http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 25  

PETITIONER: ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/11/1987

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1988 AIR  305            1988 SCR  (2)  49  1988 SCC  (1) 206        JT 1987 (4)   491  1987 SCALE  (2)1200  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1990 SC 695  (5)  R          1990 SC1147  (7)  R          1991 SC2230  (4)  R          1992 SC1926  (7)

ACT:      Bihar  Non-Government.   Secondary  (taking   over   of Management and  Control) Act,  1981-Constitutional  validity of.

HEADNOTE: %      These petitions  under Article  32 of  the Constitution India challenge  the constitutional  validity of  the  Bihar Non-Government Secondary  Schools (taking over of Management and Control)  Act, 1981  (Bihar  Act  No.  33  of  1982)  as violative of Article 30 of the Constitution.      The petitioner  No. 1, the All Bihar Christian Schools’ Association, is a religious minority registered society, and the petitioner  No. 2,  the Secretary-cum-Treasurer  of  the petitioner No.  1. The  petitioner-association had  set up a number of  secondary schools in Bihar, which were managed by the Christian  dioceases societies  and  these  institutions were recognised  by the  Education Department Development of the State of Bihar.      In Bihar,  a number  of private  secondary schools were established and managed by private individuals or societies. The State  Government considered  it necessary  to take over the management  and Control  of the Non-Government Secondary Schools for  better  organisation  and  development  of  the Secondary Education  in the  State, and it enacted the Bihar Non-Government Secondary  Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. The Act provides for the taking over of  the   management  and   control  of  the  Non-Government Secondary Schools  by the  State Government for improvement, better  organisation   and  development   of  the  secondary education in  Bihar. The  scheme of the Act shows that after the take-over  of the nongovernment secondary Schools by the State Government, the management and control of such schools would be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 25  

    While the  impugned Act  provides for  taking over  the management  and  control  of  the  Non-Government  Secondary Schools, the 50 management  and  control  of  the  remaining  categories  of schools have not been taken over. Although the Act contained provisions for  the taking  over of other secondary schools, yet so  far as the minority secondary schools are concerned, the Act  does not  provide for any compulsory acquisition or taking over of the management and control of such schools.      The petitioners  contended that  (i) the  provisions of the Act  directly interfere  with the management and control of the  Christian minority schools, (ii) section 3(2) of the Act which provides for the taking over of minority secondary schools by  the Government  interferes with the petitioners’ fundamental right  under Article  30(i) of the Constitution, (iii) the  provisions of  section  18(2)  are  violative  of Articles 30 and 14 of the Constitution of India and (iv) the clauses (a)  to (k)  of section  18(3) of  the Act interfere with the  management of  the minority  secondary schools  in violation of Article 30(i) of the Constitution.      The respondent urged inter alia that the Government has no intention  to interfere  with fundamental  rights of  the minority community  to establish  schools of its choice; the provisions of  the  impugned  Act  are  directed  to  ensure academic excellence  and good  management; the management of the minority  institutions  had  been  given  free  hand  in managing  their  institutions,  but  in  order  to  maintain education excellence  and discipline,  regulatory provisions have been  made in  section 18  of the  Act, the  purpose of which is  to ensure that the minority schools are managed by the properly  constituted managing  committees; security  of the services  of the  staff is ensured, and in the matter of taking disciplinary  action, the  managing committees should conform to the principles of natural justice, etc.      Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court, ^      HELD: By the various decisions of this Court, it is now well-settled  that  the  minorities  based  on  religion  or language, have  fundamental freedom  to establish and manage educational institutions  of their own choice, but the State has the  right to provide regulatory provisions for ensuring educational excellence,  conditions  of  employment  of  the teachers, ensuring health, hygiene and discipline and allied matters. Such  regulatory provisions  do not  interfere with the minorities’  fundamental right  of  administering  their educational institutions;  instead, they seek to ensure that such institutions  are  administered  efficiently  and  that students who come out of the 51 minority institutions  after completion of their studies are well equipped  with knowledge and training so as to stand at par in  their avocation in life without any handicap. If the regulatory provisions  indirectly impinge  upon  minorities’ right of  administration of their institutions, it would not amount to  interference with  the fundamental freedom of the minorities as  the regulatory provisions are in the interest of the  minority institutions  themselves. If  the  minority institution seeks  affiliation or recognition from the State or the Education Board, the State has the right to prescribe syllabi and terms and conditions for giving such affiliation or recognition  or extending  the grants-in-aid.  On the one hand, the  State is  under  an  obligation  to  ensure  that educational standards in the recognised institutions must be according to  the need  of the  society and according to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 25  

standards which ensure the development of personality of the students turning  out to be civilised, useful members of the society and to ensure that the public funds disbursed to the minority institutions  are properly  utilised for  the given purpose. On  the other  hand, the  State has  to respect and honour  minority   rights  under   Article  30(1)   of   the Constitution in  the matter of establishing and carrying the administration of  institution of  their choice. In order to reconcile these  two conflicting,  the State has to strike a balance; the  statutory provisions  should  serve  both  the objects and  such statutory provisions have to withstand the test of  Article 30(l) of the Constitution. These principles have to  be borne in mind in considering the question of the validity  of   the  statutory  provisions  relating  to  the minority educational institutions. [63D-G; 64E-G]      The petitioners  challenged the constitutional validity of sections 3 and 18 of the Act on the ground of interfering with their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the  Constitution. Section  3 provides inter alia for the compulsory taking  over of the management and control of the recognised   non-government    secondary   schools.    After elaborately going  through the  provisions of  the said  two sections,  dealing   with  the   various  aspects   of   the management,  administration   and  working   of  a  minority institution; the  conclusion was  that the two sections were not violative  of Article  30(1) of  the Constitution and do not encroach  upon the  fundamental  rights  of  a  minority institution  guaranteed   under   Article   30(i)   of   the Constitution. [53D; 68E; 69G]      Guarantee of  freedom to  a minority  institution under Article 30(l)  of  the  Constitution  does  not  permit  the minority institution  to act  contrary to law and order, law of contract,  industrial laws  or other general laws enacted for the welfare of the society. If the minorities’ 52 claim for  immunity from the law of the land is upheld, that would be  unreasonable  and  against  the  interest  of  the minority institutions themselves. [79D-E]      The impugned  Act does  not  violate  the  petitioners’ rights guaranteed  under Article  30(I) of the Constitution. [80G]      In Re.  The Kerala  Education Bill,  1957(1959)SCR 995; Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and others v. State of Bombay, [1963] 3 SCR  837; State  of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1971] 1 SCR 734; The Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society JUDGMENT: Lilly Kurian  v. Sr.  Lewine & Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 820; Frank Anthony Public  School Employees’ Association case, [1986] 4 SCC 707;  Mrs. Y. Theclamma’s Case, [1971] 2 SCC 516 and All Saints  High  School,  Hyderabad  v.  Government  of  Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1980] 2 SCR 924, referred to.

