The case had its genesis in the appointment of two teachers to the Khalsa Girls High School in West Bengal. The appointments were rejected by State authorities because the appointments were not made with the sanction of the School Service Commission (SSC) established under the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 (1969 Rules).
Aggrieved by the decision, the two teachers moved the Calcutta High Court in 2003. In 2004, a Single Bench ruled in their favor, finding that the school was a minority institution and therefore entitled to make its own faculty appointments in view of their Fundamental Rights under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.
However, on appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the verdict and the quashed appointments on the ground that the Khalsa School was an aided institution and was thereby bound by the 1969 rules. Moreover, the institution had not made any claim to being a minority institution under the 1969 Rules, and therefore its employees cannot claim such status on its behalf. Further, it was also submitted that the school had applied for a special constitution under Rule 8. Court held once a minority community applies for a special constitution under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the said Rules it represents to the State Government that it was not claiming the status of a minority institution.
Now aggrieved by the decision, appeal lied to Supreme Court.
The three-judge Bench unanimously stated that on facts it was noted that the school was conceived as a minority institution for the benefit of the Sikh community – a minority in West Bengal. In this regard, a letter issued in 1976 was relied upon, which spoke of the establishment of the school for the welfare of the Sikh community. And as far as the 1969 Rules were concerned, the Court pointed out that the approval of the special constitution applied for by the school was done in deviation of the normal procedure followed under Rule 6, recognizing the fact that it was a minority institution. The Bench also noted that there was no other rule in the 1969 Rules applicable specifically to minority institutions. While this is the case, the Court highlighted that, after a 2008 amendment, Rule 32 (c) of the 1969 Rules provided that minority institutions would be exempted from its purview. The Bench held that once it has been established that the school is a minority institution from its inception the school cannot waive its minority status as the same constitutes a fundamental right. In view of these observations, the Court held that if Khalsa Girls School is a minority institution, Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969, cannot possibly apply as there would be a serious infraction of the right.
So it concludes that a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that the fundamental right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their own under Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be waived. Also, it is well-settled law that the fundamental right under Article 30 cannot be waived.