JUDGMENT N. K. Mitra, C.J. and M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) challenged his termination of service on the ground that no prior approval of the respondent No. 2 was taken and as such the termination order was bad in law.
3. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. J. K. Kalra v. R.I.C.S.. 1996 (3) UPLBEC 169, The writ petitioner was a lecturer in a minority institution and the learned single Judge, relying on the aforesaid Full Bench decision, held that before terminating his service, approval of the authority concerned had to be obtained. In J. K. Kalra's case (supra), the Full Bench held that it was incumbent upon the management of a minority institution to obtain the approval from the concerned District inspector of Schools before terminating the service of a teacher, and in the absence of the same, the order of termination will be illegal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant has referred to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Yunus All Sha v. Mohamed Abdul Kalam and others. JT 1999 (3) SC 32, wherein it has been held that a minority institution is entitled to terminate the service of its employee without prior approval of the concerned authority. The appellant's Institution is a minority institution, and hence is entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. In our opinion, in view of this Supreme Court declson, the decision of the Full Bench in J. K. Kalra's case is no longer good law.
5. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Yunus Ali Sha's case states :
"6. Section 10A of the Orissa Education Act which requires prior approval of the Director before termination of the services of a teacher of an aided institution (therefore has no application to a minority institution such as the appellant's institution. While the Directorate of Education. Orissa may have power to supervise the functioning of the said school in order to ensure that it does not mal-function- or is not mal-administered, in view of Article 30(1); of the Constitution the Directorate has no control over the actual management of the school including hiring or termination of services of teachers. This is entirely within the control of the Managing Committee of the minority institution. In the case of Bihar State Madrasa Education Board v. Anjuman Ahle-Hadees and another, (1994 Supp. 12) SCC 509), this Court struck down Sections 7 (2) (n) and 24 of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act as violatlve of Article 30(1). Section 24 provided ; inter alia, that no teacher of a Madarsa shall be discharged or dismissed from service without the prior approval of the State Madarsa Education Board. This Court considered the provision as interfering with the management of the said school. In the Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and another v. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 1974 SC 1389, a provision requiring approval of the Vice-Chancellor for termination of a teacher's services was held as interferring with the minority institutions disciplinary control over the staff. See also My Kurian v. Sr. Lewins and others, AIR 1979 SC 52.'
6. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it clear that hiring and terminating the service of teachers and other staff in an educational Institution is a part of management of the institution, and hence has the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. As such no approval is necessary for terminating the service of teachers and other staff in minority educational institutions.
7. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the aforesaid Full Bench decision in J. K. Kalra's case is no longer good law. The appeal is hence allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside Including all consequential orders passed by the authorities.