ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Management. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent. By an order dated 19.09.1995, the Tribunal on the merit of the case held that there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. On the question of the applicability of the Act relying upon the judgment of this court in S.S. Jain Sabha Vs. Union of India ILR 1976 Delhi 61, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
3. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Tribunal that was dismissed on 26.10.1995.
4. The petitioner moved this court directing to the Tribunal to deal with the matter and the Tribunal as I have mentioned above, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal. Two questions arose for consideration. The first is whether the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 would apply to the management? and second if the Act is applicable whether the Tribunal was justified in disposing of the matter on merits when it came to the conclusion that the
Management was protected as a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Sharma submitted that the Parliament had enacted the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The Act came into force on 03.04.1992. Under that Act minorities for the purpose of the Act are notified as such by the Central Government. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Sharma that on the 23rd of October 1993 the Central Government had issued a notification recognition the communities to be minority communities. In that notification Jain Community is not included and therefore the
Management cannot claim to be a minority institution. Mr. R.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the management is not entitled to any protection as a minority institution, being unaided school, he should acted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Before passing the order of dismissal no approval had been obtained. Even with reference to the order of suspension, no prior approval of the authority concerned had been taken by the Management.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Sharma submitted that
this court in S.S. Jain Sabha Vs. Union of India ILR 1976 Delhi 61 had held that Jain community would be minority community. The notification issued under National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the protection of Jain Minority under Article 30 of the
Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself and the Management had come to the right conclusion on the basis of the material available on record and on the basis of the finding the order of dismissal was issued. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the respondents has not made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Regarding disciplinary proceedings against teachers of the minority School, the Supreme Court had held in Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association Vs. Union of India and others that “with reference to the aided minority insitituion the approval for disciplinary authority from the Education Office is necessary.”
6. In Mrs. Y. Theclamma Vs. Union of India and Ors. the Supreme Court held that “Minority educational institution must obtain prior permission of Education Officer before suspending a teacher”.
7. The Allahabad High Court in Smt. J.K. Kalra Vs. Regional Inspectress
of Girls Schools, Meerut and ors. held “regulatory measures can be taken by State in the administration of minority institution.
8. In the instant case the Tribunal had over-looked the fact that the Management School is an aided school. Therefore, the provisions of Delhi Education School Act, 1973 would apply. The Tribunal had taken the view that the Management School is a religious minority institution and therefore, the Management is not obliged to obtain prior approval before suspending the teacher was also imposing punishment of dismissal.
9. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the decision of this court in S.S. Jain Sabha Vs. Union of India ILR 1976 Delhi 61 is totally misconceived. The Supreme Court had held that the provision of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 would apply to the minority aided school. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal on the question of applicability of the Act cannot be sustained. The Tribunal when it had taken the view that the Act would not apply it would mean that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal and therefore, the Tribunal, should have refrained itself from going into the merits of the case. In this view the findings given by the Tribunal on the merit also cannot be sustained.. The Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall consider the case of the petitioner on the merits in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Educational Tribu-
nal on 07.12.1998.