{"id":58067,"date":"2006-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006"},"modified":"2017-04-10T05:44:32","modified_gmt":"2017-04-10T00:14:32","slug":"the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian … vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Secretary,Malankara Syrian … vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: R Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  8599 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nThe Secretary,Malankara Syrian Catholic College\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT.Jose & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA & R.V. RAVEENDRAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J  U   D   G   M   E   N   T
\n(With CA Nos. 8600\/2003 & 8576\/2003)<\/p>\n
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals by special leave arise from the  judgment
\ndated 5.6.2003 of the High Court of Kerala in O.P.
\nNo.10111\/2000 and connected cases. As these appeals involve
\nquestions which are analogous, they are heard and disposed of
\nby this common judgment. As the ranks of the parties vary, they
\nwill be referred  to by their abbreviated names.
\nFacts in CA Nos. 8599 and 8600 of 2003 :\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Malankara Syrian Catholic College Association of
\nArchidiocese at Trivandrum is a Society registered under the
\nKerala Literacy, Scientific and Charitable Socieities
\nRegistration Act, 1955.  It is a minority organisaion and an
\nEducational Agency (for short ‘the Society’).  It has established
\nand runs several private colleges in Kerala.  The colleges are
\nmanaged by a ‘Managing Council’ (for short ‘the
\nmanagement’) appointed by the Educational Agency. The
\nSociety has appointed a Manager for the colleges under its
\nmanagement, who implements the decisions of the
\nmanagement.  Mar Ivanios College (‘college’ for short) is one
\nof the colleges run by the said Educational Agency.  The said
\ncollege is an aided private minority institution affiliated to
\nKerala University under the Kerala University Act, 1974 (‘Act”
\nfor short).  Educational instruction is provided in the college, in
\naccordance with the provisions of the statutes, Ordinances and
\nRegulations made under the Act.  Each of the colleges run by
\nthe Society is headed by a Principal, who is responsible for the
\nfunctional efficiency, quality of education and discipline.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe post of Principal of the college fell vacant on
\n31.3.2000. The Manager issued an order dated 27.3.2000 giving
\ncharge of the post of Principal and Drawing & Disbursing
\nOfficer (‘DDO’ for short) to  Rev. Daniel Kuzhithaakthil,  a
\nlecturer in the college.  The said order  was approved by the
\nVice-Chancellor of the University by order dated 15.4.2000.
\nThe order dated 27.03.2000 was challenged by one of the
\nLecturers – Dr. Varghese M. Mathunny in O.P. No.10111\/2000,
\nwherein an interim order was passed restraining  Rev. Daniel
\nfrom taking charge as  Principal. Another Senior Lecturer of the
\ncollege, Dr. P.V. Thomas also challenged the order dated
\n27.03.2000  by filing O.P. No. 14337\/2000. An interim order
\nwas issued in that case on 24.5.2000, restraining Rev. Daniel
\nfrom functioning as the Principal or DDO.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIn view of the interim stay preventing  Rev. Daniel from
\nacting as the Principal and DDO, the Management made an
\ninterim arrangement by appointing T. Jose,   a  senior lecturer
\nin the College, to discharge the duties of Principal, pending
\nregular appointment to the post. On 5.6.2000, the High Court
\nmodified the interim order and gave liberty to the Management
\nto make appointment to the post of Principal on regular basis.
\nIn pursuance of it, on 6.6.2000, the Management appointed
\nRev. Daniel as the Principal on regular basis.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe appointment of  Rev. Daniel as Principal on 6.6.2000
\non regular basis was challenged by T.Jose, (claiming to be the
\nsenior most among the eligible and fit lecturers) in Appeal
\nNo.5\/2000 before the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal,
\nraising two contentions : (i) that Rev. Daniel was ineligible to
\nbe appointed as Principal as he did not process the requisite
\nqualifications for the post; and (ii)  that the appointment was
\nviolative of Section 57(3) of the Act, which required the post of
\nPrincipal, when filled by promotion, to be made on the basis of
\nseniority-cum-fitness. The Tribunal, by an order dated
\n20.12.2000, held that Rev. Daniel fulfilled the eligibility
\ncriteria, but allowed the appeal holding that the appointment of
\nRev. Daniel as Principal violated Section 57(3) of the Act. The
\nTribunal directed the Manager to make a fresh appointment in
\naccordance with law. The said order of the Tribunal was
\nchallenged by Rev. Daniel and the Society  in O.P.
\nNo.3015\/2001 and O.P. No. 3742\/2001 contending that Section
\n57(3) of the Act was invalid and inapplicable in respect of
\nminority institutions, as it interfered with the right of a
\nminorities to establish and administer educational institutions of
\ntheir  choice and thereby violated Article 30(1) of the
\nConstitution of India. T. Jose , the appellant  before the
\nTribunal, also challenged the order of the Tribunal in O.P.
