Constitution doesn't give right to minorities to claim immunity from regulation: Allahabad HC

Constitution doesn't give right to minorities to claim immunity from regulation: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Constitution undoubtedly guarantees to minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice but this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity from reasonable regulations framed to ensure academic excellence and maintain standards of education.

Allowing a petition filed by the management committee of Madrassa Arabiya Shamshul Uloom Sikariganj Ehata Nawab and another, the court held that right of minorities under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution must be exercised within reasonable regulations and frameworks of the state government for ensuring academic excellence and maintaining standards of education.

"The issuance of advertisement without waiting for the government to frame the standards for qualification of teachers in the madrassa is bad in the eyes of law and in violation of the aforesaid article," the court observed.

It quashed the advertisement issued by authorities of the madrassa in Gorakhpur for appointment of assistant teachers and a clerk.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan in her judgement dated October 17 observed that according to petitioner, by a government order dated May 20, direction was issued on selection of teachers in madrassas. Further direction was issued by authorities that the government orders have to be strictly complied with while making appointments in madrassas.

The respondent had advertised five posts of assistant teachers and one post of clerk and proceeded the selection process despite directions of the state authorities and government orders.

Holding that right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution was subject to the reasonability, the court held that the manager had acted in contravention of the order of the Supreme Court and government policy and quashed the advertisement.

The court held that if any appointments were made in pursuance of the advertisement, they were per se illegal and such appointees did not have a right to raise objections or be heard.