Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=3049
Timestamp: 2019-06-17 08:01:04
Document Index: 726864516

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 226', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 254', 'Art. 19', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 14']

KATRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &AMP; ORS
1966 AIR 1307	1966 SCR (3) 328
KATRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS [1966] RD-SC 15 (17 January 1966)
17/01/1966 SHAH, J.C.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) SIKRI, S.M.
CITATION: 1966 AIR 1307	1966 SCR (3) 328
R	1970 SC2079	(10) RF	1974 SC 1	(27) RF	1979 SC 83	(5) RF	1983 SC 1	(67) RF	1988 SC 305	(7)
Intermediate Education Act (U.P. 2 of 1921) as	amended by Act 35 of 1958-Validity of ss. 16A to 161-Sections whether unreasonable, discriminatory--Whether	within	legislative power of State Legislature.
The appellants	society registered under the Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860-- conducted an	educational institution at Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. Management of the affairs of the society was entrusted by the memorandum of association to an Executive Committee whose membership was confined	to members of	the Society.	Under	the Intermediate Education Act (U.P. Act 2 of 1921) provision was made for establishing a Board with powers	to regulate High School and Intermediate Education This Act was amended by U.P. Act 35 of 1958. By s. 7 of the amending Act which came into force on January 23, 1959, ss. 16A to 16I, were incorporated into U.P. Act 2 of 1921. By letter dated September 12, 1960, the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools called upon the Society to submit and get approved a scheme of Administration of the institution managed by it.	The society thereupon presented a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ quashing the orders of.
the Regional Inspector and requiring the authorities not to enforce	the provisions of ss. 16A to 161. The	High Court dismissed the petition.	In its appeal to this Court it	was contended on behalf of the Society that (1) The amending Act of 1958 was inoperative to the extent to which it sought to impose	controls upon	the management	of an	educational institution registered under the Societies Registration	Act and thereby directly	trenched upon	legislative power conferred by Entry 44 of List I and Entries 10 and 18 of List HI. (2) Section 16I was discriminatory inasmuch as it conferred uncontrolled power on the Regional Deputy Director of Education. (3) The provisions of s. 16B(3) read with s.
16D(3)(a) and	(b) were unreasonable.	(4) Section 16D(4) invaded the society's right to property guaranteed by Arts.
19 and	31 of the Constitution. (5)	The pro-visions in question made unlawful discrimination between	private	and State institutions.
HELD :	(i) The impugned legislation does not	fall under Entry 44 of List 1.
Board of Trustees v. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1962 S.C.	458, applied.
it cannot also be said that the pith and substance of	the impugned Act	relates to	charities and	charitable institutions or to trusts and trustees.	The true nature and character of the Act falls within the	express	legislative power conferred by Entry 11 of List II and merely because it incidentally trenches	upon or affected a	charitable institution or the powers of the trustees of the institution it will not on that account	be beyond the	legislative authority of the State. [333 E-G] (ii)Section 16F(4) is	enacted in the interest of	the students of	the institution. When the	Educational Authorities do	not accept the suitability of a person selected by the management on two successive occa- 329 sions in respect of the same vacancy, the	Educational Authorities have been given power to fill up the vacancy.
It is	implicit in the provision that the power has to be exercised by the Educational Authority in the	interest of the institution and for serving the cause of education,	and it cannot be said that the power conferred is uncontrolled.
[334 E] (iii)The pro-visions	of s.	16B(3)	read with s.
16D(3)(a) and (b) are disciplinary and enacted for securing the best interests of the students. The	State in a democratic set	up is vitally	interested in	securing a healthy	system	of imparting	education for	its coming generations of citizens, and if the management	is recalcitrant and declines to afford facilities	for enforcement of the statute enacted in the interest of	the students, a provision authorising the State Government to enter upon the management through its Authorised Controller cannot be regarded as unreasonable. [335 A-B] (iv)Section 16D(4) does not affect the right to property under Arts. 19 or 31. The property continues to remain	the property of the institution; only the right of management of the recalcitrant managers is taken away temporarily to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. [335 F] (v)The	provisions of	the Act do not make	unlawful discrimination	between educational institutions maintained by private citizens and institutions maintained by the State or the Central Government or local bodies. The institutions run by	these authorities are governed	by definite rules under conditions which are entirely different	from those prevailing in privately managed institutions. The materials on record were sufficient to indicate that the plea of unlawful discrimination had no basis. [337 B, C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1965.