\nNo.10721\/2001, as he was aggrieved by the finding of the
\nTribunal that Rev. Daniel possessed the qualifications for
\nappointment to  the post of Principal.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe said five writ petitions were heard together and
\ndisposed of by a common judgment dated 5.6.2003. The High
\nCourt rejected the contention of the Educational Agency and
\nRev. Daniel that section 57(3) of the Act was violative of
\nArticle 30(1). The High Court held that the said Section applied
\nto minority institutions also having regard to that Section, the
\nseniormost from among the eligible and fit lecturers had to be
\nappointed as the Principal.  It held that  Rev. Daniel was not the
\nsenior-most among the eligible and fit lecturers of the college
\nand therefore his appointment could not be sustained.
\nConsequently, the High Court rejected O.P. Nos.3015\/2001 and
\n3742\/2001 filed by Rev. Daniel and the Society O.P.
\nNo.10111\/2000 filed by Dr. Varghese M. Mathunny was
\ndismissed as having become infructuous as he had retired on
\n31.5.2001 and as he had not challenged the order dated
\n6.6.2000 appointing Rev. Daniel as Principal. O.P.
\nNo.10721\/2001 filed by T.Jose was allowed. Even though
\nT.Jose had also retired in the meanwhile on 31.3.2001, the High
\nCourt directed that his claim for promotion as Principal shall be
\nconsidered with effect from the date (6.6.2000) when Rev.
\nDaniel was promoted, with all consequential financial benefits.
\nSimilarly, O.P. No.14337\/2000 filed by Dr. P V Thomas was
\nalso allowed with a direction that his claim  for appointment as
\nPrincipal  shall be considered with effect from 1.4.2001 with
\nconsequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tFeeling aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 5.6.2003,
\nthe Society and Rev. Daniel have filed C.A. No.8599\/2003 and
\nC.A.No.8600\/2003 respectively  challenging the dismissal of
\ntheir writ petitions OP No.3742\/2001 and OP No.3015\/2001.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Facts in CA 8576\/2003 :\n<\/p>\n
8.\tSt. Gregorious College, another aided minority
\neducational institution,   appointed P.G. Thomas Pannicker as
\nPrincipal by order dated 25.9.2002. The said appointment was
\nchallenged by Thomas Lukose before the Kerala University
\nAppellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 15\/2002. The Tribunal
\nallowed the said appeal by order dated 30.1.2003 and  set aside
\nthe appointment of P.G. Thomas Pannicker as Principal and
\ndirected fresh selection. That was challenged by the Manager of
\nSt. Gregorious College and P.L. Thomas Pannicker,  in O.P.
\nNo.6621\/2003. The said petition was disposed of by the High
\nCourt along with the five petitions relating to Rev. Daniel (O.P.
\nNo.10111\/2000 and connected cases) by its common Judgment
\ndated 5.6.2003,  upholding the order of the Tribunal and
\ndirecting the college Management to make a fresh selection in
\naccordance with section 57(3) of the Act. The order rejecting
\nO.P. No.6621\/2003 is challenged by the Manager of St.
\nGregorious College and Thomas Pannicker in CA
\nNo.8576\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
The Issue\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe High Court relying on the decision of the Eleven-
\nJudge Bench of this Court in T M A Pai Foundation v. State of
\nKarnataka<\/a> [2002 (8) SCC 481] has held that receipt of aid by a
\nminority institution removes the protection under Article 30(1),
\nby taking  away its right to claim immunity from interference
\nand therefore all regulations made by the State, governing the
\nmanner of making appointments and removal, as also the
\nconditions of service of Principals and Lecturers, will be
\nbinding on such aided institution. The High Court held that aid
\ncarries the ‘price’ of surrender of a part of its freedom and
\nindependence in matters of administration.  As a consequence,
\nit held that Section 57(3) of the Act providing that
\nappointments of Principal should be on the basis of seniority-
\ncum-fitness, is valid and binding on minority institutions.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe appellants contend that the right to appoint Principal
\nand teachers is the most important facet of minority’s “right to
\nadminister” under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. They
\nsubmit that receipt of aid by minority institutions, does not, in
\nany way, fetter or abridge their constitutional right to
\nadminister educational institutions, and therefore Section 57(3)
\nof the Act requiring  the appointment of only the senior-most of
\nlecturers as Principal is violative of Article 30(1) of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tOn the other hand, the respondents contend that
\nminorities do not have an unfettered right under Article 30(1) to
\nadminister and manage its education institutions; that the State
\nand its agencies can regulate  certain facets of administration of
\nprivate educational institutions by minorities, in particular  by
\nprescribing the minimum qualification, experience and other
\nconditions bearing on merit for being appointed as a teacher or
\nPrincipal; that if  such institution is aided by the State, the State
\ncan make regulations governing the service conditions for
\nteaching and other staff, which includes the post of Principal;
\nand that Section 57(3) of the Act providing for the manner of
\nfilling the post of Principal by promotion, is therefore binding
\nupon minority institutions receiving aid from the State.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe rival contentions give rise to the following questions:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tTo what extent, the State can regulate the right of
