In a landmark judgment reaffirming the constitutional autonomy of minority educational institutions, the Bombay High Court at Goa has upheld the right of the Diocesan Society of Education to manage and administer its schools — including appointing and disciplining staff — without State interference, provided educational standards are maintained.
Delivering the verdict on two writ petitions filed by the Society, a Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita Mehta ruled that the Diocesan Society, being a linguistic and religious minority institution, is not bound to follow State procedures for staff appointments under the Goa School Education Rules, 1986.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
“We deem it appropriate to declare that the petitioner-society, being a linguistic minority, is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed therein, as the right to manage and administer the institutions run by it under Article 30(1) of the Constitution does not impose such limits or restraints on its power,” the Bench observed. The Court, however, clarified that the Society must continue to ensure the quality of education imparted in its schools.
The ruling came after the Society — which manages over 138 primary, secondary, and higher secondary schools across Goa — challenged directives issued by the Directorate of Education. The department had insisted that appointment orders for school staff be signed by individual school managing committees rather than by the Society’s chairman.
Senior Advocate J.E. Coelho Pereira, representing the Diocesan Society, argued that such directives and provisions, including Rules 46 and 97(2) of the Goa School Education Rules and a 2020 public notice, violated the Society’s constitutional rights under Article 30(1), which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Advocate General Devidas Pangam, appearing for the State, contended that the rules were framed to ensure uniform compliance with statutory norms and did not infringe upon minority rights.
However, the Court, after examining key constitutional precedents such as T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Sindhi Education Society, and Chandana Das (Malakar), held that while minority institutions can be regulated to maintain educational standards, such oversight must not dilute their right to manage their own affairs.
“The right to administer does not mean the 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 Bench stated while quashing the Education Department’s letters.
The judges clarified that the “management” of an institution is distinct from its “managing committee,” and that ultimate administrative authority rests with the Society operating the schools. The Directorate’s insistence on school-level appointment orders, they said, was inconsistent with the Society’s constitutional autonomy.
While reaffirming the State’s authority to prescribe teacher qualifications and ensure educational standards, the High Court ruled that the Diocesan Society retains full control over staff appointments, disciplinary measures, and overall administration — a strong reaffirmation of its rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
