1. The fifth respondent (Ms. Ruth Moses) had been the Manager of Blackstone Girls Inter College, Mathura, which is a minority institution. On 22 July, 2015, the Bishop Cabinet made recommendation to the Presiding Bishop of Agra Regional Conference of the Methodist Church in India to release the fifth respondent from the post of Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution with immediate effect for ensuring holding of a free and fair enquiry. A further recommendation was made to the Bishop to appoint the petitioner as Manager in place of the fifth respondent with immediate effect. The minutes of the meeting, which have been brought on record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, notices that as per the recommendation of the Bishop Cabinet dated 11 April, 2015, the Bishop appointed the fifth respondent as Manager of Blackstone Girls Inter College, Mathura 'till further notice'. However, there had been allegations of fraud against the fifth respondent in forwarding name of various candidates for being appointed as teachers in the institution. The Bishop informed the Cabinet that he had not signed any report of the selection committee. The managing committee had appointed an enquiry committee to investigate the matter. In the aforesaid background facts, the Cabinet unanimously passed the following resolution.
"Whereas the Chairman Bishop Subodh C. Mondal has not signed any list of selected candidates as per the requirement.
Whereas the selection committee members also have given in writing that they have not signed any report of the selection committee.
Whereas the managing committee of Balckstone Girls Inter College, Mathura, has appointed an enquiry committee to investigate the alleged matter of selection of teachers in the inter college.
Be it resolved that the presiding Bishop of Agra regional conference of the Methodist Church in India, be requested to release Mrs. Ruth Moses from the post of manager with immediate effect for the free and fair enquiry.
Further be resolved to request the Bishop to appoint Dr. Mrs. Bimla Lal, as manager of the Blackstone Girls Inter College, Mathura, with immediate effect."
2. In pursuance thereof, the Bishop relieved the fifth respondent from the post of Manager w.e.f. 22.7.2015 and appointed the petitioner in her place. The aforesaid decision was communicated by the Bishop to the fourth respondent (DIOS, Mathura) by letter dated 29.7.2015 and request was made to attest the signatures of the petitioner as Manager of the institution.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Bishop, the fifth respondent filed Writ Petition No. 42731 of 2015 before this Court. The writ petition was entertained but no stay was granted in favour of the fifth respondent.
4. The fifth respondent after being unsuccessful in obtaining interim order in the writ petition filed by her, seems to have represented before the Director of Education, Madhyamic, Lucknow in regard to her alleged removal, without their being any agenda or notice to her. On such complaint having been filed, the Joint Director of Education acting on behalf of the Director of Education, Madhyamic, U.P., Lucknow passed an order dated 3 August, 2015 directing the parties to maintain status quo until conclusion of the hearing on the complaint filed by the fifth respondent.
5. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner by filing Writ-C No. 46047 of 2015. This Court by order dated 20.8.2015 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 3 August, 2015. The Court held that under the scheme of administration, the power to appoint manager is the discretionary power of the Bishop and in view of various allegations of fraud against the fifth respondent, she was removed. In such circumstances, there was no justification to pass an order of status quo. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge by the fifth respondent in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 795 of 2015. A Division Bench judgment of this Court while deciding the Special Appeal by judgment dated 26.11.2015 noted in great detail the provisions of the Scheme of Administration and thereafter, dismissed the appeal with the following findings :-
"A bare perusal of the provisions quoted above would go to show that under the scheme of administration as far as the appointment of Manager of institution is concerned, he/she is not an elected representative rather appointment of Manger is made at the sole discretion of the Bishop. Governing Body is a superior body and Committee of Management which is responsible for running of the institution has to carry out its activity under the supervision and control of Governing Body.
On the parameters of the provisions of Scheme of Administration, Bishop has the authority to appoint Manager of Committee of Management of Institution. Once Bishop has the authority to appoint Manager of Committee of Management, then to conceive of a situation that Bishop has no authority of removal cannot be accepted. The authority to remove flows from the provision itself. Here Bishop has passed an order of removal, same has been subjected to challenge before this Court, this Court on 03.08.2015 only proceeded to issue notice and no interim order was passed. On the same day Director of Education entertained complaint and passed order of status quo. We do not approve of passing such an interim order by Joint Director of Education. Merely on asking for interim order has been passed and that too without assigning any valid reason. Director of Education has not even cared to find out as to whether he has the requisite authority to entertain such dispute and pass such an order that has traces of impinging right of administration conferred under Article 30(1) of Constitution. Learned Single Judge is absolutely right on the point when he proceeded to pass order setting aside the order of status-quo."
6. Thus, this Court in categorical terms held that the power to remove the manager flows from the power to appoint. It has further been observed that the Director had passed the impugned order without ascertaining his authority to entertain dispute of such a nature and also without examining whether it amounts to infringement of right of administration conferred on minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
7. It seems that thereafter, the Joint Director of Education in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the fifth respondent, passed the impugned order dated 28.12.2015 disapproving the removal of the fifth respondent from the post of Manager on the ground that she was not given adequate opportunity of hearing before the decision was taken. As a consequence thereof, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Manager has also been disapproved. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.
8. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the institution is a minority institution and it has right to administer the institution without undue interference from the Educational Authorities. It is urged that under the Scheme of Administration there is no provision for grant of opportunity of hearing and especially where the allegations are of serious nature and the removal was done to ensure holding of a free and proper enquiry. It is further submitted that even if the Joint Director of Education had the power to adjudicate over the dispute, the scope of enquiry is limited. It is urged that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied mechanically and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case. It is urged that in the facts of the instant case, where prima facie evidence had surfaced establishing fraud on part of the fifth respondent, the Bishop was fully competent to remove her, to enable holding of a free and fair enquiry.
9. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent submitted that despite the fact that the institution is a minority institution, it is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Consequently, provisions of Section 16-A (7) are attracted and the Joint Director of Education was competent to adjudicate upon the controversy relating to removal of the fifth respondent and appointment of the petitioner in her place. It is urged that the decision of the Bishop was punitive in nature and thus opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the fifth respondent.
10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
11. Concededly, the institution in question is an institution established and administered by religious minority, thus enjoying the protection guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the right conferred by Article 30 is subject to reasonable restrictions being imposed under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Thus, regulations can be framed to achieve excellence in educational standards and to prevent maladministration (vide para 270 of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka1). At the same time, the power to regulate is not unlimited so as to destroy the rights conferred by Article 30. An action which tends to interfere in the right of the minorities to administer the institution would be impermissible. In Sindhi Education Society and another Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and others2, their lordship of the Supreme Court held that :-
".......... Government has very limited regulatory control over the minority institution and no control whatsoever on the Managing Committee, internal management of the school and, of course, has no power to take over such an institution."
12. Under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 a recognised institution is required to get a Scheme of Administration approved by the Director of Education (Section 16-A). Indisputably, the institution has an approved Scheme of Administration. Thereunder, the Committee of Management is constituted as under :-
"THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT :-
I. Constitution of the Committee of Management :-
The authority to manage and administer affairs of aforesaid institutions shall vest in the Committee of Management which shall be responsible for the proper running of the institution under the supervision and control of the Governing Body. The Committee of Management for each institution shall be composed of not less than twelve and not more than seventeen members, and shall be constituted as follows :-
A. Ex-Officio Members :-
1. The Bishop of the Area.
2. The President of the Board of Christian Education of the Annual Conference concerned or a representative of the Board.
3. The District Superintendent.
4. The Paster of the Church.
5. The Manager of the Institution.
6. The Principal of the Institution.
7. The staff representatives as prescribed by the Regulations.
8. Control /Treasurer/ Field Correspondent/Field Treasurer/Conference Treasurer, (any one of these).
9. The Associate Education Secretary of the Council of Christian Education.
B. Nominated Members :-
1. Two members to be nominated by the Bishop (Women members for Girls Institution).
2. Two nominees of the Conference (Finance Committee) or women's.
3. One nominee of the Annual/woman's Conference.
C. Elected Members :-
1. One parent by the Committee of Management.
NOTE : The members of the Committee of Management under 'B' and 'C' above shall be nominated or elected annually.
II. Office Bearers :-
1. Chairman -The Bishop of the area ?. Ex-Officio.
2. Vice Chairman - to be elected annually by the Committee of Management.
3. Secretary - the Manager of the School/College-Ex-officio."
13. The manager of the institution is not an elected representative. He is appointed by the Bishop. No criteria is provided on basis of which Manager is to be appointed; thus appointment of a person as manager is the absolute prerogative of the Bishop. The relevant provision of the Scheme of Administration dealing with the appointment of Manager is as under :-
"VIII. Appointment of Managers :-
The Bishop shall appointment a Manager for the institution."
14. It is not in dispute that the fifth respondent was appointed by the Bishop. Under the Scheme of Administration, no fixed term is provided for the person appointed on the post of Manager. He holds the post at the pleasure of the Bishop. It is not in dispute that the fifth respondent was appointed by the Bishop and she was to continue 'till further notice' as noted in the minutes of the meeting of the Bishops Cabinet dated 22.7.2015. The fifth respondent is alleged to have submitted before the third respondent (Joint Director of Education) a list of teachers for appointment in the institution. The allegation against her is that the list was never signed by the Bishop nor by any member of the Selection Committee. The gravamen of the charge is that the fifth respondent had played fraud in seeking appointment of teachers in the institution. The Committee of Management had constituted an Enquiry Committee to go into the charges levelled against the fifth respondent. In the backdrop of these facts, the Bishops Cabinet unanimously advised him to release the fifth respondent from the post of Manager, thus paving way for a free and fair enquiry. The Bishop accepted the recommendation and released the fifth respondent from the post of Manager and appointed the petitioner in her place.
15. There is no provision under the Scheme which entitled the fifth respondent to any notice or opportunity of hearing before she was discharged. The appointment of the fifth respondent, as noted above, was not a tenure appointment. She was to hold the office 'till further notice'. Now that the Bishop, in his wisdom, has discharged her from the post to pave way for holding of a free and fair enquiry, in the opinion of the Court, no fault could be attributed to such action. The Bishop was well within his right to take such action. The third respondent was not competent to go behind the said order and to discard it as illegal on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.
16. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules, nor can be imprisoned within the strait jacket of a rigid formula. It depends on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the right alleged to be infringed, the scheme and policy of the statute, the extent and nature of the power of the authority.
17. In the instant case, regard being had to the nature of appointment of the fifth respondent, the provision of the Scheme of Administration and the minority character of the institution, this Court does not find any breach of principles of natural justice in discharging the fifth respondent from the post of Manager.
18. The contention that the order of discharge is punitive in nature and could not have been passed without an enquiry, also cannot be accepted. It is clear from the minutes of the meeting of the Bishops' Cabinet dated 22.7.2015 that so far the fifth respondent has not been held guilty of the charges levelled against her. Only a prima facie opinion was formed for making recommendation for her discharge. The Committee of Management has constituted an Enquiry Committee to go into the veracity of the charges levelled against the fifth respondent, wherein she will have full opportunity to defend herself. The discharge of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, cannot be said to be punitive.
19. Consequently, and in view of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 28.12.2015 is quashed. The fourth respondent is directed to proceed to consider the request of the petitioner for attestation of her signatures as Manager, without any further delay.
20. The writ petition stands allowed with costs.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 28.1.2016 Arif