\nthe minorities to administer their educational
\ninstitutions, when such institutions receive aid
\nfrom the State.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether the right to choose a Principal  is part of
\nthe right of  minorities under Article 30(1)  to
\nestablish and administer educational institutions of
\ntheir choice.  If so, Section 57(3) of the Act would
\nviolate Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Question (i)<\/p>\n
13.\tArticle 30(1) gives  minorities the right to establish and
\nadminister educational institutions of their choice. In State of
\nKerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial<\/a> [1970 (2) SCC 417], a
\nConstitution Bench of this Court explained ‘right to administer’
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
“Administration means ‘management of the affairs’ of the
\ninstitution. This management must be free of control so that
\nthe founders or their nominees can mould the institution as
\nthey think fit, and in accordance with their ideas of how the
\ninterests of the community in general and the institution in
\nparticular will be best served. No part of this management
\ncan be taken away and vested in another body without an
\nencroachment upon the guaranteed right.”\n<\/p>\n
“There is, however, an exception to this and it is that the
\nstandards of education are not a part of management as
\nsuch. These standards concern the body politic and are
\ndictated by considerations of the advancement of the
\ncountry and its people. Therefore, if universities establish
\nthe syllabi for examinations they must be followed, subject
\nhowever to special subjects which the institutions may seek
\nto reach, and to a certain extent the State may also
\nregulate the conditions of employment of teachers and the
\nhealth and hygiene of students. Such regulations do not
\nbear directly upon management as such although they may
\nindirectly affect it. Yet the right of the State to regulate
\neducation, educational standards and allied matters
\ncannot be denied. The minority institutions cannot be
\nallowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected
\nof educational institutions, or under the guise of exclusive
\nright of management, to decline to follow the general
\npattern. While the management must be left to them, they
\nmay be compelled to keep in step with others.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t               (Emphasis supplied)  <\/p>\n
 14.\tIn The Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State
\nof  Gujarat [1974 (1) SCC 717 ],  a nine Judge Bench of this
\nCourt considered the scope and ambit of minority’s right to
\nadminister educational institutions established by them.  The
\nmajority were of the view that prescription of conditions of
\nservice would attract better and competent teachers and would
\nnot jeopardize the right of the management of minority
\ninstitutions to appoint teachers of their choice.  It was also
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
“Autonomy in administration means right to administer
\neffectively and to manage and conduct the affairs of the
\ninstitutions. The distinction is between a restriction on the
\nright of administration and a regulation prescribing the
\nmanner of administration. The right of administration is
\nday to day administration. The choice in the personnel of
\nmanagement is a part of the administration. The university
\nwill always have a right to see that there is no mal-
\nadministration. If there is mal-administration, the university
\nwill take steps to cure the same. There may be control and
\ncheck on administration in order to find out whether the
\nminority institutions are engaged in activities which are not
\nconducive to the interest of the minority or to the
\nrequirements of the teachers and the students.”\n<\/p>\n
“The ultimate goal of a minority institution too imparting
\ngeneral secular education is advancement of learning. This
\nCourt has consistently held that it is not only permissible
\nbut also desirable to regulate everything in educational and
\nacademic matters for achieving excellence and uniformity
\nin standards of education.\n<\/p>\n
In the field of administration it is not reasonable to claim
\nthat minority institutions will have complete autonomy.
\nChecks on the administration may be necessary in order to
\nensure that the administration is efficient and sound and
\nwill serve the academic needs of the institution. The right
\nof a minority to administer its educational institution
\ninvolves, as part of it, a correlative duty of good
\nadministration.”\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn FRANK ANTHONY Public School Employees’
\nAssociation v Union of India [1986 (4) SCC 707], this Court
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
“The excellence of the instruction provided by an
\ninstitution would depend directly on the excellence of the
\nteaching staff, and in turn, that would depend on the quality
\nand the contentment of the teachers.  Conditions of service
\npertaining to minimum qualifications of teachers, their
\nsalaries, allowances and other conditions of service which
\nensure security, contentment and decent living standards to
\nteachers and which will consequently enable them to render
\nbetter service to the institution and the pupils cannot surely
\nbe said to be violative of the fundamental right guaranteed
\nby Article 30(1) of the Constitution.  The management of a
\nminority Educational Institution cannot be permitted under
\nthe guise of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article
\n30(1) of the Constitution, to oppress or exploit its
\nemployees any more than any other private employee.
