Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus SYED ASAD RAZA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 4 April 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 658 · 1997 INSC 374
- Also cited as
- AIR 1997 SC 2425
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. Substitution allowed.
p. 658, margin G
This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the Patna High Court. Ranchi Bench, made on May 2, 1996 in LPA No. 17/1996.
p. 659, margin A
The admitted facts are that Maulana Azad College, Ranchi established in 1970 is a minority institution; minority status is given by the State Government. Pursuant to an agreement dated December 15, 1972, it was agreed that no new posts shall be created in lhe College without obtaining prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor. Two posts were created by the Governing Body on September 7, 1975. One, Anup Narain Singh and one Pandey Janardhan Prasad were appointed on April 8, 1976. Pandey Janardhan Prasad ceased to work from February 10, 1979. Thereafter, the first respondent, Syed Asad Raza came to be appointed on July 1, 1979. The question is whether the prior sanction from Vice-Chancellor for the post to which Syed Asad Raza came to be appointed is a pre-condition? Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 has stepped in and states that :
p. 659, margin A
"35(1) No post for appointment shall be created without the prior sanction of the State Government. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no University or any College affiliated to such a University, except such College, (a) as is established, maintained or governed by the State Government; or (b) as is established by a religious or linguistic minority; (i) After the commencement of this Act no teaching or non-teaching post involving financial liabilities shall be created without the prior approval of the State Government. (ii) shall either increase the pay or allowance attached to any post, or sanction any new allowance;
p. 659, margin D
Provided that the State Government may, by an order, revise the pay scale attached to such post or sanction any new allowance. 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no college other than one mentioned in clause (a) and {b) of sub-section (1), shall, after the commencement of this Act, appoint any person on any post without the prior approval of the State Government.
p. 659, margin F
Provided that the approval of the State Government shall not be necessary for filling up a sanctioned post of a teacher for a period not exceeding six months by a candidate possessing the
p. 660, margin A
prescribed qualification."
p. 660, margin A
A reading of the above clearly indicate that after coming into force of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 w.c.f. May 16, l<J76 it is enjoined that for appointment of a teacher prior approval of the State Government is necessary. However, exceptions have been engrafted in respect of (a) the institution run by the State Government and (b) institution established by a relii,rious or linguistic minority. Even the 11011-obstante clause in sub-section (2) also makes exceptions to the clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act. Thus, it could be seen that for the creation of a post in a minority institution for the appointment thereof, prior approval of the University Vice-Chancellor or the State Government, is not a precondition. The question, therefore, is : whether such an appointee, first respondent is entitled to the payment of the grant-in-aid. By operation of clause (1) of Article 30, all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish an educational institutions of their own choice. Under clause (2) of Article 30, the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.
p. 660, margin A
Thus, it could be seen that on establishment of an educational institution by the minority, the competent authority is bonnd to sanction grant-in-aid ~ubject to such regulations as may be available under law to regulate the recruitment of service administration, use of fund etc. The contention of Shri B.B. Singh, leaned counsel for the appellant, is that pursuant to the agreement dated December 15, 1972 it is necessary to obtain the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. This agreement was relevant before the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 came into force. After the Act has come into force, the agreement no longer subsists. Thus, the statute operates in the field so long as no regulations have been made. By statutory operation, the respondent is entitled to the payment of the grant-in-aid.
p. 660, margin E
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
p. 660, margin G