&      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4588-89 of 1983.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      F.S. Nariman, Jose P. Vergheese and U.S. Prasad for the Petitioners.      Jai Narain and Pramod Swarup for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SINGH, J.  These petitions  under  Article  32  of  the Constitution of  India challenge the constitutional validity of the  Bihar Non-Government  Secondary Schools (taking over

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 25  

of Management  and Control)  Act, 1981  (Bihar Act No. 33 of 1982) on  the ground  that the  provisions of  the  Act  are violative of Article 30 of the Constitution.      All Bihar  Christian Schools’  Association,  petitioner No. 1,  is a religious minority society registered under the Societies  Registration   Act.  Petitioner   No.  2,  Sister Marianne S.C.N. is the Secretary-cum-Treasurer of petitioner No. 1.  The aims  and objects  of the  All  Bihar  Christian Schools’ Association  are  to  promote  education  including science, literature,  fine arts  and libraries  according to Christian ideals in the interest of national development; to foster moral  and spiritual  values in  education; to assist and strengthen the work of Christian 53 schools in  Bihar; to  promote the  welfare of  teachers and other  staff  of  the  member-institutions.  The  petitioner association has  set up a number of secondary schools in the State of  Bihar which  are managed  and administered  by the Christian  dioceses/societies  and  these  institutions  are recognised by  the Education  Department  of  the  State  of Bihar. The petitioners aver that they have fundamental right under Article  30 of  the  Constitution  to  administer  the institutions established  by them, according to their choice and no interference in the administration of the educational institution  is  permissible  under  the  Constitution.  The petitioners alleged  that the  provisions of  the Bihar Non- Government Secondary  Schools (taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) make serious inroad  on the  petitioners’ right  to establish and administer educational  institutions of  their choice.  They have challenged constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act and particularly the provisions contained in Section 3 and  Section  18  of  the  Act  which  according  to  them interfere with their fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30( 1) of the Constitution.      In the  State of  Bihar a  number of  private secondary schools were  established and managed by private individuals or societies.  The State  Government considered it necessary to  take  over  the  management  and  control  of  the  Non- Government Secondary  Schools for  better  organisation  and development  of   secondary  education   of  the  State.  It promulgated an  ordinance on  11.8.1980, as  the Bihar  Non- Government Secondary  Schools (Taking over of Management and Control)  First  ordinance.  This  ordinance  was  later  on replaced by  another Bihar  ordinance  No.  74  of  1981  on 22.4.1981. The  State legislature  converted  the  ordinance into the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management  and Control)  Act, 1981. The Act as indicated by the  preamble is  to  provide  for  the  taking  over  or management  and  control  of  the  Non-Government  Secondary Schools by  the State  Government, for  improvement,  better organisation and  development of  Secondary Education in the State of Bihar. "Non-Government Secondary School" as defined by Section  2 means a secondary school recognised as such by the Bihar  Secondary Education Board Act, 1976 and the Bihar Secondary  Board   (Second   amendment)   ordinance,   1980. "Secondary School" means a secondary school whose management and control  has been  taken over  by the  State  Government under Section  3 of  the Act. "Minority Secondary School" as defined  by   Section  2   (c)  means   a  secondary  school established by a minority community based either on religion or language, and managed by the minority community 54 and declared  and recognised as minority school by the State Government. Section  3  provides  for  taking  over  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 25  

management  and   control   of   recognised   Non-Government secondary schools  by the  State Government. Sub-section (1) lays  down   that  all  recognised  nongovernment  secondary schools other  than the  minority secondary schools based on religion or  language, shall  be deemed  to have  been taken over by  the State  Government with  effect from  October  2 1980. Sub-section (2) provides that the State Government may by notification  in the  official gazette  from a  specified date, take  over the  management and control of a recognised minority secondary  school if  the managing committee of the secondary school voluntarily makes an unconditional offer to hand over  the school  with all moveable or immovable assets and properties  owned or  possessed by the school. Section 4 provides for the consequences which ensue on the taking over of  management   and  control  of  non-government  secondary schools by  the Government.  It provides  that on the taking over of  the management  and control  of the  non-government secondary schools  by the  Government all  the  movable  and immovable assets  and 1)  properties owned  and possessed by secondary schools including land, building, documents, books and  registers,   shall  stand   transferred  to  the  State Government and  deemed to  have come into its possession and ownership. The  services of  every  Headmaster,  teacher  or other employees  of the  school  taken  over  by  the  State Government shall  be deemed  to have been transferred to the State Government  with effect  from the  date of taking over the school and they become employees of the State Government The age of superannuation of Headmasters, teachers and other employees of  the schools taken over by the State Government shall be  58 years.  However, other  terms and conditions of their services shall continue to be the same as they existed prior to  taking over  of the  management and control of the school until  alteration is  made by  the State  Government. Section S  provides that  the management  and control of the nationalised schools  shall be  under the  Director and  his subordinate officers  in the  manner as  prescribed  by  the State Government.  The management  of every secondary school shall be  under a  committee constituted  in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. Section 7 enumerates powers and  functions of  the Managing  Committee. Section 8 prescribed duties of the Headmaster. Section 9 provides that the service  conditions of the Headmaster, teachers and non- teaching staffs  of the nationalised secondary schools shall be determined  by the  State Government. Section 10 provides for the establishment of a School Service Board, a corporate body  having  perpetual  succession  and  common  seal.  Its Chairman and the members shall be appointed 55 by the  State Government.  The Board  is empowered  to  make recommendations for  appointment or promotion of Headmasters and  teachers  of  nationalised  secondary  schools  to  the Director  of   Education.  Section  11  creates  a  District Secondary Education  Fund Section  12 provides that the fund shall be  used for  payment of  salary and allowances to the Headmaster,  teachers   and  other   employees  of   schools including the  minority secondary  schools  and  grants  for other expenditure  of schools.  Section 14  provides for the constitution of  a Secondary  Education Committee for making recommendation to  the State  Government  on  the  questions relating to  the taking  over of management of the secondary schools,  their  improvement  and  upgradation.  Section  15 confers power  on the  State Government  to make  rules  for carrying out  the purposes of the Act. Every rule made under this provision is required to be laid before both the Houses of the  State Legislature.  Section 17  provides for interim

