Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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