Habeas Corpus Petition Not Maintainable To Trace An Absconding Accused Evading Arrest: Allahabad High Court Section 33(2)(b) ID Act: Industrial Tribunal Cannot Reject Approval For Dismissing Corrupt Employee Over Minor Deficit In One Month's Wages, Holds Bombay High Court Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Claim Unreserved Vacancy Without Securing Higher Marks Than General Cut-Off: Calcutta High Court Condition Restricting Use Of CENVAT Credit For Duty Payment During Default Period Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court Domestic Incident Report Cannot Supersede Substantive Complaint Under DV Act; Summons Can't Be Refused Solely Due To Omissions In DIR: Delhi High Court Defence Evidence Not Inherently Inferior To Prosecution Evidence, Accused Need Not Prove Alibi To The Hilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 80-Year-Old In POCSO Case Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Restrain Trade Union Strike; Employer Can Approach Industrial Tribunal Under IR Code During Conciliation: Karnataka High Court Army Personnel Exposed To Radiation During Service Entitled To Disability Pension For Leukemia: Kerala High Court Failure To Give Opportunity To Accused To Explain Disproportionate Assets Is Fatal To Prosecution: Madras High Court Acquits Customs Officer Family Court Can Grant Maintenance To Major Unmarried Daughter Even If Application Filed Under Section 125 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Framing Charges Solely On Oral Testimony Despite Contradictory Medical Evidence Impermissible Without Recorded Reasons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Vehicle Seized For Alleged Cattle Cruelty Can't Be Left To Rot; Prima Facie Ownership Established Via Registration & Insurance Docs: Orissa High Court Labeling Perennial Work As 'Outsourced' To Deny Regularization Is Unconstitutional; State Can't Act Like Private Employer: Telangana High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Merely Required To Establish 'Probable Defence' To Shift Burden Of Proof Onto Complainant: Madras High Court Protests Or Being Branded A 'Traitor' Do Not Establish Threat To Life Ipso Facto: Punjab & Haryana High Court On Security Cover

Government Aided School Hold Principal Beyond Retirement Age – Grant Withheld – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court held in the recent Judgement that (THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Vs H. B. KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST & ANR D.D 21 Feb 2023) that Minority educational institutions, like the respondents, cannot continue employees beyond the age of 58 or 60, and if they do, they cannot receive grants from the government. Grant-in-Aid Code applies to all registered secondary education institutions receiving grants, and they are subject to its restrictions.

 A Jain minority institution ran a government-aided school and sought permission from the government to continue employing their principal beyond the age of 60. The DEO granted the permission to continue him as the Principal up to the age of 60 years on the condition that his salary would be paid by the Institution. When the institution sought further extension of the principal's service, it was rejected by the DEO, leading to a writ petition being filed by the institution. The single bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the institution had the right to continue the principal's employment and that the government was obliged to pay the grant towards his salary. The Division Bench dismissed the government's appeal against this decision.

Supreme Court observed that Article 30(1) establishes the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The Gujarat Secondary Education Act provides for the regulation of secondary education in Gujarat and includes regulations related to the superannuation of employees in registered secondary schools.

Further observed that according to para 81.1 of the Grant-in-Aid Code, secondary school teachers receiving grant-in-aid usually retire at the age of 58. Management can grant extensions to teachers up to the age of 60, as per para 81.2. Minority educational institutions, like the respondents, cannot continue employees beyond the age of 58 or 60, and if they do, they cannot receive grants from the government. Grant-in-Aid Code applies to all registered secondary education institutions receiving grants, and they are subject to its restrictions.

Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code apply to all secondary schools, regardless of whether they are established and administered by the minority or not. Respondents cannot claim the right to receive aid from the government outside of the Code's provisions.

Supreme Court further held that the State did not discriminate against the respondent institution on the ground that it was under the management of a minority, attracting Article 30(2) of the Constitution of India. The High Court committed a gross error in holding that the respondent-institute had a right to continue the principal of its school beyond his age of 60 years. Appeal Allowed.

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Vs H. B. KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST & ANR

Latest Legal News