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 25  

arrangement before  taking over  management and  control  of Non-Government Secondary  Schools. Section  18 provides  for the recognition  of minority  secondary schools.  Under this provision, a  minority secondary  school already  declared a minority school  under the  provisions  of  Bihar  Secondary Education Board  Act, 1976  shall be  deemed  to  have  been recognised under  the provisions  of  the  Act.  It  further provides that  the  State  Government  may  by  notification recognise a  minority secondary school, if the same has been established by a minority community on the basis of religion or language  for the  purposes of  meeting  the  educational requirement and  for the  protection  of  culture  of  their section,  provided  it  fulfils  conditions  prescribed  for recognition. A  minority secondary  school shall be accorded recognition if  it is  managed and  controlled in accordance with the provisions set out in Clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3). It requires every minority secondary school to have a managing  committee  and  written  bye  laws.  The  managing committee  is   required  to   appoint  teachers   with  the concurrence  of   the  School  Service  Board  The  managing committee  shall   prescribe  rules  regarding  the  service condition  of   teachers  based   on  natural   justice  and prevailing law  and it shall have powers to remove, dismiss, terminate or  discharge a  teacher  from  service  with  the approval of  School Service  Board. The  managing  committee shall charge  only  such  fees  from  the  students  as  are prescribed by  the State Government. No higher fees shall be charged unless  prior approval  of the  State Government  is obtained.      The scheme  of the Act as analysed shows that the State Government has  taken over non-Government secondary schools. After the  take over  the  management  and  control  of  the secondary 56 schools  shall   be  carried   on  in  accordance  with  the provisions of the Act by a managing committee constituted in accordance with  the provisions  of the  Act. All  employees including teachers  working in  the non-Government secondary schools have  become  employees  of  the  State  Government. Future appointment in the secondary schools shall be made on the recommendation  made by  the School Service Board. Prior to the  take over under this Act, it appears that there were five classes  of secondary  schools functioning in the State of Bihar;  they were;  (i) non-Government  secondary schools maintained  and  established  and  administered  by  private individuals   and    societies,   (ii)   secondary   schools established  and   managed  by   minorities  community   and recognised as  minority schools  by  the  State  Government, (iii)  proprietory   secondary   schools   established   and maintained entirely  by trusts,  associations or a corporate bodies  declared   as  proprietory   schools  by  the  State Government;  (iv)   centrally  sponsored  secondary  schools established  or   managed  by  Government  of  India  or  an undertaking owned or controlled by Government of India or by any department  of State  Government and  recognised by  the Education  Department  of  the  State  Government,  and  Iv) autonomous secondary schools, residential schools recognised by the  State Government  imparting education  in accordance with curriculum  prescribed for  secondary schools and under the Rules  approved by  the State Government. All these five categories of secondary schools had been imparting education to students  in the  State of  Bihar. While the impugned Act provides for  taking over  the management and control of the non-government secondary schools, the management and control of the  remaining categories  of schools have not been taken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 25  

over. Although  the Act  contains provisions for taking over of other  secondary schools  if and  when  circumstances  as contemplated by  the Act  are found  to exist, but so far as minority secondary  schools are  concerned, the Act does not provide for any compulsory acquisition or taking over of the management and  control of  such schools. The management and control of  non-government secondary  schools taken  over by the State  under Section  3 of  the Act  are required  to be carried on  in accordance  with the  provisions contained in Section S  to 17  of the  Act. So  far as minority secondary schools are  concerned under  section 18  contained  special provisions for their recognition and management.      Learned counsel  for the petitioners contended that the provisions of the Act directly interfere with the management and control of the Christian minority schools. He urged that Section 3(2)  of the  Act which provides for the taking over of minority secondary schools 57 by  the   Government  interferes   with   the   petitioners’ fundamental right  under Article  30(1) of  the Constitution The learned  counsel further  submitted that  provisions  of Section 18(2)  are violative  of Articles  30 and  14 of the Constitution of  India. The  learned counsel  further  urged that clauses  (a)  to  (k)  of  Section  18(3)  of  the  Act interfere with  the management  of  the  minority  secondary schools in  violation of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. On behalf  of the State of Bihar it was urged that the State Government  has   no  intention   to  interfere   with   the fundamental rights  of the  minority community  to establish schools of  its choice.  The provisions  of the impugned Act are  directed   to  ensure   academic  excellence  and  good management. The  managements of  the  minority  institutions have been given free hand in managing their institutions but in order  to maintain  educational excellence and discipline in their  institutions, regulatory provisions have been made in Section  18 of  the Act  and the  purpose  of  regulatory provisions is  to  ensure  that  the  minority  schools  are managed by  properly constituted  managing committees,  that the members  of the  staff of  the minority institutions are paid proper  salaries, their security of service is ensured, and in the matter of taking disciplinary action the managing committees should  conform  to  the  principles  of  natural justice. It  was further  urged that  these provisions  have been made  with a  view to  safeguard the  interest  of  the minority institutions themselves.      Before we  advert to  the  submissions  raised  by  the parties we  think it  necessary to  consider the  ambit  and scope of Article 30 of the Constitution It read as under:                "30. Right of minorities t-o establish and           administer   educational   institutions-(1),   All           minorities, whether based on religion or language,           shall have  the right  to establish and administer           educational institutions of their choice.                (1A) In  making any  law  providing  for  the           compulsory  acquisition  of  any  property  of  an           educational    institution     established     and           administered by  a minority, referred to in clause           (1), the  State shall ensure that the amount fixed           by  or   determined  under   such  law   for   the           acquisition of  such property is such as would not           restrict or  abrogate the  right guaranteed  under           that clause.           (2) The  State  shall  not,  in  granting  aid  to           educational 58

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 25  

         institutions, discriminate against any educational           institution on  the ground  that it  is under  the           management  of   a  minority,   whether  based  on           religion or language."      In plain  terms Article  30(1) protect the right of the minorities  whether   based  on   religion  or  language  to establish and  administer educational  institutions of their choice. The  Article confers  a  fundamental  right  on  the minorities to  protect their  interest. Clause (1A) provides that  the   Legislature  while  making  law  for  compulsory acquisition  of   property  of   any  minority   educational institution shall  ensure that  the amount  of  compensation paid for  the acquisition  of property  is such as would not restrict or  abrogate the  right guaranteed under Clause (1) of Article  30. Clause  (2) of  Article 30 enjoins the State not to  discriminate a  minority institution in granting aid to educational  institutions on  the ground  of it  being  a minority institution  whether based on religion or language. The content  and scope  of Article 30(1) of the Constitution has been  considered by  this Court in detail in a number of cases. In  Re. The  Kerala Education, Bill, 1957, [1959] SCR 995 this  Court construed  Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and held as under:-           "The first point to note is that the Article gives           certain rights  not only  to religious  minorities           but also  to linguistic  minorities. In  the  next           place, the  right conferred  on such minorities is           to establish  educational  institutions  of  their           choice. It  does not  say that minorities based on           religion should establish educational institutions           for teaching  religion only,  or  that  linguistic           minorities should  have  the  right  to  establish           educational  institutions   for   teaching   their           language only.  What the Article says and means is           that the  religious and  the linguistic minorities           should have  the right  to  establish  educational           institutions of  their choice.  (Pages  1052-1053)           ... The next thing to note is that the Article, in           terms, gives  all  minorities,  whether  based  on           religion or  language,  two  rights,  namely,  the           right to  establish and  the right  to  administer           educational institutions  of their  choice.  (page           1053) .. " Considering  the   extent  of   State’s  power  to  regulate educational standards,  service conditions and discipline in the minority institutions the Court observed:           "We have already observed that Article 30(1) gives           two 59           rights to  the minorities,  (i) to  establish  and           (ii) to  administer, educational  institutions  of           their  choice.  The  right  to  administer  cannot           obviously include  the right to maladministration.           The  minority   cannot  surely   ask  for  aid  or           recognition for  an educational institution run by           them  in   unhealthy  surroundings,   without  any           competent teachers,  possessing any  semblance  of           qualification, and  which does not maintain even a           fair standard of teaching or which teaches matters           sub-versive of  the welfare  of the  scholars.  It           stands to  reason, then,  that the  constitutional           right to  administer an educational institution of           their choice does not necessarily militate against           the claim  of the State to insist that in order to           grant  aid  the  State  may  prescribe  reasonable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 25  

         regulations  to   ensure  the  excellence  of  the           institutions to be aided .. .... " In Rev.  Sidhajbhai Sabhai  and others  v. State  of Bombay, [1963]  3  SCR  837  a  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court observed:           "All minorities,  linguistic or  religious have by           Article 30(  l) an absolute right to establish and           administer  educational   institutions  of   their           choice; and  any law  or executive direction which           seeks to  infringe the  substance  of  that  right           under Article  30(1) would to that extent be void.           This, however,  is not  to say that it is not open           to  the  State  to  impose  regulations  upon  the           exercise of this right. The fundamental freedom is           to  establish   and  to   administer   educational           institutions: it  is  a  right  to  establish  and           administer   what   are   in   truth   educational           institutions,  institutions  which  cater  to  the           educational needs  of the  citizens,  or  sections           thereof. Regulation  made in the true interests of           efficiency  of  instruction,  discipline,  health,           sanitation, morality,  public order  and the  like           may undoubtedly  be imposed.  Such regulations are           not restrictions  on the  substance of  the  right           which  is   guaranteed:  they  secure  the  proper           functioning  of   the  institution,   in   matters           educational."                                          (Underlining by us) In State  of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1971] 1 SCR 734  a Constitution Bench of this Court again considered the extent  of the  minorities’ right  with  regard  to  the management of the affairs of the 60 institution. The Bench held that the management must be free of control  so that the founders or their nominees can mould the institution  as they  think fit,  and in accordance with their ideas  as to  how the  interests of  the community  in general and  the institution  in  particular  will  be  best served The  right of  management cannot  be taken  away  and vested in  another body  as that  would be encroachment upon the  guaranteed  right.  This  right  is,  however,  not  an absolute right.  It is  open to  the State  to regulate  the syllabus  of   the  examination   and  discipline   in   the institution and  allied matters. Hidayatullah, C.J. speaking for the Court observed:           "There is, however, an exception to this and it is           that the  standards of education are not a part of           management as  such. These  standards concern  the           body politic and are dictated by considerations of           the advancement  of the  country and  its  people.           Therefore, if  universities establish  syllabi for           examinations  they   must  be   followed,  subject           however to special subjects which the institutions           may seek  to teach,  and to  a certain  extent the           State  may   also  regulate   the  conditions   of           employment of  teachers and the health and hygiene           of students. Such regulations do not bear directly           upon  management   as  such   although  they   may           indirectly affect  it. Yet  the right of the State           to regulate  education, educational  standards and           allied matters  cannot  be  denied.  The  minority           institutions cannot  be allowed  to fall below the           standards of  excellence expected  of  educational           institutions, or  under  the  guise  of  exclusive           right of  management, to  decline  to  follow  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 25  

         general pattern. While the management must be left           to them,  they may  be compelled  to keep  in step           with others.  These propositions  have been firmly           established in State of Bombay v. Bombay Education           Society, The  State of Madras v. S. C. Dorairajan,           In  re   the  Kerala   Education  a   Bill,  1957,           Sidharajbahi v.  State of Gujarat; Katra Education           Society  v.   State  of   U.P.  &   Ors.   Gujarat           University,   Ahmedabad   v.   Krishna   Ranganath           Mudholkar &  Ors. and Rev. Father W. Proost & Ors.           v. State  of Bihar.  In the  last case it was said           that the  right need  not be enlarged nor whittled           down. The  Constitution speaks  of  administration           and that  must fairly  be  left  to  the  minority           institutions and no more."                                         (Underlining by us)      The scope of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India was 61 again considered by a nine Judges Constitution Bench of this Court in  the Ahmedabad  St. Xavier’s College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [1975] 1 SCR 173. Ray, C.J. Observed thus:-                "The minority  institutions have the right to           administer institutions.  This right  implies  the           obligation and  duty of  the minority institutions           to render  the very  best to  the students. In the           right of  administration, checks  and balances  in           the shape  of regulatory  measures are required to           ensure the  appointment of good teachers and their           conditions of  service. The right to administer is           to  be   tempered  with   regulatory  measures  to           facilitate   smooth   administration.   The   best           administration will  reveal no  trace or colour of           minority A  minority institution  should shine  in           exemplary eclecticism  the administration  of  the           institution. The  best compliment that can be paid           to a minority institution is that it does not rest           on or proclaim its minority character.                Regulations which  will serve the interest of           the students,  regulations which  will  serve  the           interests  of   the  teachers   are  of  paramount           importance in  good administration. Regulations in           the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline           and fairness  in administration  are necessary for           preserving harmony  among affiliated  institutions           (Pages 196- 197)     .......................................................                In the  field of  administration  it  is  not           reasonable to  claim  that  minority  institutions           will  have   complete  autonomy.   Checks  on  the           administration may be necessary in order to ensure           that the administration is efficient and sound and           will serve  the academic needs of the institution.           The  right   of  a   minority  to  administer  its           educational institution involves, as part of it, a           correlative duty  of  good  administration.  (Page           200)"                                          (Underlining by us) Mathew, J. discussing what type of action by the State would amount to  the abridgement  of the  right  guaranteed  under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India observed at pages 265-266 thus:-                "The application of the term ’abridge’ may                not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 25  

62           difficult in  many cases  but the  problem  arises           acutely  in   certain  types  of  situations.  The           important ones  are where  a law  is not  a direct           restriction  of  the  right  but  is  designed  to           accomplish another  objective and  the impact upon           the right is secondary or indirect. Measures which           are directed  at other  forms  of  activities  but           which have  a secondary  or direct  or  incidental           effect upon  the right  do not generally abridge a           right  unless   the  content   of  the   right  is           regulated. As  we have already said, such measures           would include  various types  of  taxes,  economic           regulations, laws  regulating the  wages, measures           to promote  health and  to  preserve  hygiene  and           other laws  of general application. By hypothesis,           the law,  taken by  itself, is  a legitimate  one,           aimed  directly  at  the  control  of  some  other           activity. The  question  is  about  its  secondary           impact upon the admitted area of administration of           educational institutions.  This  is  especially  a           problem of  determining  when  the  regulation  in           issue  has   an  effect   which   constitutes   an           abridgement of the constitutional right within the           meaning of Article 13(2). In other words, in every           case the  court must  undertake to define and give           content to the word ’abridge’ in Article 13(2)(1).           The question  to be  asked and answered is whether           the particular measure is regulatory or whether it           crosses the  zone of  permissible  regulation  and           enters the  forbidden territory of restrictions or           abridgement.   So,    even   if   an   educational           institution  established   by   a   religious   or           linguistic minority  does  not  seek  recognition,           affiliation or  aid, its activity can be regulated           in various  ways provided  the regulations  do not           take away or abridge the guaranteed right. Regular           tax measures, economic regulations, social welfare           legislation, wage and hour legislation and similar           measures may,  of course have some effect upon the           right under  Article 30(  l). But where the burden           is the  same as  that borne  by others  engaged in           different forms of activity, the similar impact on           the right seems clearly insufficient to constitute           an  abridgement.  If  an  educational  institution           established  by  a  religious  minority  seeks  no           recognition, affiliation  or aid,  the  state  may           have no right to prescribe the curriculum, syllabi           or the qualification of the teachers."      In Lilly  Kurian v. Sr. Lewine & Ors., [1979] ] SCR 820 another Constitution  Bench of  this  Court  considered  the scope, ambit and the 63 nature of right of linguistic and religious minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. A.P. Sen, J. speaking for the Court held thus :           "Protection of  the minorities  is an  article  of           faith in  the Constitution  of India. The right to           the administration  of institutions  of minority’s           choice   enshrined    in   Article   30(1)   means           ’management of  affairs’ of  the institution. This           right is, however, subject to the regulatory power           of the  State. Article  30(1) is not a charter for           maladministration; regulation,  so that  the right           to administer  may be  better  exercised  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 25  

