The Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that the Diocesan Society of Education can manage its schools and appoint staff according to its own procedures, reinforcing the constitutional autonomy of minority educational institutions.
The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita Mehta delivered the order on two writ petitions filed by the Society, which manages over 138 primary to higher secondary schools across Goa.
“We deem it appropriate to declare that the petitioner-society being a linguistic minority, is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed therein as, according to us, the right to ‘manage and administer’, the institutions run by it in the wake of the right conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution do not impose any such limits or restraints on its power,” the court stated in its order.
The dispute arose when the Society challenged directives from the Directorate of Education. The directives required staff appointment orders to carry the signature of school managing committees rather than the Society’s Chairman. The Directorate had mandated that individual school-level committees sign these orders.
The petitioner argued this directive violated its constitutional rights under Article 30(1), which protects the right of minorities to set up and run educational institutions. The Society stated it had authority over administrative decisions as both a linguistic and religious minority institution.
The petitioner also contested two provisions of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (Rules 46 and 97[2]) and a public notice issued by the Education Department in 2020. These measures curtailed the Society’s independence in appointments and disciplinary matters, the petition stated.
Senior Advocate J E Coelho Pereira, appearing for the petitioner, argued the Diocesan Society retained the power to appoint and discipline teachers. He submitted the State could not compel the Society to follow administrative structures designed for non-minority institutions, as this would undermine the protection offered under Article 30(1).
Advocate General Devidas Pangam, representing the State, maintained the challenged rules ensured compliance with statutory requirements. He argued the regulations did not infringe upon the minority rights guaranteed under the Constitution and were reasonable measures to maintain educational standards.
The court reviewed constitutional jurisprudence, examining landmark cases including T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Sindhi Education Society, and Chandana Das (Malakar). The bench held that minority institutions remain subject to reasonable regulatory measures for maintaining educational standards, but such regulations cannot erode their essential right to manage their own affairs.
“The right to administer does not mean a right to maladministration. Yet, regulations cannot be of such a character as to denude minority educational institutions of their right to administer or impinge upon their rights under Article 30(1),” the court observed while quashing and setting aside the letters issued by the Education Department.
The judgement distinguished between the “management” of an institution and its “Managing Committee”. The court stated that management rests with the Society that establishes and runs the schools, not with school-level administrative bodies. The Directorate’s insistence on appointment orders carrying signatures only from individual school committees was inconsistent with the Society’s minority rights, the court held.
The bench stated the Society, as a minority institution, must ensure quality education is maintained. However, this obligation does not permit the State to impose procedural requirements that transfer management authority from the Society to school-level committees.
The court upheld the State’s authority to prescribe teacher qualifications and maintain educational standards. It ruled the Diocesan Society retains the right to make appointments, initiate disciplinary proceedings, and exercise administrative control over its schools, with the Society bound only to comply with eligibility norms.