Appeal	by special leave from the judgment and	order dated May 1, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.	Writ No. 2892 of 1960.
Gopinath Kunzru, D. D. Verma, S. S. Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
K.L. Misra, Advocate-General, Uttar	Pradesh, C B.
Agarwala, Atiqur Rehman and O. P. Rana, for the respondents.
Shah, J. The	appellant--A society registered under	the Societies Registration Act	21 of	1860 conducts	an educational institution styled "Dwarka Prasad Girls Intermediate College"	at Allahabad.	Management of	the affairs	of the Society is entrusted by the memorandum of association to	an Executive Committee	consisting of	six office-bearers, seven members elected at the general meeting of the Society, and two nominees of the settlors of certain buildings, in	which the College is conducted, and it is provided by the memorandum that no one who is not a member of the	Society can become or remain an office-bearer or member of the Executive Committee.
Under the Intermediate Education Act (U.P. Act 2 of 1921) provision was made for establishing a Board with power to prescribe courses of	instruction for the	Intermediate classes and the Higher Sections of English Schools, to grant diplomas or certificates 330 to conduct examinations at the end of the High	School	and Intermediate courses, to recognize institutions for purposes of its	examinations,	and to do all such other acts	and things	as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the Board. This Act was amended by the U.P. Act 35 of 1958. By S. 7 of the amending Act which came into force on January 23, 1959, ss. 16A to 161 were incorporated into U.P.
Act 2 of 1921.	By s. 8 the State Government was authorised to promulgate Regulations in respect of matters covered by ss. 16A to 161.
By letter dated September 12, 1960 the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools,	IIIrd	Region, Allahabad called upon	the Society to submit	and get approved a	Scheme	of Administration	of the	institution managed by it.	The Society thereupon presented a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for the issue of a writ quashing the orders passed by	the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools and requiring the State of U.P., the Director of Education, the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools and the Board of High School	and Inter- medicate Education, who were respectively respondents	Nos.
1 to 4, not to enforce the provisions of ss. 16A to 161 as originally enacted or	as modified by the	Removal	of Difficulties Orders issued under s.9 of the amending Act. It was submitted by the Society that ss. 16A to	161 were not within the competence of the State Legislature, and also because they infringed the fundamental rights of	the Society guaranteed by Arts. 14, 19(1) (c), 19(1) (f) and 31 of the	Constitution.	It was urged	that by the	Act unreasonable restrictions were imposed on the management of educational institutions and the Act conferred unguided	and untrammelled powers	upon executive authorities,	no distinction having been made	between "well-managed	and badly-managed"	institutions. The High Court rejected	the contentions raised by the Society. With special leave,	the Society has appealed to this Court.
The effect of ss. 16A to 161 which were added to the	U.P.
Act 2	of 1921 by the amending Act 35 of 1958	is briefly this.	For every institution there shall be a Scheme of Administration which shall amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management	vested	with authority to	manage	and conduct the affairs of	the institution, and which shall describe the powers, duties and functions of the Headmaster or the Principal	and of	the Committee of Management in relation to the institution	and that the Headmaster or the Principal of the institution and two teachers thereof	selected by rotation according to seniority shall be exofficio members of the Committee with a right to vote : (S. 16A). In the case of an	institution recognized at the date of commencement of the	Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958, a draft of the Scheme of Administration	shall be prepared and submitted to	the Director for his approval: (s. 16B); and if the Scheme 331 of Administration is not submitted within the time allowed, the Director shall take action in accordance with cl. (a) or (b) of	sub-s. (3) of s. 16 D: (s. 16C). The	Director is authorised to inspect recognized institutions and to remove defects or deficiencies found on inspection or otherwise and if the management fails to comply with any directions the Director may,	after	considering the explanation	or representation,	if any, given or made by the	management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition or recommend to the State Government to proceed	against	the institution in the manner provided by sub-s. (4) of s.	16.