         benefit of the-institution is permissible; but the           moment one  goes beyond  that and imposes, what is           in truth,  not a mere regulation but an impairment           of the right to administer, the Article comes into           play and  in the  interference cannot be justified           by pleading  the interest  of the  general public;           the interests  justifying interference can only be           the interest of the minority concerned."      In view  of these decisions it is now well-settled that minorities based  on religion  or language, have fundamental freedom to  establish and manage educational institutions of their own  choice,  but  the  State  has  right  to  provide regulatory provisions  for ensuring  educational excellence, conditions  of  employment  of  teachers,  ensuring  health, hygiene and  discipline and  allied matters. Such regulatory provisions do not interfere with the minorities’ fundamental right  of   administering  their  educational  institutions; instead  they  seek  to  ensure  that  such  institution  is administered efficiently,  and that students who come out of minority institution  after completion  of their studies are well equipped  with knowledge and training so as to stand at par in  their avocation  in life  without any  handicap.  If regulatory provisions  indirectly impinge  upon  minorities’ right of  administration of  their institution, it would not amount to  interference with  the fundamental freedom of the minorities as  the regulatory provisions are in the interest of the  minority institutions  themselves. If  the  minority institution seeks  affiliation or recognition from the State or Education  Board the  State has  the right  to  prescribe syllabi and terms and conditions for giving such affiliation or  recognition   or  extending   grants  in  aid.  Minority institutions  may  be  categorised  in  three  classes,  (i) educational  institutions   which  neither   seek  aid   nor recognition from  the State, (ii) institutions that seek aid from the  State, and  (iii) educational  institutions  which seek recognition  but not  aid. Minority  institutions which fall in the first category 64 are free  to administer their institution in the manner they like, the State has no power under the Constitution to place any restriction  on their  right of administration This does not mean that an unaided minority institution is immune from operation  of   general  laws   of  the   land.  A  minority institution cannot  claim immunity  from  contract  law  tax measures, economic  regulations, social welfare legislation, labour and  industrial laws and similar other measures which are  intended   to  meet   the  need   of  the  society  But institutions falling  within the second and third categories are subject  to regulatory  provisions which  the State  may impose It  is open  to the State to prescribe conditions for granting recognition or disbursing aid. These conditions may require a minority institution to follow prescribed syllabus for examination. courses of study, they may further regulate conditions of employment of teachers, discipline of students and allied  matters. The  object and  purpose of prescribing regulations is  to ensure  that minority institutions do not fall  below  the  standard  of  excellence  expected  of  an educational institution  and that  they do  not fall outside the main  stream of  the nation. A minority institution must also be  fully equipped  with educational excellence to keep in step  with others  in the  State; otherwise  the students coming out  of such  institutions will not be fully equipped to serve  the society  of the  nation. While  the State  has every right to prescribe conditions for granting recognition or disbursing  aid, it  cannot under the guise of that power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 25  

prescribe  onerous   conditions  compelling   the   minority institution to  surrender their  rights of administration to the Government.  On the  one hand  the  State  is  under  an obligation to  ensure  that  educational  standards  in  the recognised institutions must be according to the need of the society  and   according  to   standards  which  ensure  the development of personality of the students in turning out to be civilized,  useful members  of the society, and to ensure that the public funds disbursed to the minority institutions are properly  utilised for  the given  purpose. On the other hand the  State has  to respect  and honour  minority rights under Article  30(1)  in  the  matter  of  establishing  and carrying of  administration of  institution of their choice. In order  to reconcile  these two  conflicting interests the State has  to strike  a  balance  and  statutory  provisions should serve  both the objects and such statutory provisions have  to   withstand  the  test  of  Article  30(1)  of  the Constitution. These  principles have  to be borne in mind in considering the question of validity of statutory provisions relating to minority educational institutions.      Since  the  petitioners  challenge  the  Constitutional validity of  Sections 3  and 18  of the  Act we  consider it necessary to reproduce the same. 65           "3. Taking over of the management and control:           Taking over  of the management and control of Non-           Government  secondary   schools   by   the   state           government:           (1) All  non-government  secondary  schools  other           than  the  minority  secondary  schools  based  on           religion or language declared as such by the State           Government and Centrally sponsored, autonomous and           proprietary secondary  schools recognised  by  the           State    Government,    recognised    permanently,           provisionally  or   partially  by   the  Board  of           Secondary  Education  under  the  Bihar  Secondary           Education. Board  Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 25 of 1976)           and the  Bihar Secondary  Education Board  (Second           amendment) ordinance, 1980 (Bihar ordinance No. 82           of 1980 shall, notwithstanding, anything contained           in the  said Act  or the said ordinance, be deemed           to have  been taken  over by  the State Government           with effect from the 2nd October, 1980.           (2) The  State Government  may, by notification in           the official  gazette from  a specified date, take           over the management and control of such recognised           minority or  proprietary or  autonomous  secondary           schools,   the    managing    committee,    trust,           association or corporate body of which voluntarily           makes an  unconditional offer  to  make  over  the           schools with  all movable  or immovable assets and           properties owned  or possessed by the school which           include  land,   building,  documents,  books  and           registers also.  The State Government may lay down           its conditions  for  taking  over  management  and           control of  schools, and  before making  over  the           management and control it shall be binding for the           managing committee, trust association or corporate           body of the said schools, to comply with and carry           out the said conditions and it shall be valid.           (3) The  State Government  may, by notification in the official gazette take over the management and control of such schools  and  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  the government may  deem  proper  which  have  already  received permission  of   establishment  from   the  Bihar  Secondary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 25  