\nOppression or exploitation of the teaching staff of an
\neducational institution is bound to lead, inevitably, to
\ndiscontent and deterioration of the standard of instruction
\nimparted in the institution affecting adversely the object of
\nmaking the institution an effective vehicle of education for
\nthe minority community or other persons who resort to it.
\nThe management of minority institution cannot complain of
\ninvasion of the fundamental right to administer the
\ninstitution when it denies the members of its staff the
\nopportunity to achieve the very object of Article 30(1)
\nwhich is to make the institution an effective vehicle of
\neducation.”\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThe scope of Article 30(1), with reference to the scope of
\nthe right to administer educational institutions, was also
\nconsidered  by  this court  in In  re. Kerala Education Bill,
\n1957 ( AIR 1958 SC 956), Rev.Sidhajbhai v. State of Bombay<\/a>
\n[1963 (3) SCR 837], D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab  [1971
\n(2) SCC 269],  All Saints High School v. Government of A.P.
\n[1980 (2) SCC 478],  St. Stephen’s College v. University of
\nDelhi<\/a> [1992 (1) SCC 558],  N. Ammad  v. Manager, Emjay
\nHigh School<\/a> [1998 (6) SCC 674],  Board of Secondary
\nEducation & Teaching Training v. Joint Director of Public
\nInstructions, Sagar<\/a>  [1998 (8) SCC 555].\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIn TMA Pai (supra), this Court made it clear that a
\nminority institution does not cease to be so, merely on receipt
\nof aid from the State or its agencies. In other words, receipt of
\naid does not alter the nature or character of the minority
\neducational institution receiving aid. Article 30(1) clearly
\nimplies that any grant that is given by the State to the minority
\ninstitution cannot have such conditions attached to it which will
\nin any way dilute or abridge the rights of the minorities to
\nestablish and administer educational institutions. But all
\nconditions that have relevance to the proper utilization of the
\naid by an educational institution can be imposed. The High
\nCourt, however, wrongly construed TMA Pai and concluded
\nthat acceptance of aid by a minority institution takes away its
\nright to claim immunity from interference and therefore the
\nState can lay down any regulation governing the conditions of
\nservice of employees of aided minority institutions ignoring the
\nconstitutional guarantee under Article 30(1). For this purpose,
\nthe High Court relied on the  observations in Paras 72 and 73 of
\nTMA Pai (supra).  The said paragraphs are extracted below   :\n<\/p>\n
“72.\tOnce aid is granted to a private professional
\neducational institution, the Government or the State
\nagency, as a condition of the grant of aid, can put fetters on
\nthe freedom in the matter of administration and
\nmanagement of the institution. The State, which gives aid
\nto an educational institution, can impose such conditions as
\nare necessary for the proper maintenance of the high
\nstandards of education as the financial burden is shared by
\nthe State. The State would also be under an obligation to
\nprotect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff.
\nIn many States, there are various statutory provisions to
\nregulate the functioning of such educational institutions
\nwhere the States give, as a grant or aid, a substantial
\nproportion of the revenue expenditure including salary, pay
\nand allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff. It would
\nbe its responsibility to ensure that the teachers working in
\nthose institutions are governed by proper service
\nconditions. The State, in the case of such aided institutions,
\nhas ample power to regulate the method of selection and
\nappointment of teachers after prescribing requisite
\nqualifications for the same. Ever since In Re, Kerala
\nEducation Bill, 1957 [AIR 1958 SC 956] this Court has
\nupheld, in the case of aided institutions, those regulations
\nthat served the interests of students and teachers. Checks on
\nthe administration may be necessary in order to ensure that
\nthe administration is efficient and sound and will serve the
\nacademic needs of the institutions. In other words, rules
\nand regulations that promote good administration and
\nprevent maladministration can be formulated so as to
\npromote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness
\nin administration and to preserve harmony among affiliated
\ninstitutions.”\n<\/p>\n
73.\tThere are a large number of educational institutions,
\nlike schools and non-professional colleges, which cannot
\noperate without the support of aid from the State, Although
\nthese institutions may have been established by
\nphilanthropists or other public-spirited persons, it becomes
\nnecessary, in order to provide inexpensive education to the
\nstudents, to seek aid from the State. In such cases, as those
\nof the professional aided institutions referred to
\nhereinabove, the Government would be entitled to make
\nregulations relating to the terms and conditions of
\nemployment of the teaching and non-teaching staff
\nwhenever the aid for the posts is given by the State as well
\nas admission procedures. Such rules and regulations can
\nalso provide for the reasons and the manner in which a
\nteacher or any other member of the staff can be removed. In
\nother words, the autonomy of a private aided institution
\nwould be less than that of an unaided institution.”\n<\/p>\n
But the aforesaid observations in Paras 72 and 73 were not
\nmade with reference to aided minority educational institutions.
