Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to Article 30 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
• This judgment was delivered by a 2-judge Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M Trivedi. 

Facts  

• The Respondent No. 1, a Jain Minority Institution, ran a government-aided school called "The New High School”. Shri H.H. Kapadia was the Principal of the school. 
• Mr. Kapadia turned 58 on 22nd July1999. 
• The institution sought and obtained permission from the District Education Officer (DEO) to extend his tenure as Principal until the age of 60, with the condition that his salary would be paid by the institution. 
• The institution requested another extension for Mr. Kapadia beyond 60 years via a letter dated 16th April 2001. 
• This request was rejected by DEO on 18th June 2001. 
• A writ petition was filed before the Gujarat High Court challenging the order of DEO. 
• The Single Bench ruled in favour of the institution and held: 
  • The Court held that the DEO's actions violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution (minority rights). 
  • The Court allowed the institution to continue Mr. Kapadia beyond 60 years as Principal. 
  • The Court directed the government to pay Grant-in-Aid for Mr. Kapadia's salary for the period 2001-2012. 
• The order of the Single Bench Judge was challenged before the Division Bench wherein the Court dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of the Single Bench. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether the decision of the appellants in not providing the aid to the respondents towards the salary of the principal of the respondent no. 2 - school on his attaining the age of superannuation as per the Grant-in-aid Code, could be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)? 

Observations 

• The Court observed that the following legislations would be helpful in determining the issue at hand: 
  • Article 30 of the COI 
  • Gujarat Secondary Education Act 
  • Regulations framed under the Grant-in Aid Code published under Gujarat Notification 
• The relevant regulations in issue here are: 
  • Regulation 42 of the said Regulations overrides the Grant-in-Aid Code (1964) for matters covered under these Regulations. 
  • Regulation 43 exempts minority institutions from the applicability of Regulation 36, which pertains to the age of superannuation. 
• The law relating to superannuation in minority institutions is as follows: 
  • Minority institutions are not bound by Regulation 36 regarding the retirement age of employees. 
  • However, the Grant-in-Aid Code applies where the Regulations are silent. Under the Grant-in-Aid Code: 
    • Teachers ordinarily retire at 58 years. 
    • Extensions can be granted up to 60 years 
• The Court held that the minority schools receiving Grant-in-Aid cannot continue employees beyond the age of 58 or 60 years while expecting aid for their salaries. 
• Further, the Court held that the Grant-in-Aid Code applies equally to all secondary schools receiving government grants, whether minority-run or otherwise and schools must comply with the code to qualify for government aid. 
• The Court referred to following rulings: 
  • TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2003): Minority institutions are subject to the same conditions for grants as non-minority institutions. 
  • State of UP v. Abhay Nandan Inter College (2021): Aided institutions must comply with grant conditions without distinction between minority and non-minority institutions. 
• The Court finally held the following: 
  • The respondent institution (Jain Minority) was bound by the Grant-in-Aid Code and could not continue its Principal beyond the age of 60 while expecting grant support. 
  • The High Court erred in ruling that the respondent institution had the right to retain the Principal beyond 60 years and in ordering the payment of arrears for 2001–2012. 
  • The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant (State Government). 

Conclusion 

• The Court held that minority institutions receiving government grants must adhere to the Grant-in-Aid Code's conditions, including retirement age limits, as these rules apply uniformly to all aided schools. 
• The Supreme Court rightly upheld that such compliance does not violate minority rights under Article 30 of the Constitution.