Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court recently held the process of appointing teachers at schools run by the Tirunelveli Diocese of the Church of South India discriminatory and unconstitutional because it used a diocesan seniority list to make the appointments.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan said that when the teachers' salary is paid out of the State exchequer, the elementary principles of secularism demand that the appointment process is thrown open to all eligible candidates irrespective of their caste, religious and denominational background.

The decision came in a petition filed by one C.Manohar Thangaraj who was elected as the treasurer of Tirunelveli Diocese, to forbear the Bishop, Diocese of Tirunelveli from taking any decision unilaterally regarding the appointment of teachers to the educational institutions run by the Diocese of Tirunelveli and aided by the grant of government.

The Tirunelveli Diocese of the Church of South India is a congregation of Christians in the Tirunelveli and Tenkasi Districts and it is an unregistered body. Though it is governed by its own rules codified as Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese, the several educational institutions established by it have been declared as minority institutions and they receive grants from the government to meet the salary expenses of the teaching and non-teaching staff.

There are around 249 primary schools, 74 middle schoos, 3 High Schools, 11 Higher Secondary Schools and 2 colleges run by the CSI Diocese of Tirunelveli.

The high court held that there was no doubt that CSI Tirunelveli Diocese is a minority institution entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India but appointments have to be made as per their own rules and regulations.

Corut also pointed out that there is currently a "vacuum" in the administration and management of the CSI Tirunelveli Diocese, as the tenure of democratically elected bodies has ended, and court-appointed administrators are unable to handle daily operations. The court emphasized that a caretaker management cannot make policy decisions or conduct recruitment processes; only a duly constituted body can fill vacancies. Until such a body is established, only temporary measures can be taken, with no regular appointments allowed. Therefore, court held that while the Bishop can take interim measures to meet the exigencies of the situation, he cannot make regular appointments.

Further, court took into consideration the affidavit filed by the Bishop in response to the petitioner's claim of arbitrary appointments. the affidavit stated that it is the duty of the Manager and Correspondents of the Schools to appoint teachers based on the diocesan seniority list.

To this, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in IVY C.da Conceicao v. State of Goa (2017), the high court said that autonomy of a minority institution does not dispense with the requirement to act fairly and transparently and the high court in exercise of its power of judicial review is entitled to examine the fairness of selection process.

"Grievance of a citizen that he was treated unfairly cannot be ignored on the ground that a minority institution has autonomy or right of choice. Exercise of right of choice has to be fair, non-discriminatory and rational," said the court. 

Taking a serious view of the issue court said that the moment has arrived to enact the “Transparency in Appointments of Staff in Private Aided Educational Institutions Act”.

It emphasised that the issue cannot be approached from the perspective of the management alone as the educational institutions are there to cater to the needs of the students.

A student is entitled to be taught by competent teachers. It is the duty of the management to fulfil this right. State is paying the teachers' salaries only with the expectation that the institutions will produce students of caliber and character, said the court. 

Court stressed that the right to receive State aid towards teaching grant is coupled with obligation to appoint the best possible competent teachers and this obligation can be discharged only if the field of choice of candidates is sufficiently wide.

"If the diocesan policy is to appoint teachers from out of their diocesan list based on seniority, it would certainly not be conducive to good administration," held the court. 

Court asserted that although the management of the minority institution is entitled to make the appointment but it should properly notify the vacancies so that every eligible candidate irrespective of their caste, religious and denominational background can apply.

"When the salary is paid out of the State exchequer, the elementary principles of secularism demand that the process of appointment is thrown open to all eligible candidates," it held. 

Accordingly, court allowed the petition as prayed for. 

Case Title: C.Manohar Thangaraj Vs. 1.Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas The Bishop, Diocese of Tirunelveli and Others