\nThe observations in para 72 were intended for aided non-
\nminority private professional institutions. The observation in
\npara 73 in the context of  aided non-minority non-professional
\nprivate institutions. The position of minority educational
\ninstitutions securing aid from the State or its agencies was
\nconsidered in Para 80 to 155, wherein it was clearly held that
\nreceipt of State-aid does not annihilate the right guaranteed to
\nminorities to establish and administer  educational institutions
\nof their choice under Article 30(1).\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe observations of the Eleven-Judge Bench in TMA Pai
\n(supra) in respect of the extent to which the right of
\nadministration of  aided minority  educational institutions could
\nbe regulated, are extracted below :\n<\/p>\n
” the state cannot, when it chooses to grant aid to
\neducational institutions, deny aid to a religious or linguistic
\nminority institution only on the ground that the
\nmanagement of that institution is with the minority. We
\nwould, however, like to clarify that if an abject surrender of
\nthe right to management is made a condition of aid, the
\ndenial of aid would be violative of Article 30(2). However,
\nconditions of aid that do not involve a surrender of the
\nsubstantial right of management would not be
\ninconsistent with constitutional guarantees, even if they
\nindirectly impinge upon some facet of administration.\n<\/p>\n
It cannot be argued that no conditions can be imposed
\nwhile giving aid to a minority institution. Whether it is an
\ninstitution run by the majority or the minority, all
\nconditions that have relevance to the proper utilization of
\nthe grant-in-aid by an educational institution can be
\nimposed. . The conditions for grant or non-grant of aid to
\neducational institutions have to be uniformly applied,
\nwhether it is a majority-run institution or a minority-run
\ninstitution. As in the case of a majority run institution, the
\nmoment a minority institution obtains a grant of aid, Article
\n28 of the Constitution comes into play. When an
\neducational institution is maintained out of State funds, no
\nreligious instruction can be provided therein.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t        (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Among the questions formulated and answered by the majority
\nwhile summarising conclusions, Question 5(c) and answer
\nthereto has a bearing on the issue on hand :  Question 5 ( c ) is
\nextracted below :\n<\/p>\n
“Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets
\nof administration like control over educational agencies,
\ncontrol over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation
\nincluding recognition\/withdrawal thereof, and appointment
\nof staff, employees, teachers and principals including their
\nservice conditions and regulation of fees, etc. would
\ninterfere with the right of administration of minorities ?\n<\/p>\n
The first part of the answer to Question 5 ( c ) related to
\nunaided minority institutions. With reference to statutory
\nprovisions regulating the facets of administration, this court
\nexpressed the view that in case of an unaided minority
\neducational institutions, the regulatory measure of control
\nshould be minimal; and in the matter of day-to-day
\nmanagement, like the appointment of staff (both teaching and
\nnon-teaching) and administrative control over them, the
\nmanagement should have the freedom and there should not be
\nany external controlling agency.  But such  institutions should
\nhave to comply with the conditions of recognition and
\nconditions of affiliation to a University or Board; and a rational
\nprocedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking
\ndisciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself.
\nThis Court also held that fees to be charged by unaided
\ninstitutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge
\ncapitation fee.\n<\/p>\n
The second part of the answer to Question 5( c ) applicable  to
\naided minority  institutions,  is extracted below :-
\n“For redressing the grievances of employees of aided and
\nunaided institutions who are subjected to punishment or
\ntermination from service, a mechanism will have to be
\nevolved, and in our opinion, appropriate tribunals could be
\nconstituted, and till then, such tribunals could be presided
\nover by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge.\n<\/p>\n
The State or other controlling authorities, however, can
\nalways prescribe the minimum qualification, experience
\nand other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual
\nfor being appointed as a teacher or a principal of any
\neducational institution.\n<\/p>\n
Regulations can be framed governing service conditions for
\nteaching and other staff for whom aid is provided by the
\nState, without interfering with the overall administrative
\ncontrol of the management over the staff.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The position enunciated in TMA Pai is reiterated in P.A.
