Chennai: In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court ruled that teaching and non-teaching posts in colleges and schools run by temples under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department can only be filled by individuals professing the Hindu faith. The decision was delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, who dismissed a writ petition challenging the “Hindus-only” eligibility condition for recruitment.
The petitioner, A. Suhail, a Muslim, had applied for the post of Office Assistant at the Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College in Kolathur, Chennai. Suhail’s application was rejected based on a notification stating that only Hindus were eligible for the advertised posts. He sought a directive to quash the recruitment process, arguing that it violated his constitutional right to equality.
The Court’s Decision
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh clarified that the institution in question, being a self-financed college managed by a temple, did not fall under the purview of “state” institutions, which are bound by Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution guaranteeing equal opportunity in public employment. Instead, the court held that the provisions of Article 16(5) applied, allowing religious institutions to restrict employment to members of their faith for roles associated with their administration.
“The college is a self-financing institution run by the temple without any aid from the State. Its expenses are met through student fees. It does not fall under the definition of ‘state’ and hence does not come under Article 16(1) and 16(2). However, it comes under Article 16(5), which permits religious institutions to appoint only individuals of their faith to carry out specific religious objectives,” Justice Singh said in his ruling.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that:
- The condition of limiting eligibility to Hindus violated the constitutional provisions of equality in public employment under Articles 16(1) and 16(2).
- The college, being an educational institution, did not qualify as a religious institution under the HR & CE Act and was therefore subject to secular administration.
- Administrative activities of an educational institution were distinct from religious activities and thus could not claim protection under Article 16(5).
Counsel for the petitioner further argued that Article 25 and Article 26, which protect religious freedom and the right to manage religious affairs, could not justify restricting employment in an institution engaged in secular activities like education.
Key Findings by the Court
The court, in its 12-page judgment, rejected the petitioner’s claims and upheld the notification issued by the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE Department. Justice Singh emphasized the following points:
Religious Nature of the Institution: The college is managed by the Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple and falls under the purview of the HR & CE Act, 1959. Section 10 of the Act mandates that appointments to temple-managed institutions be restricted to individuals professing the Hindu faith.
Applicability of Article 16(5): The Constitution allows religious institutions to make appointments based on religion to preserve their denominational character. Since the college is run by a religious institution, this exemption applies.
Self-Financing Status: The institution receives no state funding, and its operations are financed entirely through fees collected from students. This reinforces its status as a private entity not bound by public employment regulations under Article 16(1) and 16(2).
Implications of the Judgment
The court’s ruling has reaffirmed the rights of religious institutions to maintain their denominational identity in employment matters. By emphasizing the religious objectives of temple-run colleges, the judgment upholds the provisions of the HR & CE Act, which seek to preserve the character of Hindu institutions.
Comparison with Prior Judgment
Interestingly, the ruling comes in contrast to a decision by Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench in August 2023. Justice Swaminathan had declared unconstitutional the Tirunelveli Diocese’s practice of recruiting teachers only from a diocesan seniority list. He argued that the process violated secular principles when salaries were paid from the state exchequer.
In that case, Justice Swaminathan highlighted that restricting employment based on religious denomination was discriminatory and undermined constitutional morality. However, the current case is distinguishable as the institution in question is self-financed and does not depend on government funding, allowing it to claim the protection of Article 16(5).
Comments