If on receipt of a recommendation, the State Government is satisfied that the affairs, ,of the institution are being mismanaged, or	the management of the institution	has wilfully or persistently failed in the performance of	its duties, or the institution is being conducted otherwise than in accordance	with the Scheme of Administration, or	the draft of the Scheme of Administration has not been submitted within	the time allowed, the State Government may by order provide	for exercising control over such institution by an Authorized ,Controller for such period as may be specified by the	Government, and on the making of such order	the institution and its management shall, so long as the order continues, in	force,	be conducted and carried on	in accordance with the provisions of the order, and every person having any function of management of such institution shall comply with such directions. Where the management or any person having any function of management does not comply with or refuses to carry out any direction given by	the Authorized Controller, that Officer may, with the previous approval of the State Government and for such period as	the State Government may fix, take over the management of	the institution including	management of the land, buildings, funds and other assets belonging to	or vested in	the institution, to the exclusion of the management or any	such person and wherever the Authorized Controller so takes	over the management he shall have in relation to the management of the institution all such powers and authority as	the management would have if the institution were not taken over under sub-ss. (4) or (5) : (s. 16D).	Qualifications	for appointment as	Principals, Headmasters and	teachers of different subjects shall be prescribed by regulation	and there shall be constituted in every recognized institution a Selection Committee for selecting candidates for appointment as teachers in the institution: (s. 16E). Qualifications which the Principal or Headmaster or teacher shall possess, and the procedure for appointment of selected candidates to the office of Principal or Headmaster or teacher are also to be prescribed	: (s. 16F). Every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as	may be prescribed by Regulations and	any agreement between the management and such employee insofar as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or with the Regulations shall be void: the 332 Regulations shall inter alia provide for the period of probation, the conditions of confirmation and the procedure and conditions for promotion and punishment, scales of	pay and payment of salaries, transfer of service from	one recognized institution	to another, grant of leave	and Provident Fund and other benefits and maintenance of record of work and service etc. The Committee of Management	may not remove or dismiss from service or reduce	in rank or reduce	the emoluments	of any Principal, Headmaster or teacher	except	with the prior approval in writing of	the Inspector: (s. 16G). By S. 16H the provisions of ss.	16A, 16B, 16C, sub-ss. (2) to (7) of S. 16 D and ss. 16E, 16F and 16G are not to apply to recognized institutions maintained by the State Government or the Central Government and in the case of recognized institutions maintained by a local body, the State Government may declare that all or any of those provisions shall not apply or shall apply subject to	such alterations, modifications or additions as it may make. The Director may,	by notification in the Official Gazette delegate all or any of the powers which he exercises under the Act except certain powers: s. 161.
Some of these provisions have been amended from time to time by orders issued under s. 9 of the	amending Act.	For reasons	which we will presently set out, we do not propose in this appeal to enter upon	the question	whether	the amendments were validly made.	We have referred to the	act as it was originally enacted.
Counsel for the Society contends that the amending Act inso- far as it incorporates ss. 16A to 161 in the U.P. Act 2 of 1921 is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, because in substance it seeks to supersede	the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860-a field of legislation which is exclusively within the competence of the Parliament-and in any event because the Act insofar as it affects the powers of trustees of charitable institutions cannot be enacted without conforming to the requirements of Art. 254.
Management of the affairs of the Society was entrusted by Its memorandum of association to the Executive Committee, but the Society is required by s. 16A to submit a Scheme of Administration providing for the constitution of a Committee of Management invested with authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the Society, and of	this Committee of Management the Headmaster or the Principal and two teachers selected by rotation are ex officio members. The Director has the power to inspect the School and to interfere	with the management	calling upon them to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection, and the State Government is empowered to appoint an Authorized Controller	to exercise with respect to the institution and its management	such functions or control as may be specified in the order of the State Government.