\nInamdar vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> [2005 (6) SCC 537].\n<\/p>\n
19.  The general principles relating to establishment and
\nadministration of educational institution by minorities may be
\nsummarized thus:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe right of minorities to establish and  administer
\neducational institutions of their choice comprises the
\nfollowing rights  :\n<\/p>\n
a)\tTo choose its governing body in whom the founders
\nof the institution have faith and confidence to
\nconduct and manage the affairs of the institution;\n<\/p>\n
b)\tTo appoint teaching staff (Teachers\/Lecturers and
\nHead-masters\/Principals) as also non-teaching staff;
\nand to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the
\npart of any of its employees;\n<\/p>\n
c)\tTo admit eligible students of their choice and to set
\nup a reasonable fee structure;\n<\/p>\n
d)\tTo use its properties and assets for the benefit of the
\ninstitution;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only
\nto ensure equality with the majority and not intended to
\nplace the minorities in a more advantageous position vis-
\n`-vis the majority.  There is no reverse discrimination in
\nfavour of minorities.  The general laws of the land
\nrelating to national interest, national security, social
\nwelfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation,
\ntaxation etc. applicable to all, will equally apply to
\nminority institutions also.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe right to establish and administer educational
\ninstitutions is not absolute.  Nor does it include the right
\nto maladminister. There can be regulatory measures for
\nensuring educational character and standards and
\nmaintaining academic excellence.  There can be checks
\non administration as are necessary to ensure that the
\nadministration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the
\nacademic needs of the institution. Regulations made by
\nthe State concerning generally the welfare of students
\nand teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria
\nand qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of
\nservice of employees (both teaching and non-teaching),
\nregulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of
\nemployees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and
\ncurriculum of study fall under this category.  Such
\nregulations do not in any manner interfere with the right
\nunder Article 30(1).\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tSubject to the eligibility conditions\/qualifications
\nprescribed by the State being met, the unaided minority
\neducational institutions will have the freedom to appoint
\nteachers\/Lecturers by adopting any rational procedure of
\nselection.\n<\/p>\n
  (v)     Extention of aid by the State, does not alter the nature
\nand character of the minority educational institution.
\nConditions can be imposed by the State to ensure
\nproper utilization of the aid, without however diluting
\nor abridging the right under Article 30(1).\n<\/p>\n
20.  Aided institutions give instruction either in secular
\neducation or professional education. Religious education is
\nbarred in educational institutions maintained out of State fund.
\nThese aided educational minority institutions providing secular
\neducation or professional education should necessarily have
\nstandards comparable with non-minority educational
\ninstitutions. Such standards can be attained and maintained only
\nby having well qualified professional teachers. An institution
\ncan have the services of good qualified professional teachers
\nonly if the condition of service ensures security, contentment
\nand decent living standards. That is why  State can regulate the
\nservice conditions of the employees of the minority educational
\ninstitutions to ensure quality of education. Consequently, any
\nlaw intended to regulate the service conditions of employees of
\neducational institutions will apply to minority institutions also,
\nprovided that such law does not interfere with the overall
\nadministrative control of the managements over the staff.\n<\/p>\n
21.  We may also recapitulate the  extent of regulation by the
\nState, permissible in respect of employees of minority
\neducational institutions receiving aid from the State, as clarified
\nand crystalised in TMA Pai.  The State can prescribe :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tthe minimum qualifications, experience and other
\ncriteria  bearing on merit, for making appointments,<\/p>\n
(ii)\tthe service conditions of employees without
\ninterfering with the overall administrative control by
\nthe Management over the staff.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\ta mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the
\nemployees.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tthe  conditions  for  the   proper  utilisation  of  the
\naid by the educational institutions, without abridging
\nor diluting the right to establish and administer
\neducational institutions.\n<\/p>\n
In other words, all laws made by the State to regulate the
\nadministration of educational institutions,  and grant of aid, will
\napply to minority educational institutions also.   But if any such
\nregulations interfere with the overall administrative control by
\nthe Management over the staff, or abridges\/dilutes, in any other
\nmanner, the right to establish and administer educational
\ninstitutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable
\nto minority institutions.\n<\/p>\n
Re: Question (ii) :\n<\/p>\n
22.\tThe  Principal or Headmaster of an educational
\ninstitution is responsible for the functional efficiency of the
\ninstitution, as also the quality of education and discipline in the
\ninstitution.  He is also responsible for maintaining the
\nphilosophy and objects of the institution.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tIn State of Kerala vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial<\/a> [1970
\n(2) SCC 417], this Court upheld the decisions of the Kerala
\nHigh Court declaring sub-sections (1) (2) (3)  of section 53 of
\nthe Kerala University Act, 1969 relating to appointment of
\nPrincipals were ultra vires Article 30(1) in respect of minority
\ninstitutions. This Court affirmed the following findings of the
\nHigh Court (reported in 1969 Kerala Law Times 749) without
\nindependently considering the same :-\n<\/p>\n
“The principal of a college is, as S.2(12) recognizes, the
\nhead of the college, and, the post of the principal is of
\npivotal importance in the life of a college; around him
\nwheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him
\ndepends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of
\ndiscipline and the efficiency of its teaching; and the right to
\nchoose the principal is perhaps the most important facet of
\nthe right to administer a college. The imposition of any
\ntrammel thereon  except to the extent of prescribing the
\nrequisite qualifications and experience or otherwise
\nfostering the interests of the institution itself  cannot but
\nbe considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by
\narticle 30(1) of the Constitution, and, for the reasons we
\nhave already given, by article 19(1)(f) as well. To hold
\notherwise would be to make the rights “a teasing illusion, a
\npromise of unreality”. Provision may, of course, be made to
\nensure that only proper persons are appointed to the post of
\nprincipal; the qualifications necessary may be prescribed,
\nand the mode of selection for the purpose of securing the
\nbest men may be laid down. But to go beyond that and
\nplace any further fetter on the choice would be an
\nunreasonable interference with the right of management.
