Appointment of teachers in aided schools.
Clause 11 of the Bill as amended by the Select Committee provides for the appointment of teachers both in Government and aided schools. The provision that the teachers of aided schools shall only be appointed from candidates selected by the Public Service Commission for the district in which the school is located seems to be unconstitutional. It also restricts the freedom of the management to a great extent.
All persons having the prescribed qualification will not evidently be included in the list prepared by the Public Service Commission. Therefore a large number of persons having the prescribed qualifications; shall never get an opportunity to get appointments. We feel that all persons having prescribed qualifications should at least have all equality of opportunity to get appointments.
In selecting candidates for each district Public Service Commission would naturally give preference to qualified persons from the district. This would in effect mean that qualified persons from districts where their number far exceeds that of other districts will be at a disadvantage. This is not justifiable. For the reasons stated above we think that clause 11 as amended by the Select Committee is bad and objectionable.
2. Provisions under clauses 14 and 15 provide for taking over of management of schools and the acquisition of any category of schools. Clause 14(2) vests the Government with powers to take over the management of any school even without giving and notice to the Manager or educational agency concerned. This extraordinary power is unnecessary and unjustifiable. We think that Government should have powers to take over management of schools only in cases of gross mismanagement. When the management or educational agency concerned willfully refrain from discharging and of the duties or responsibilities imposed on them under the provisions of this Act and the rules there under Government should have power to acquire schools only in cases of gross mismanagement and when satisfied that in the interest of the pupils; of the school such a course is necessary. Even in such cases a notice showing causes, why the school should not be acquired has to be given to the Manager and the educational agency concerned. Managers and educational agencies should be given an opportunity to rectify any specific flaw within a definite time, before the management of a school is taken over or the school is acquired. We feel that clauses 14 and 15 have to be amended on the lines indicated above.
3. After giving anxious consideration to the provision in clauses 17 and 18 we are definitely of opinion that the local authority contemplated therein is not suited to the conditions prevailing in our State. The functions of the local authorities are yet to be prescribed by the Government. Instead of being helpful we are afraid that local authorities might become ‘a menace’ to the proper administration of educational institutions in the state. Clauses 17 and 18 have to be deleted.
4. The conditions of service relating to scales of pay, pension, insurance, provident fund, age of retirement etc., of the non-teaching staff of the aided schools should be the same as are applicable to the non-teaching staff of the Government schools. Provision has not been made for this in the Bill. Likewise security of service is not guaranteed for the non-teaching staff. We feel that necessary provisions on the above lines have to be included in the Bill.
5. Clause 33 prohibits courts from granting injunctions, permanent or temporary or from making any interim orders restraining any proceedings under this Act. This clause we consider is bad in law. There is no reason why citizens should be prevented from seeking relief in courts of law. This clause has to be deleted.
6. Clauses 5 and 7 are also according to us unconstitutional.
We feel that one of the objects of the Bill notwithstanding public utterances to the contrary is to make education a monopoly of the State. Government seems to be determined in experimenting this in one of the districts this year itself as fare as primary education is concerned. We are definitely of opinion that in the field of education private agencies should be encouraged. The bill as reported by the Select Committee as a whole discourages such non-official efforts.
We do not consider that reasonable opportunities were given for those who are interested in education and who wanted to present their views before the Select Committee. The Select Committee met only a few from among the many prominent educationalists who wanted to give evidence before it.
Therefore we recommend that the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be circulated for eliciting public opinion thereon.
Leela Damodara Menon, Member, Select Committee.
E.P. Poulose do.