Education Board  or of  such,  schools  imparting  Secondary Education which have applied for permission of establish- 66           ment to the said Board immediately before the date           of promulgation  of this  Act and  the utility  of           such school is proved in the eye of the government           and  which   fulfil  within   3   years   of   the           promulgation of  the ordinance, the conditions lay           down by  the State Government with regard to land,           building, furniture, equipments and enrollment.           The  qualification  and  suitability  of  teachers           working against  9 posts  of the school, one clerk           and  two  orderlies  of  such  school  before  the           promulgation of  this ordinance, shall be examined           by a Committee constituted by the State Government           for  the   purpose  and   if  found  suitable  for           appointment in  government service  they shall  be           appointed in  the government  service  along  with           taking over  the management  and  control  of  the           school. "           "Section 18:  Recognition  of  minority  Secondary           schools:           (1) The  schools declared  a minority school under           the provision  of the  Bihar  Secondary  Education           Board Act,  1976 (Bihar Act 25 1976) and the Bihar           Secondary  Education   Board  (Second   Amendment)           ordinance 1980  (Bihar ordinance 82 of 1980) shall           be  deemed  to  have  been  recognised  under  the           provisions of this Act.           (2) The  State Government  may,  by  notification,           recognise as  a minority  secondary  school,  such           secondary school  which has  been established by a           minority community  on the  basis of  religion  or           language  for   the  purposes   of   meeting   the           educational requirement  and for the protection of           culture of  their section  and which  fulfils  the           prescribed condition of recognition.           (3)  The   minority  Secondary   school   accorded           recognition under  sub-sections (1)  and (2) shall           be managed  and  controlled  under  the  following           provisions:-           (a) Every  minority secondary  school shall have a           managing committee  registered under the societies           registration Act, 1862 and shall have written bye-           laws regarding its constitution and function           (b) According to the prescribed qualification laid           down 67           by the  State Government  for the  teachers of the           nationalised  secondary  schools  and  within  the           number of sanctioned posts, the managing committee           of the  minority secondary  schools shall  appoint           the teacher  with the  concurrence of  the  school           service board constituted under section 10 of this           Act. Provided  that while considering the question           of giving  approval to  appointment of any teacher           under  this   sub-section  the  board  shall  only           scrutinise as  to whether the proposed appointment           is in  accordance with  the rules  laying down the           qualification and the manner of making appointment           framed by  the State  Government has been followed           or not, and no more.           (c) There  shall be  rules regarding  the  service           condition of teachers of minority schools based on           natural justice  and the prevailing law, a copy of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 25  

         which shall be sent to the State Government.           (d) The  Managing Committee  with the  approval of           the School  Service Board  shall  have  powers  to           remove a  teacher, to  terminate his  services, to           dismiss  and   to  discharge   him  from  service.           Provided that  for the  purpose  of  approval  any           disciplinary action  against the  teacher  by  the           managing committee,  the  Board  shall  scrutinise           whether  disciplinary  proceedings  have  been  in           accordance with the rules and no more           (e) Mentally  and physically in-capacitated person           shall not  be appointed as teacher or non-teaching           staff of the school           (f) No  grant shall  be admissible  for payment of           salary of  a teacher  or a  non-teaching staff  if           appointed or retained beyond 58 years of age.           (g) only  such fees  shall  be  charged  from  the           students  as   are   prescribed   by   the   State           Government. Prior approval of the State Government           shall be necessary to charge higher fees than what           is prescribed.           (h) The schools shall be open to inspection on any           working day  by the authorised inspecting officers           of the  Education Department,  the civil authority           and authorised 68           officers of Health Department.           (i) It  shall be  their duty  to obey instructions           regarding, admission and transfer of the students,           discipline and  punishment, records  and accounts,           curricular  and   co  curricular  activity,  rules           regarding health and cleanliness issued or made by           the State Government.           (j) The  State Government  shall  have  powers  to           issue  instructions   not  inconsistent  with  the           provisions  of   Articles  29   and  30   of   the           Constitution  for  efficient  management  and  for           improving and standard of teaching and it shall be           obligatory for  the recognised minority schools to           comply with them.           (k) In  the event of violation of this section and           the rules  made  thereunder  and  the  instruction           issued under  it, the  said managing committee may           make an  application within sixty days of the date           of the  order to  the officer  authorised  by  the           State  Government,   against  the   withdrawal  of           recognition or  withholding or stopping grants and           the authorised  officer shall,  after hearing  the           case, take his decision and it shall be binding. Section 3  of  the  impugned  Act  provides  for  compulsory acquisition or  taking over  of the administration or assets of non-Government  secondary schools. Section 3(1) lays down that all  government secondary  schools other  than minority secondary schools shall be deemed to have been taken over by the State  Government with  effect from  2nd October,  1980. There  were   five  categories   of  secondary   schools   P functioning in  the State  of Bihar,  and out  of them,  the management and  control  of  only  non-government  secondary schools have  been taken  over by  the State.  The  minority secondary schools,  proprietary secondary schools, centrally sponsored schools  and autonomous secondary schools have not been taken  over by  Section 3(1)  of the  Act. It  does not affect a  minority  secondary  school  at  all.  As  regards Section 3(2)  it confers  power on  the State  Government to take over  the management and control of recognised minority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 25  

schools, proprietary  or  autonomous  secondary  schools  by issuing a  notification in the official Gazette provided the managing committee, trust, association or the corporate body which may  have  been  maintaining  such  schools  makes  an unconditional offer to the State Government to make over the school  with   all  assets  and  properties.  If  the  State Government 69 accepts the  offer and  considers it  necessary to take over the management  of such  a school  it may lay down terms and conditions for  the take  over of the management and control of the school. Section 3(2) does not confer any power on the State to compulsorily acquire or take over the management of a minority school instead the management is free to maintain and carry  on the administration of its school and the State has no power to interfere with its administration. The State is  entitled  to  take  over  the  school  only  if  an  un- conditional offer  is made  by the management of the school. There is,  however, no  compulsion on  the management  of  a minority school  to make  over the school to the Government. If the management of a minority school finds it difficult to maintain its school, instead of closing down, it may, in the larger interest  of the  educational need of the area, hand- over the  control and  management of  the institution to the State. Section  3(2)  does  not  interfere  with  minority’s rights to  maintain or  administer  its  school,  it  merely enables the State to take over the control and management of a minority  institution only  when an unconditional offer is made to  it by  the management  of the minority institution. There is,  therefore, no question of Section 3(2) infringing the rights of minority institutions.      Section 3(3)  confers power  on the State Government to take over  the  management  and  control  of  the  secondary schools which  may not  have been  recognised on the date of the enforcement  of the  ordinance of  the Act.  It provides that the  State Government  may take over the management and control of  such schools  on terms  and conditions which the Government may  deem proper.  These  schools  include  those which may  have received permission for establishment of the school from  the Bihar  Secondary Education Board or schools which may  have  applied  for  permission  of  establishment immediately before  the date  of  the  promulgation  of  the ordinance provided  the State  Government is  satisfied with regard to  the utility of such schools. Section 3(3) relates to the taking over of management and control of unrecognised schools other than minority schools. These provisions do not affect the  fundamental right  of minority  institution.  In this view  Section 3  which  provides  for  taking  over  of management and  control of  non-government secondary schools does not  in any  manner encroach upon the fundamental right of a minority institution.      This brings  us to  the  question  as  to  whether  the provisions of  Section 18  violate  Article  30(1).  Section 18(1)  provides   that  a  school  declared  as  a  minority institution under  the provisions  of  the  Bihar  Secondary Education Act 1976 or under the Bihar Secondary 70 Education Board  (Second Amendment)  ordinance 1980 shall be deemed to  have been  recognised under the provisions of the Act. This provision ensures the continuity of recognition of a minority  school.  Sub-section  (2)  provides  for  future recognition of  a minority  school, it  lays down  that  the State Government  may recognise  a minority secondary school which may  have been  established by a minority community on the basis of religion or language for the purpose of meeting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 25  