\nTherefore, so far as the post of principal is concerned, we
\nthink it should be left to the management to secure the
\nservices of the best person available. This, it seems to us,
\nis of paramount importance, and the prospects of
\nadvancement of the staff must yield to it. The management
\nmust have as wide a field of choice as possible; yet sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 53 restricts the choice to the teachers
\nof the colleges or of all the colleges, as the case may be,
\nand enables the appointment of an outsider only if there is
\nno suitable person in such college or colleges. That might
\nwell have the result of condemning the post to a level of
\ndull mediocrity. A provision by which an outsider is to be
\nappointed, or a junior member of the staff preferred to a
\nsenior member, only if he is of superior merit, the
\nassessment of which must largely be left to the
\nmanagement, is understandable; but a provision which
\ncompels the management to appoint only a teacher of the
\ncollege (or colleges) unless it pronounces all the teachers
\nunsuitable, is clearly in derogation of the powers of the
\nmanagement, and not calculated to further the interest of
\nthe institution.. But we might say that there can be
\nno objection to the appointment of the principal as of any
\nother member of the staff being subject to the approval of
\nsome authority of the University so long as disapproval can
\nbe only on the ground that the person appointed has not the
\nrequisite qualifications. Also that if disapproval is not to be
\nonly on some such stated ground, but is left entirely to the
\nwill and pleasure of the appointing authority, that would be
\nto deprive the educational agency of its power of
\nappointment and would be bad for offending article
\n19(1)(f) and article 30(1).”\n<\/p>\n
 (Emphasis supplied)   <\/p>\n
24.\tThe importance of the right to appointment of
\nPrincipals\/Head-masters and teachers of their choice by
\nminorities, as an important part of their fundamental rights
\nunder Article 30 was highlighted in St. Xavier (supra) thus :\n<\/p>\n
“It is upon the principal and teachers of a college that the
\ntone and temper of an educational institution depend. On
\nthem would depend its reputation, the maintenance of
\ndiscipline and its efficiency in teaching. The right to
\nchoose the principal and to have the teaching conducted
\nby teachers appointed by the management after an overall
\nassessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps the
\nmost important facet of the right to administer an
\neducational institution. So long as the persons chosen
\nhave the qualifications prescribed by the University, the
\nchoice must be left to the management. That is part of the
\nfundamental right of the minorities to administer the
\neducational institution established by them.”
\n[Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
25.\tIn N.Ammad (supra) the appellant contended that he
\nbeing the senior-most graduate teacher of an aided minority
\nschool, he should be appointed as the Headmaster and none
\nelse. He relied on Rule 44A of the Kerala Education Rules
\nwhich provided that appointment of Headmaster shall ordinarily
\nbe  according to seniority, from the seniority list prepared and
\nmaintained under clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 34. This Court
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
“Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or
\nPrincipal of a college) are of prime importance in
\nadministration of that educational institution. The
\nHeadmaster is the key post in the running of the school. He
\nis the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set
\naround whom they rotate to generate result. A school is
\npersonified through its Headmaster and he is the focal point
\non which outsiders look at the school. A bad Headmaster
\ncan spoil the entire institution, an efficient and honest
\nHeadmaster can improve it by leaps and bounds. The
\nfunctional efficacy of a school very much depends upon the
\nefficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine
\nprecept remains unchanged despite many changes taking
\nplace in the structural patterns of education over the years.\n<\/p>\n
How important is the post of Headmaster of a school has
\nbeen pithily stated by a Full Bench of the Kerala High
\nCourt in Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan (AIR 1965
\nKer 75). Chief Justice M.S. Menon has, in a style which is
\ninimitable, stated thus :\n<\/p>\n
“The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the
\nlife of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of
\nthe institution; on him depends the continuity of its
\ntraditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency
\nof its teaching. The right to choose the headmaster is
\nperhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a
\nschool, and we must hold that the imposition of any
\ntrammel thereon  except to the extent of prescribing the
\nrequisite qualifications and experience  cannot but be
\nconsidered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article
\n30(1) of the Constitution. To hold otherwise will be to
\nmake the right ‘a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality’.”\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, this Court concluded that the management of
\nminority institution is free to find out a qualified person either
\nfrom the staff of the same institution or from outside, to fill up
\nthe vacancy; and that the management’s right to choose a
\nqualified person as the Headmaster of the school is well
\ninsulated by the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the
\nConstitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any
\nlegislative act or executive rule except for fixing up the
\nqualifications and conditions of service for the post; and that
\nany such statutory or executive feat would be violative of the
\nfundamental right enshrined in Article 30(1) and would
\ntherefore be void. This Court further observed that if the
\nmanagement of the school is not given the wide freedom to
\nchoose the person for holding the key-post of Principal subject,
