To Say That Only A Candidate Of A Particular Religious Denomination Is Entitled To Apply For A Post Runs Counter To Constitutional Morality: Madras HC
The Madras High Court observed that allowing only a candidate of a particular religious denomination to apply for a post runs counter to constitutional morality.
The Court held that the process of appointment of teachers adopted by the Diocese’s educational institutions was unconstitutional and “patently discriminatory.” The Bench noted that the diocesan policy to appoint teachers from the diocesan list based on seniority was not conducive to good administration.
A Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed, “In this case, by way of an affidavit, it had been admitted that candidates will be appointed from out of the diocesan seniority list. Hasina and Hema will not even be considered for appointment. I, therefore, hold that the entire process of appointment is unconstitutional. The appointment process obtaining as on date is patently discriminatory. To say that only a candidate of a particular religious denomination is entitled to apply for a post runs counter to constitutional morality.”
Advocate G. Prabhu Rajadurai appeared for the petitioner, while Sr. Advocate V. Prabhakar represented the respondents.
The case was brought forth by the petitioner who was previously elected as the treasurer of the Tirunelveli Diocese. The petitioner sought the Court's intervention to prevent the Rt. Rev. ARGST Barnabas, the Bishop of the Diocese, from making unilateral decisions regarding the appointment of teachers and correspondents to the Diocese’s educational institutions funded by government grants.
The Tirunelveli Diocese of Church of South India is a congregation of Christians in Tirunelveli and Tenkasi Districts. It is an unregistered body governed by its own rules codified as Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. The Diocese has established several educational institutions from primary level to colleges that have been declared as minority institutions. The annual grant received by the diocese from the government would run to Rs.600.00 crores.
The petitioner who was elected as the treasurer of Tirunelveli Diocese alleges that taking advantage of the amorphous nature of the situation, the Rt.Rev.Bishop is unilaterally appointing correspondents for the various educational institutions and also taking steps to fill up the teacher vacancies.
The High Court noted that the tenure of the democratically elected bodies had come to an end. “At present, there is a sort of vacuum in the administration and management of CSI Tirunelveli Diocese,” the Bench remarked.
Although Article 30 of the Constitution states that all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice., The Bench explained that this provision does not give autonomy to such minority institutions to dispense with the requirement to act fairly and transparently.
“Grievance of a citizen that he was treated unfairly cannot be ignored on the ground that a minority institution has autonomy or right of choice. Exercise of right of choice has to be fair, non-discriminatory and rational,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held that while the Bishop of the Diocese can take interim measures to meet the exigencies of the situation, he cannot make regular appointments.
“A student is entitled to be taught by competent teachers,” the Court stated. Therefore, the “State is paying the teachers' salaries only with the expectation that the institutions will produce students of caliber and character,” the Bench remarked.
The Court relied on Apex Court’s decision in State of Kerala v. Very Rev.Mother Provincial (1970) wherein the Bench observed that minority institutions could not be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions, or under the guise of the exclusive right of management, to decline to follow the general pattern.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: C. Manohar Thangaraj v. Rt. Rev. ARGST Barnabas & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate G. Prabhu Rajadurai
Respondents: Sr. Advocate V. Prabhakar; AGP G.V. Vairam Santhosh; Advocates P.P. Alwin Balan, S. Parthasarathy and K.K. Udayakumar
