- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shainda Hasan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Karamat Husain Muslim Girls College, Lucknow, is managed by Anjuman Muslimat-e-Hind, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The College is recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh as a religious minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and is an affiliated associate of Lucknow University.
On April 5, 1974, the College advertised the post of Lady Principal for the degree section, prescribing the following qualifications/requirements: (1) first or good second class Master’s degree in a subject taught in the institution; (2) at least five years’ experience of teaching degree classes and administrative experience; (3) working knowledge of Urdu; and (4) willingness to reside in the college premises.
The appellant applied but did not meet the five years’ experience requirement. She alone appeared for the interview. The Selection Committee relaxed the experience requirement in her favor and selected her. The management sought approval from Lucknow University under Section 31(11) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The University declined approval and directed re-advertisement of the post.
The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, asserting that University interference violated Article 30(1) and that there was no basis to withhold approval. The High Court held that the Act’s provisions were regulatory, aimed at maintaining uniformity, efficiency, and educational standards in minority institutions. It further held that the Selection Committee could not relax qualifications without reserving that power in the advertisement and found the Urdu requirement unjust. The writ petition was dismissed. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court via Article 136.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on February 23, 1990 and, noting that the appellant had been serving as Principal since 1974 under court orders, asked the University to reconsider the matter sympathetically. On April 20, 1990, in chambers, counsel for the State, after instructions from the University, agreed that it would be unjust to ask the appellant to leave after 16 years.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of statutory rules or an express reservation in the advertisement, the Selection Committee could relax the prescribed qualification of five years’ teaching and administrative experience.
- Whether prescribing “working knowledge of Urdu” as a qualification for the post of Principal in a Muslim minority institution is unjust.
- Whether University oversight and approval under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 infringe the rights of a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution (an issue raised but ultimately not decided by the Supreme Court in view of the case disposition).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The College, being a minority institution, is protected under Article 30(1), and University interference under the Act violates that constitutional protection.
- There was no basis or justification for the University to withhold approval of her appointment.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
- The Court agreed with the High Court that the Selection Committee’s relaxation of the five-year experience requirement was arbitrary. In the absence of statutory rules conferring a power of relaxation, an advertisement must explicitly indicate that the Selection Committee or appointing authority has the power to relax qualifications.
- The Court disagreed with the High Court’s view that the Urdu requirement was unjust. Given that the College is a Muslim minority institution, prescribing “working knowledge of Urdu” for the post of Principal aligns with the institution’s objects.
- Given the dispositive course adopted, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the Article 30(1) argument.
- On equitable considerations, the Court noted that the appellant had been continuously serving as Principal since 1974 pursuant to court orders. The Court observed that it would be unjust to require her to vacate the post after over 16 years of service. This was reinforced by the State’s counsel, upon instructions from the University, acknowledging that such removal would be unjust.
- In the interests of justice, the Court directed the University and its Vice-Chancellor to grant necessary approval to the appellant’s appointment with effect from the date she has been holding the post, and to extend to her the salary, allowances, and all consequential benefits due to a regular Principal.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS: The Court directed Lucknow University and its Vice-Chancellor to grant necessary approval to the appellant’s appointment as Principal of Karamat Husain Muslim Girls College with effect from the date she has been holding the post, and to grant all salary, allowances, and consequential benefits of a regular Principal. No order as to costs.
Implications: The Court affirmed that, absent statutory authority or express reservation in the advertisement, relaxing prescribed qualifications is arbitrary. It also recognized that requiring working knowledge of Urdu is consistent with the purposes of a Muslim minority institution. The ultimate relief, however, was granted on equitable grounds in light of the appellant’s long service under court orders and the parties’ acknowledgment that removal would be unjust. The Court did not decide the Article 30(1) issue, and no broader precedent on that constitutional question was set; the decision chiefly affects the parties through the directions issued.
Kuldip Singh, J.— Karamat Husain Muslim Girls College, Lucknow (hereinafter called the ‘College’) is being managed by Anjuman Muslimat-e-Hind which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The avowed object of the society is to advance the cause of education among the women of India. The College has been recognised by the State of Uttar Pradesh as a religious minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and is an affiliated associate of Lucknow University.
2. The post of lady Principal in the degree section of the college was advertised on April 5, 1974 indicating the following qualifications/requirements:
(1) First or good second class Masters' Degree in any of the subjects taught in the institution;
(2) At least five years experience of teaching degree classes as also administrative experience;
(3) Must possess working knowledge of Urdu;
(4) Willing to reside in the college premises.
3. In response to the advertisement the appellant along with others applied for the post. The appellant did not fulfil the qualification of five years experience. She alone appeared for the interview and the Selection Committee relaxed the qualification of experience in her favour and selected her. The management thereafter sought the approval of the University to appoint the appellant as required under Section 31(11) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). The University, however, declined to approve and directed the management to re-advertise the post. The appellant challenged the decision of the University by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the college being a minority institution any interference by the University under the Act is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It was also contended that there was no basis or justification to withhold the approval.
4. The High Court rejected the attack on the ground of Article 30 of the Constitution of India by holding that the provisions of the Act are regulatory and are primarily for the purpose of maintaining uniformity, efficiency and standards of education in the minority institutions. On the merits the High Court held that the Selection Committee was not justified in relaxing the qualification without reserving that right to itself in the advertisement. The High Court also found that the qualification “possessing working knowledge of Urdu” was unjust. On the above findings the writ petition was dismissed. This is how the appellant is before us via Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
5. The High Court has rightly held the relaxation granted by the Selection Committee to be arbitrary. In the absence of statutory rules providing power of relaxation, the advertisement must indicate that the Selection Committee/appointing authority has the power to relax the qualifications. Regarding “working knowledge of Urdu” we do not agree with the High Court that the said qualification is unjust. The college being a Muslim minority institution prescribing the said qualification for the post of Principal, is in conformity with the object of establishing the institution.
6. In the view which we are taking in this case it is not necessary to go into the argument based on Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
7. We heard the arguments in this case on February 23, 1990 and adjourned the case with the following order:
“It is admitted by the parties that as a result of the Court orders the appellant Ms Shainda Hasan is continuing to work as Principal in the Karamat Husain Muslim Girls College, Lucknow since 1974. Having served the institution for over 16 years it would be unjust to make her leave the post. Under the circumstances let the University reconsider the whole matter sympathetically.”
8. The case was taken up in chambers on April 20, 1990 when Mrs Shobha Dikshit learned counsel for the State after obtaining instructions from the University agreed with us that asking the appellant to leave the job after 16 years would be doing injustice to her.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we direct the Lucknow University and its Vice Chancellor to grant the necessary approval to the appointment of the appellant as Principal of Karamat Husain Muslim Girls College, Lucknow, with effect from the date she is holding the said post. We further direct that the appellant shall be entitled to the salary, allowances and all other consequential benefits to which a regular Principal of the said college would have been and is entitled. We dispose of the appeal with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert