have held that it cannot be said that Respondent No.4 is, in any manner, estopped from claiming its minority status on the facts of this case. Quite apart from this, it is settled law that the fundamental right under Article 30 cannot be waived (See St. Xaviers (supra) at pages 260 to 262 per Mathew, J.; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545   and 569 to 571.) In the recent judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 , Chandrachud, J. has echoed this sentiment as follows:126. In Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955) 1 SCR 13: AIR 1955 SC 123  : 1955 Cri LJ 215, Mahajan, C.J. speaking for the Constitution Bench, noted the link between the constitutional vision contained in the Preamble and the position of the fundamental rights as a means to facilitate its fulfilment. Through Part III embodies fundamental rights, this was construed to be a part of the wider notion of securing the vision of justice of the Founding Fathers and, as a matter of doctrine, the rights guaranteed were held not to be capable of being waived. Mahajan C.J., observed (AIR p. 146, para 52 : SCR pp. 653-54)52. …We think that the rights described as fundamental rights are a necessary consequence of the declaration in the Preamble that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunityThese fundamental rights have not been put in the Constitution merely for individual benefit, though ultimately they come into operation in considering individual rights. They have been put there as a matter of public policy and the doctrine of waiver can have no application to provisions of law which have been enacted as a matter of constitutional policy27. This being the law laid down by this Court, it is clear that both the reasons given by Banumathi, J. cannot be said to be correct, as per the law laid down by this Court350B. Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities(1) There shall be a Special Officer for linguistic minorities to be appointed by the President(2) It shall be the duty of the Special Officer to investigate all matters relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities under this Constitution and report to the President upon those matters at such intervals as the President may direct, and the President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament, and sent to the Governments of the States concerned29. This Article only sets up a Special Officer for linguistic minorities, to be appointed by the President, whose duty it is to investigate matters relating to safeguards provided for linguistic minorities and send reports to the President of India, which reports the President shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, and send to the Governments of the States concerned. Even a cursory reading of this Article cannot possibly lead to the conclusion that absent a report by the Special Officer, no linguistic minority can claim protection as such under Article 30(1) of the Constitution30. In point of fact, in D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971) Supp. SCR 688, this Court held that where the challenge is to a State law, linguistic minority status would have to be determined State-wise (see page 696). This view has been reiterated by the Eleven Judge Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) (see pages 552, 553 and 587)32. Seeing the writing on the wall, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State made a fervent plea that we should refer this matter to the Constitution Bench, following the order in Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (supra) dated 18 th November, 201033. This matter arose out of a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 17 th December, 2007, as per which two notifications were issued under the Punjab Private Health Sciences Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Fee and Making of Reservation) Act, 2006, by which the aforesaid Sikh institutions were declared to be minority institutions within the State of Punjab. The High Court had held, following this Courts judgment in Bal Patil v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 690 , that the Sikhs were, in fact, population-wise the majority community in the State of Punjab, as a result of which the two notifications were struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is in this backdrop that, by an order dated 18 th November, 2010, a Division Bench of this Court referred this matter to be heard along with other matters by a Constitution Bench. The other matter concerned Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 6 SC 224, in which a review petition was allowed and directed to be heard by a Constitution Bench. In the aforesaid case, the challenge that was raised was grounded on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and was not directly related to Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Obviously, this reference order is on different facts and would not avail the respondent State in the present case34. As a result, we are of the view that the judgment of Thakur, J. is correct in law.