\nof course, to the restriction regarding qualifications to be
\nprescribed by the State, the right to administer the School
\nwould get much diminished.\n<\/p>\n
26.   In Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training
\n(supra), this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“The decisions of this Court make it clear that in the matter
\nof appointment of the Principal, the management of a
\nminority educational institution has a choice. It has been
\nheld that one of the incidents of the right to administer a
\nminority educational institution is the selection of the
\nPrincipal. Any rules which takes away this right of the
\nmanagement have been held to be interfering with the
\nright guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution. In this
\ncase, both Julius Prasad selected by the management and
\nthe third respondent are qualified and eligible for
\nappointment as Principal according to rules. The question
\nis whether the management is not entitled to select a person
\nof their choice. The decisions of this court including the
\ndecision in State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial<\/a>
\n[1970 (2) SCC 417] and Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College
\nSociety v. State of Gujarat make it clear that this right of
\nthe minority educational institution cannot be taken away
\nby any rules or regulations or by any enactment made by
\nthe State. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High
\nCourt was not right in holding otherwise. The State has
\nundoubtedly the power to regulate the affairs of the
\nminority educational institutions also in the interest of
\ndiscipline and excellence. But in that process, the
\naforesaid right of the management cannot be taken away,
\neven if the Government is giving hundred per cent grant.”\n<\/p>\n
 (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
27.\tIt is thus clear that the freedom to choose the person to be
\nappointed as Principal has always been recognized as a vital
\nfacet of the right to administer the educational institution. This
\nhas not been, in any way, diluted or altered by TMA Pai.
\nHaving regard to the key role played by the Principal in the
\nmanagement and administration of the educational institution,
\nthere can be no doubt that the right to choose the Principal is an
\nimportant part of the right of administration and even if the
\ninstitution is aided, there can be no interference with the said
\nright. The fact that the post of the Principal\/Headmaster  is also
\ncovered by State aid, will make no difference.\n<\/p>\n
28. The appellant contends that the protection extended by
\nArticle 30(1) cannot be used against a member of the teaching
\nstaff who belongs to the same minority community.  It is
\ncontended that a minority  institution cannot ignore the rights of
\neligible  lecturers belonging to the same community, senior to
\nthe person  proposed to be selected, merely because the
\ninstitution  has the right to select a Principal of its choice.  But
\nthis contention ignores the position that the right of the minority
\nto select a Principal of its choice is with reference to the
\nassessment of the person’s outlook and philosophy and ability
\nto implement its objects. The management is entitled to appoint
\nthe person,  who  according to them is most suited, to head the
\ninstitution, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed
\nfor the posts.  The career advancement prospects of the teaching
\nstaff, even those belonging to the same community, should have
\nto  yield to the right of the management under Article 30(1) to
\nestablish and administer educational institutions.\n<\/p>\n
29.  \tSection 57(3) of the Act provides that the post of
\nPrincipal when filled by promotion is to be made on the basis of
\nseniority-cum-fitness.  Section 57(3) trammels the right of the
\nmanagement to take note of merit of the candidate, or the
\noutlook and philosophy of the candidate which will determine
\nwhether he is supportive of the  objects  of the institution.  Such
\na provision clearly interferes with the right of the minority
\nmanagement  to have a person of their choice as head of the
\ninstitution and thus violates Article 30(1).  Section 57(3) of the
\nAct cannot therefore apply to minority run educational
\ninstitutions even if they are aided.\n<\/p>\n
30.\tIn view of the above, we allow these appeals and,
\nconsequently, set aside the judgment dated 5.6.2003 of the High
\nCourt.  As a consequence, O.P.Nos.10111\/2000, 10721\/2001
\nand 14337\/2000 stand dismissed.  O.P.No.3015, 3742 and
\n6621\/2003 filed by the College Managements\/Selected
\nPrincipals are allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Secretary,Malankara Syrian … vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006 Author: R Raveendran Bench: H.K. Sema, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 8599 of 2003 PETITIONER: The Secretary,Malankara Syrian Catholic College RESPONDENT: T.Jose & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/11\/2006 BENCH: H.K. SEMA & R.V. RAVEENDRAN JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-10T00:14:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian … vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-10T00:14:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":6563,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006\",\"name\":\"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-10T00:14:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian … vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-10T00:14:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian … vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-10T00:14:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006"},"wordCount":6563,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006","name":"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-10T00:14:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretarymalankara-syrian-vs-t-jose-ors-on-27-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary,Malankara Syrian … vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}