Court says minority institutions have constitutional protection in selecting qualified candidates from their own community; rejects objections on roster and prior permission grounds.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the rejection of a minority school employee’s approval and directed the authorities to regularise his services within four months, holding that the appointment was made after a valid selection process and that minority educational institutions enjoy constitutional protection in matters of staff selection.
Justice Balaji Medamalli delivered the order in a writ petition filed by M. Rajasekhar, who had been working as an Attender in a Christian minority school. The petitioner had sought approval of his appointment and release of grant-in-aid from 30 December 2003, contending that the authorities had wrongly refused to recognise his services despite repeated directions from the court.
According to the record, the petitioner was initially appointed temporarily in 2000, but after litigation and permission granted by the District Educational Officer on 17 December 2003, the management issued a notification, conducted a written test and oral interview, and appointed him on 30 December 2003 against an aided vacancy. The school then submitted a proposal for approval the same day. However, the proposal remained pending for years and was repeatedly rejected by the education authorities on grounds including alleged violation of roster rules and lack of prior permission.
The High Court rejected those objections. It held that Rule 12(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 exempts minority educational institutions from the roster system when they appoint candidates belonging to the concerned minority community. Since the petitioner belonged to the Christian minority community and was appointed by a minority institution, the court found that the reservation objection could not stand.
The court also found that the claim of absence of prior permission was unsustainable. It noted that the management had in fact obtained permission on 17 December 2003 before conducting the selection process, and that the petitioner had been selected thereafter. The judge observed that the authorities had failed to act on the approval proposal for a long time and could not now deny the benefit after allowing the petitioner to continue in service for nearly 26 years.
Relying on earlier judgments including Sindhi Education Society, K.C. High School, Chandana Das and Xavier’s College Society, the court reiterated that the right of minority institutions to administer their affairs includes the right to choose qualified candidates from their own community, and that the State cannot impose rigid controls that dilute this constitutional protection under Article 30(1).
The court further observed that mere deviation from the usual procedure relating to publication of notification would not invalidate the appointment, especially when the candidate had served continuously for a long period and the authorities had not rejected the proposal at the threshold. It also referred to Rule 12(8), which requires the competent authority to approve appointments unless the selection violates the rules.
Finding the impugned rejection order dated 18 September 2024 illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to regularise the petitioner’s services within four months.
Bottom Line :-
Minority educational institutions enjoy the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India to select and appoint qualified candidates from their community for aided posts without strict adherence to general statutory norms like roster requirements.
Statutory provision(s): Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Rule 12(6) of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, Rule 12(8) of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 10.03.1999
M Rajasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2973348
