SC upholds right of minority institutions on appointments

Upholding the power of St Stephen's College to appoint its own principal, the Supreme Court today ruled that minority educational institutions have a constitutional right to appoint heads of their institutions and the Government cannot encroach upon their right. "It's a valuable right guaranteed under Article 30otherwise you are encroaching into it," a two judge bench ofJustices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal observed, while dismissing the Delhi University's appeal challenging the High Court's order granting absolute right to College to appointits principal.

The apex court upheld the ruling of the Delhi High Court that the right of minority educational institutions to appoint the head of institution cannot be taken away by any rule, regulation or any enactment made by state even if the institute is receiving 100 per cent aid.

The University had appealed against the high court order on the ground that Article 30 which granted minorities the right to establish and administer their own institutions was "not an absolute right." Senior counsel P P Rao tried hard to argue before the apex court that the university had the right to frame regulations for prescribing standards of education and uniformity in the standards "in national interest. "But the argument did not convince the apex court which observed "You show us one minority college not maintaining the standards. Otherwise we will be making minority institutionsonly a farce."

The apex court's ruling has its genesis in the controversy relating to the appointment of Fr Valson Thampu, as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) by the St Stephen's management. A single judge of the Delhi High Court had on March 12 on a petition filed by an aggrieved candidate aspiring to bethe principal, Sheetal P Singh, asked the college to adhere to the qualification prescribed by the UGC which was inconsonance with the impugned Ordinance. Under the Ordinance, the list of candidates for appointment of principal has to be approved by the university,thus vesting it with the final say in the appointment of the head of the institution.

On March 15, Thampu resigned, and the college issued afresh advertisement for the post of principal which according to the university was in violation of Clause 7 (2) of Ordinance XVII. According to the Delhi University the college prescribed a minimum age of 50-60 years qualification for the principal's post and failed to properly constitute the selection committee in violation of the regulations prescribed under theordinance. The university submitted that despite repeated reminders and notices, the college failed to comply with the regulations and in the meantime the latter filed a writ petition in theDelhi High Court challenging Clause 7(2)of the Ordinance XVII.

On August 21, the High Court quashed clause 7 (2)of the Delhi University's Ordinance XVIII which empowered itto appoint principals of all colleges under its jurisdiction.