333 In the matter of appointment and removal of the Principal or the Headmaster, and teachers the authority of the Executive Comitttee of the Society is restricted. Management of	the affairs	since	the enactment	of the	amending Act	has therefore to be carried on not in accordance with	the memorandum of association of the Society, but in accordance with and subject to the provisions of ss. 16A	to 161 as added by the amending Act.
Power of the State Legislature to legislate under the	head "education including Universities" in Entry II of List II of the 7th Schedule would prima facie include the power to impose	restrictions on the	management of	educational institutions in matters relating to education.	The pith and substance of the impugned legislation being in' regard to the field of education within the competence of the State Legislature, authority	to legislate	in respect of	the maintenance of control over	educational institutions imparting higher secondary education and for that purpose to make provisions for proper administration of the educational institutions was not	denied.	But it was said that	the impugned Act is inoperative to the extent to which it seeks to impose controls upon the management of an	educational institution registered under the Societies Registration	Act and managed through trustees, and thereby directly trenches upon legislative power conferred by Entry 44 of List I	and Entries	10 &	18 of	List III. This argument has no substance. Ibis Court has in Board of Trustees v. State of Delhi (1) held that legislation which deprives the Board of Management of	a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of the power of management and creates a new Board does not fall within Entry 44 of List 1, but falls under Entry 32 of List II, for by registration under the Societies Registration Act the Society does not acquire a corporate status. It cannot also be said that the pith	and substance of the Act relates to charities or charitable institutions, or to trusts or trustees.	If the true nature and character	of the Act falls within the express legislative power conferred by Entry 11 of List II, merely because	it incidentally trenches upon or	affects a charitable institution, or the powers of trustees of	the institution, it will	not on that account be	beyond	the legislative authority of the State. The impact of the	Act upon the rights of the trustees or the management of a charitable institution is purely incidental, the true object of the	legislation being to	provide for control over educational institutions. The amending Act was therefore within the competence of the State Legislature and the	fact that it incidentally affected the powers of the trustees or the management in respect of educational institutions which may be regarded as charitable, could not detract from	the validity of the exercise of that power.
(1) A.I.R. 1962 S. C. 458.
334 The plea that certain specific provisions were	invalid as infringing Arts. 19,	31 and 14 may	now be	considered.
Section 16F (4) was challenged as conferring an uncontrolled power upon the Regional Deputy Director of Education.	By that provision, when a recommendation for appointment of a teacher or a Principal or Headmaster made by the management has been rejected and another selection made is again disapproved after representation of	the management	is considered, the Regional Deputy Director of Education in case of a teacher, and the Director in case of a Principal or Headmaster, may appoint any qualified person out of	the list of candidates applying for the	vacancies and	such appointment is made final. It is clear that the selection of teachers and principals or headmasters is in the first instance left	to the Commttee of Management. But	the exercise of the power is subject to approval of	the Education Authorities.	The Educational Authorities	may reject the selection after considering the representation of the management. The Selection Committee would then	have power to make another recommendation. If that second recom- mendation also	be not accepted after considering	the representation	made by the management, power is conferred upon the Educational Authorities to make appointments of qualified persons out of the list of candidates applying for the vacancies.	But the person to be	so appointed	must possess the prescribed qualifications, and his name must be included in the list of candidates applying for the vacancy' The provision is enacted in the interest of the students of the institution. Where the Educational Authorities do	not accept	the suitability of a person selected by the manage- ment on two successive occasions in respect of the	same vacancy, the Educational Authorities have been given	the power to fill	up the vacancy, It is implicit in	the provision that	the power has to be exercised by	the Educational Authority in the interest of the institution and for serving the cause of education, and it cannot be	said that the power conferred is uncontrolled.
It was then urged that the provisions of S. 16B(3) read with s. 16(d) (3) (a) & (b) are unreasonable provisions. By S.
