Appointment of teachers in aided
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
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
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
Therefore we recommend that the Bill as reported by the
Select Committee be circulated for eliciting public opinion
Leela Damodara Menon, Member, Select Committee.
E.P. Poulose do.