the educational  requirement and for the protection of their culture  provided  it  fulfils  the  prescribed  conditions. Section 18(3)  lays down conditions under which a recognised minority secondary  school shall  be managed and controlled. These terms  and conditions  are specified in clauses (a) to (k). This  section requires  a recognised minority school to comply with  the terms and conditions set out therein and in accordance with  rules  framed  by  the  managing  committee regulating employment  of teachers and disciplinary matters. It was  urged that  clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3) make Serious inroad  on the  right of  a minority  institution to carry on its administration according to its own choice. The terms and conditions prescribed therein regulate and control the administration of a minority school, which are violative of Article  30(1) of the Constitution. We would examine each of the clauses (a) to (k) in detail to determine the crucial question, whether  any of these clauses violate petitioners’ fundamental right  guaranteed to  them under Article 30 ( 1) of the Constitution.      Section  18(3)   provides  that   recognised   minority secondary  schools   shall  be  managed  and  controlled  in accordance with  the provisions  contained in clauses (a) to (k). Clause (a) requires a minority secondary school to have a  managing   committee  registered   under  the   Societies Registration  Act   1862  and   to  frame  written  bye-laws regulating  constitution   and  functions  of  the  managing committee. The  bye-laws regarding  the constitution  of the managing committee are required to be framed by the minority institution itself.  The State or any other authority has no power or authority to impose any terms or conditions for the constitution of the managing committee. If a society running a minority institution frames written bye-laws providing for the constitution  of managing  committee entrusted  with the function of  running and  administering its  school it would ensure efficient  administration.  This  clause  is  in  the interest of  the minority institution itself, as no outsider is imposed  as a  member of the Managing Committee, there is no interference  with the minorities right to administer its school. Clause  (b) provides  for  two  things,  firstly  it requires the managing committee of a minority school to 71 appoint  teachers  possessing  requisite  qualifications  as prescribed  by  the  State  Government  for  appointment  of teachers  of-other   nationalised  schools,   secondly,  the managing committee  is required  to make  appointment  of  a teacher with  the concurrence  of the  School Service  Board constituted under  Section 10  of the Act. Proviso to clause (b)  lays   down  that   the  School   Service  Board  while considering  the   question  of  granting  approval  to  the appointment of a teacher, shall ascertain if the appointment is in  accordance with the rules laying down qualifications, and  manner  of  making  appointment  framed  by  the  State Government. The  proviso makes  it  clear  that  the  School Service Board  has no  further power  to interfere  with the right of  managing committee  of a  minority school  in  the appointment of  a teacher.  Under clause  (b)  the  managing committee is  required to make appointment of a teacher with the concurrence  of the school service board. The expression ’concurrence’ means  approval. Such  approval  need  not  be prior approval, as the clause does not provide for any prior approval. Object  and purpose  underlying clause  (b) is  to ensure that  the teachers  appointed in  a  minority  school should  possess   requisite  qualifications   and  they  are appointed in  accordance with  the procedure  prescribed and the appointments  are made  for the sanctioned strength. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 25  

selection  and  appointment  of  teachers  is  left  to  the management of  the minority school, there is no interference with the  managerial rights  of the institution. In granting approval the  School Service  Board has  limited power.  The appointment of  qualified teachers in a minority school is a sine qua  non for  achieving educational standard and better administration of  the institution. Clause (b) is regulatory in nature  to ensure  educational excellence in the minority school. Clause (c) requires a minority school to frame rules regulating conditions of service of its teachers, such rules should be  consistent with principles of natural justice and the prevailing law. The clause further requires the minority institution to  submit a  copy of  such rules  to the  State Government. This  clause in  substance lays  down  that  the management of  a  recognised  minority  school  shall  frame Rules, regulating conditions of service of teachers and such rules shall  conform to  principles of  natural justice  and prevailing law.  These  provisions  are  directed  to  avoid uncertainty and  arbitrary exercise  of power.  If Rules are framed by  the management those rules would bring uniformity in administration  and there would be security of employment to teachers.  In  a  civilised  society  the  observance  of principles of  natural justice  is an  accepted rule,  these principles contain  basic rules of fair play and justice and it  is   too  late   in  the   day  to  contend  that  while administering a  minority school  the management should have right to act in contravention of the princi- 72 ples of  natural justice. Clause (c) is regulatory in nature which requires  the managing  committee to  frame  rules  of employment consistent with principles of natural justice and the prevailing  law. No  outside agency is required to frame rules of  employment  of  teachers  instead  the  management itself is  empowered to  frame rules.  There is therefore no element of  interference  with  the  management’s  right  to administer a minority school.      Learned  counsel   for  the   petitioner  took  serious objection to  the provisions  contained  in  clause  (d)  of Section 18(3) which lays down that the managing committee of a  minority   institution  shall   have  power   to  remove, terminate, dismiss  or discharge a teacher with the approval of the  School Service  Board.  It  was  urged  that  School Service Board  has been  imposed as  a higher authority over the management,  if the  Board refused  to grant approval to the disciplinary  action taken  by the  management against a teacher, the  management’s right  of administration would be affected adversely.  The School Service Board enjoys blanket power on  the management’s right to take disciplinary action against its  employees and  therefore clause  (d)  infringes with the  minority’s right of management. We do not find any substance in  the submissions. Indisputably power to remove, dismiss, terminate or discharge a teacher from service is an essential attribute  of management’s  right but  clause  (d) does not  invest that power on any outside agency. The power to take  disciplinary action vests in the managing committee of the  minority school,  it is  required to  exercise  that power in  accordance with the rules framed by it. Clause (d) requires that  the managing committee shall take approval of the  School   Service  Board   in   removing,   terminating, dismissing  or  discharging  a  teacher  from  service.  The managing committee  is not required to obtain prior approval from the  School Service Board, instead it may seek approval of the  School Service Board after taking action. The School Service Board  while considering  the question  of  granting approval does  not enjoy  any unlimited power it is required

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 25  

to  consider  if  the  managing  committee,  has  taken  the disciplinary action  in accordance  with the rules framed by the managing  committee itself.  If  the  Board  finds  that managing committee has taken action in accordance with Rules the School  Service  Board  has  no  option  but  to  accord approval, but  if the  disciplinary action is taken contrary to the  rules framed  by the  minority  school  itself,  the School Service Board will be justified in refusing to accord approval. The  School Service Board is not invested with any veto or  blanket power  without any  guidance, on  the other hand it  has limited power and guidelines are prescribed for the 73 exercise of  such powers.  Such a provision is reasonable to ensure that rules framed by the minority school are followed and security  of employment  of teachers,  is maintained and there be  no arbitrary  exercise of  power.  Clause  (d)  of Section 18(3)  expressly provides that while considering the question of  granting approval  to the  disciplinary  action taken by the management of a minority institution the School Service  Board   shall   scrutinise   whether   disciplinary proceedings had  been taken in accordance with the rules and no  more.   Regulatory  provisions   requiring  approval  of disciplinary action  taken by  the management  of a minority institution have  been upheld  by this  Court in a number of cases.      In Re  Kerala Education Bill case this Court upheld the validity of  clauses 11  and 12(4) of the Bill. Clause 11(1) required  a   recognised  minority  institution  to  appoint teachers selected  by the  State Public  Service Commission. While Clause  12(4) laid  down that  no teacher  of an aided school shall  be dismissed,  removed,  reduced  in  rank  or suspended by the management without previous sanction of the authorised officer.  This Court held that these clauses were designed to give protection and security to the teachers who are engaged  in rendering  service to  the nation  and  were permissible regulations  which the State could impose on the minorities  as   a  condition  for  granting  aid  to  their educational institutions.  The court further held that since these aforesaid clauses of the Bill were regulatory, they do not violate  Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Section 8(4) of the  Delhi School  Education Act  1973  which  require  a managing committee  of recognised  private school  to obtain approval of  the Director  for suspending  an  employee  was upheld in  its application  to the  minority institutions by this  Court   in  Frank  Anthony  Public  School  Employees’ Association, [1986]  4 SCC  707 case and Mrs. Y. Theclamma’s [1987] 2  SCC 516  case.  In  the  latter  case  this  Court observed that  while the  right of the minority to establish and administer  educational  institutions  of  their  choice cannot  be   interfered  with,   restrictions  by   way   of regulations  for   the  purpose   of  ensuring   educational standards and  maintaining excellence thereof can validly be prescribed. Regulations  can be  made  for  ensuring  proper conditions of  service for the teacher and also for ensuring a fair  procedure in  the  matter  of  disciplinary  action. Section 8(4)  of Delhi  Act  was  designed  to  afford  some measure  of   protection  to   teachers  of   the   minority institutions without interfering with the management’s right to take disciplinary action.      Learned counsel  for the  petitioner placed reliance on the 74 decision of  this Court  in State  of Kerala  v.  Very  Rev. Mother Provincial,  [1971] 1  SCR 734; Ahmedabad St. Xaviers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 25  

