Provisions governing State aid have to be uniformly applied to minority and majority-run educational institutions: Supreme Court

Statutory provisions governing the grant or non-grant of State aid to educational institutions have to be applied uniformly, regardless of whether it is a minority-run or a majority-run institution, the Supreme Court recently said. [State of Gujarat and Others v. HB Kapadia Education Trust and Another].A division bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi reiterated that the rights of minority institutions under Article 30 (rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions) of the Constitution of India are not absolute and not above the law. ."As held by the Constitution Bench in case of TMA Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, the right under Article 30(1) is not an absolute right above the law, and that the provisions for the grant or non-grant in aid to the educational institutions, whether it is majority-run institution or a minority-run institution, have to be uniformly applied," the Court said. .The Court made the observation while ruling against the payment of grant-in-aid to a Jain-run minority secondary school in Gujarat, that had kept a principal in service beyond the prescribed retirement age. The Gujarat High Court had earlier ordered the State government to pay grants-in-aid to the institution towards the salary of this principal as well. .By way of background, in 1999, the principal of the school attained 58 years of age (general age for retirement). At the time, the institution had sought permission from the State government to continue his service as the principal. The State granted permission to continue the principal's service until he reached the age of 60 years, and on the condition that his salary would be paid by the institution.In 2001, the institution sought a further extension of service of the principal beyond the age of 60 years. However, this request was rejected.The institution challenged the said rejection before the High Court, which ruled in the institution's favour. The High Court concluded that the State government had violated Article 30 of the Constitution in stopping the grant-in-aid. The High Court ruled that the school management had the right to continue the service of the principal beyond 60 years. Further, the High Court also held that the State was obliged to pay the grant-in-aid towards his salary.Therefore, the High Court directed the State government to calculate the amounts payable as arrears of grants and to pay the institution such arrears within a period of 3 months.The State government challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court. .The Supreme Court found that the Grant-in-Aid Code for Secondary Schools, 1964 applicable to the minority school before the Court did not allow the extension of the tenure of the principal beyond the age of 58 years normally, or beyond 60 years of age, in any case. The Court ruled that if this condition is breached, the minority institution cannot then continue claim grants in aid from the State.."If an employee or a teacher is continued in service by the management of any registered minority Secondary School receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State-Government, then such school would not be entitled to receive any grant in respect of the expenditure incurred for continuing such employee or teacher beyond the age of 58 or 60 years, as the case may be," the judgment stated. .The Court added that it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the State government had "interfered with the affairs" of the minority institution or violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution by stopping the grant-in-aid, in this case. Hence, it allowed the appeal of the State government and set aside the High Court judgment."... we are of the opinion that the respondent-institution (school) was bound by the provisions contained in the Grant-in-Aid Code. There is also nothing on record to show that the appellant-State had discriminated against the respondent institution on the ground that it was under the management of a minority, attracting Article 30(2) of the Constitution of India," the Court concluded..[Read Judgment]