Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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