16 D power is given to the Director to	inspect recognized institutions and to direct removal of defects. If	the management fails to comply with the directions made by	the Director, that Officer may after considering the explanation or representation, if any, given or made by the	management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition or recommend to the State Government to proceed	against	the institution under sub-s. (4) and the powers which the State Government may	exercise after being	satisfied that	the affairs ,of the institution are being mismanaged or that the management has	wilfully or persistently failed in	the performance of its duties, include the power to appoint an Authorised Controller	to manage the affairs of	the institution for such period as may be specified by 335 the Government. The provision is disciplinary and enacted for securing the best interests of the students. The State in a democratic set-up is vitally interested in securing a healthy	system	of imparting education for	its coming generation of	citizens, and if the management	is recalcitrant and declines to afford facilities	for enforcement of the provisions enacted in the interests of the students, a provision authorising the State Government to enter upon the management through its	Authorized Controller cannot be regarded as unreasonable.
Section	16B (3) authorises the State	Government to	take action	under s. 16D (3) in the event	of the Scheme of Administration not being submitted.	The basis of	an effective exercise of the controls envisaged by the amending provisions is the Scheme of Administration for	educational institutions. If with a view to prevent enforcement of	the provisions of the Act the management seeks to	nullify	the control envisaged by the provisions of the Act by the State Government, a	provision whereby compliance with	the requirements of the statute may be secured cannot also be regarded as unreasonable.
It was then urged that property of the Society is taken away under s. 16D (4) if the Scheme of Administration is	not submitted within the	time allowed,	and the Authorized Controller is	appointed by the Government pursuant to a recommendation	made under sub-s. (3) of s. 16D. But on a plain reading of the terms of s. 16D (4) it is	clear	that the powers contemplated to be entrusted to the Authorized Controller are	merely of management.	Management of	the institution in respect of which an Authorized Controller has been appointed	has to be conducted	and carried on in accordance with the directions given	by the Authorized Controller. The property continues to remain the property of the	institution: only the right of	management of	the recalcitrant managers is taken away temporarily to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. Temporary deprivation of	management to secure compliance with	the provisions of the Education Act does not amount to depri- vation of property of the educational institution which	may attract	the protection guaranteed by Art. 19 or Art. 31 of the Constitution.
It was	then urged that unlawful discrimination is	made between	educational institutions maintained	by private citizens and institutions maintained by the State Government or the Central Government or local bodies. On that part of the case it may be noticed that the petition filed by	the Society is singularly defective: it is baldly averred in the petition that the provisions of S. 16H are ultra vires of the U.P. Legislature as they are discriminatory and infringe the guarantee of the fundamental freedom under Art. 14	,of the Constitution. Section 16H exempts all recognized educa- 336 tional	institutions maintained by the State Government and the Central Government from	the operation	of certain specified provisions of the	Act and in the case	of recognized institutions maintained by a local body the State Government may declare that all or any of those provisions shall not apply or shall apply subject to such	alterations, modifications or additions as it may	make. Prima facie, there is a justifiable classification between the privately managed educational institutions and those maintained by the State Government, the Central Government and local bodies.
To claim the protection of Art. 14 it must be	shown	that persons	differently treated are similarly situated	and discrimination is made with	an uneven hand. In	the petition, no particulars are	furnished as	to why	the classification made is not based on a rational basis having relation to the objects sought to be achieved thereby.	In the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State by the Deputy Director of Education it is stated that since the termination of	the Second World War there was a marked increase in the number of private schools imparting higher secondary education and there were many complaints against the management of those schools, and discontentment among the teachers was rife.	A Committee appointed by the State Government to	enquire into the conditions of	the private institutions was of the view that the managing committees of the private schools as then constituted were unsatisfactory as many of them were ridden by factions and they had failed to give a sense of security to teachers, that it	was necessary that teachers should have a	right	of representation	on such managing committees, and that	the Government should have power to supersede any managing committee for persistent and serious dereliction of duty.
Another	Committee appointed by the Government of U.P. to examine	the progress of the scheme of reorganisation of secondary education recommended that in the	interest of better management of non-Govermment institutions the head of the institution and representatives of the teachers of	the institution should be included in the managing committee of each aided institution to support	and safeguard	the legitimate interests of the teachers.	The Government	had also received	representations	from time to	time	from associations interested in education	that the service conditions of	teachers should be ameliorated and high handedness on the part of the management of the recognized institutions should be checked. From the	statistics collected by the Director it appeared that a situation	had arisen	which required effective measures to be adopted	for reasonably restricting the activities of the managing bodies of the	recognized institutions in the interest of	the students and the teachers with a view to harmonise	the relationship between the teachers and the management so as to bring about an atmosphere conducive to efficient imparting of education. A table was incorporated	in paragraph-16 of the	affidavit showing the	number of recognized educational institutions	imparting higher secondary education.
337 From an analysis of that table it is apparent that between the years. 1956-57 and 1959-60 the number of State Government institutions was less than 9 % of the total number	of the institutions, and them	,number	of Central Government institutions was less than 0-5% and that of local bodies'	institutions approximately 2-5%. The	institutions run by the State Government, Central Government and local bodies	were governed	by definite rules laying down	the conditions of service of teachers and the institutions were run through official agencies under conditions	which	were entirely different from the conditions prevailing in	the privately managed institutions. Another table showed	that there was year after year great disparity	between	the percentages of successful candidates trained in	the Government and local body institutions, and non-Government institutions.	The materials placed on the record by	the State,	viewed	in the light of complete absence of	any details furnished by the Society, are sufficient to indicate that the plea of unlawful discrimination has no basis.
It was then urged that the State had accorded to the Society and others similarly situated, as against the	Anglo-Indian Schools which	are privately managed institutions a discriminatory	treatment to the detriment of	the former.
But there is no specific allegation in the petition in	this behalf.	From	the table submitted in paragraph-18 of	the affidavit of the Director of Education it appears that	the number	of students appearing from the Anglo-Indian Schools is very small, that no adverse reports were received against the management	of such institutions, and that there is a separate Code of Regulations for the Anglo-Indian Schools in the State of' U.P. laying down the necessary conditions with regard	to all the important aspects of their	educational activities and	such institutions are not governed by	the U.P. Educational Code	of 1958 which applies to other recognized institutions. A plea of unlawful discrimination cannot	be adjudged unless the petition contains a	full averment of the grounds on which equality is claimed,	and the denial of equality is pleaded as not based on a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute which makes a classification.	We therefore do not propose to deal with this. question in this appeal.
There only remains to be considered the challenge to	the.
validity of s. 9 of the amending Act.	By that section	the State Government has been authorized for the	purpose of removing any difficulties in relation to the enforcement of the Act to direct that the Act shall take effect subject to such adaptations, whether by way of modification, addition or omission as it may deem necessary or expedient and	may make such other temporary provision for the	purpose of removing any such difficulty as it may deem to be necessary or expedient.	The High Court was of the view that	the legislative policy has been laid down in the amending	Act and by- 338 s.9 power has been conferred on the State Government for the purpose of removing any difficulties in relation to	the enforcement of	the Act, and since this may be done	only within	a period of twelve months from the date of	the commencement of the Act and the adaptations whether by way of modification, addition or omission may only be made	for the purpose of removing any difficulties in relation to	the enforcement of the Act, no legislative power was conferred thereby	on the State Government, and on that	account	the provisions are not invalid. The High Court also observed that the period in respect of which various	orders	were passed	had expired and it was therefore immaterial for	the purpose	of the petition to consider whether s. 9 of	the impugned Act is invalid. In our opinion, on the averments made in the petition and the materials brought before	this Court,	it is unnecessary to enter upon the question as to the validity of s. 9 and the orders issued thereunder.	No specific Removal of Difficulties Order affecting the rights or -the Society has been brought to our notice.	But we	may state that nothing in this judgment may be understood as according approval to the views expressed by the High Court on the validity of s.9 or the ordes issued thereunder.	We leave that question open. to be canvassed when	a suitable occasion arises.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs Appeal dismissed.