College Society  & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., [1975] 1 SCR  173 and  Liliy Kurian  v. Sr. Lewina & Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 820  and All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1980] 2 SCR 924 in support of his contention that  the clauses  (c) and  (d) of  Section 18(3) interfere  with  the  minorities  right  of  managing  their institution. On  a careful  consideration of  the  ratio  of these decisions we are of the opinion that these authorities do not  support the  petitioners’ submissions.  In State  of Kerala v.  Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1980] 2 SCR 924 the High Court  of Kerala had declared Sections 48 and 49 of the Kerala University  Act 1969  unconstitutional on  the ground that  those  provisions  violated  fundamental  right  of  a minority institution  guaranteed under  Article 30(1) of the Constitution. In  appeal this Court upheld the view taken by the High  Court on  the  ground  that  Sections  48  and  49 contained  provisions   regulating   the   constitution   of governing body  of an  affiliated college in accordance with the statutes  and ordinances  framed by  the University. The statutes and  ordinances so  framed designated and nominated persons to  function as  members of the governing body of an affiliated college.  The effect of those provisions was that outside agencies  were inducted  into the managing committee of a  minority institution.  This Court  held that effect of Sections 48 and 49 was to displace the administration of the college by  giving it to a distinct corporate body which was in no  way answerable to the minority institution. The Court further held  that the  managing committee constituted under the statute  and the  ordinances was an alien authority, for the management  of the  minority institution  which  was  in clear violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.      In Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., this Court held that Sections 51A and 52 of the Gujarat University Act 1949 as amended in 1972 could not  be made  applicable to  a minority institution as under  the  aforesaid  provisions  no  punishment  could  be inflicted by  the management  of an  affiliated college on a member of the staff unless it obtained approval of the Vice- Chancellor or  an officer  authorised by him. The Court held that the  provision relating  to grant of approval conferred blanket power  on an  outside authority  without laying down any guidelines,  it directly  interfered with the minorities right to  administer their  institution. In  Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina  & Ors.,  this Court again held that ordinance 33 framed under the Kerala University Act 1969 conferring right of  appeal  against  the  disciplinary  action  taken  by  a minority 75 institution  to  the  Vice-Chancellor  was  constitutionally invalid as  it interfered  with the  disciplinary power of a minority educational  institution. The  Court  further  held that ordinance  33 conferred a right of veto in disciplinary matters of  minority institution,  it did  not lay  down any guidelines instead, it conferred an uncanalised and unguided power on  the  appellate  authority.  The  Court  held  that conferment of  uncanalised and  unguided appellate  power on the Vice-Chancellor  resulted into grave encroachment on the right of  the minority  institution to enforce and cover its discipline in  its administration. The Court emphasised that since  the   Vice-Chancellor’s  power   was  unlimited   and undefined he could interfere with the orders of the minority institution inflicting  punishment without  there being  any justified  ground.  The  ordinance  was  struck-down  as  it contained no  guidelines for  the exercise  of the appellate power. In All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. Government of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 25  

Andhra Pradesh & Ors., this Court held that Section 3(l) and (2) of  the Andhra  Pradesh Recognised  Private  Educational Institution Control  Act, 1975  could not  be applied  to  a minority institution  as the  provisions  contained  therein encroached  upon   the  fundamental   right  of   minorities guaranteed to  them under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Section  3(1)  contained  an  unqualified  mandate  that  no teacher shall be dismissed except with the prior approval of the competent  authority. Section  3(2) conferred  appellate power  on   an  outside  authority  to  interfere  with  the disciplinary action  taken by  the managing  committee of an educational institution. This Court (majority) held that the unqualified power  conferred on  an outside  authority which was made  a judge  of both,  facts and  law, the exercise of which   was    made   to   depend   purely   on   subjective considerations, constituted  an infringement’  of the  right guaranteed by  Article  30(1)  of  the  Constitution.  These decisions do  not affect  the view  taken by  us. As already discussed clauses  (c) and  (d) of  Section 18(3) of the Act are regulatory  in nature to ensure the educational standard of security  of employment  of  teachers  and  no  unguided, uncanalised,  blanket   power  in  the  nature  of  veto  or appellate power  has been  conferred on  any outside  agency against the disciplinary action taken by the management of a minority institution.  The School  Service Board  is  vested with limited  power to  see that  the person  proposed to be appointed possesses  the requisite qualifications prescribed and that  the prescribed method of selection was followed by the management.      The choice  of the  person for appointment continues to vest in  the managing  committee  of  the  minority  school. Similarly  in   disciplinary  matters   also  the   managing committee of a minority school has 76 full power  to remove, terminate or discharge a teacher, but it has  to obtain  the approval of the School Service Board, here  again  the  Service  Board  has  a  limited  power  to ascertain whether  the disciplinary  proceedings  have  been taken in  accordance with the rules framed by the management itself, the  School Service Board has no. Other power in the matter. These  provisions  do  not  suffer  from  the  legal infirmities as pointed out in the aforesaid decisions.      Clause  (e)  of  Section  18(3)  merely  provides  that mentally and  physically in-capacitated  person shall not be appointed as teacher or non-teaching staff of the school. If mentally and  physically incapacitated  person are appointed to a  minority institution  it will  serve no useful purpose instead the  institution will  suffer, therefore appointment of disabled  persons will  not be.  in the  interest of  the administration of  a minority  school itself.  Clause (f) of Section 18(3)  provides that  the State  shall not  pay  any grant towards  the payment  of salary  of a teacher or other employee of  a minority  institution if  he is  appointed or permitted to  be retained  beyond 58 years of age. In 1) the State of  Bihar the  age of  superannuation is  fixed at  58 years for  its employees.  Consistent with  that policy this clause provides  that public funds of the State shall not be used for  the employment of a person in service who may have crossed 58  years of  age. This  however, does not place any restriction on  the right  of the management of the minority institution to  employ or retain a person beyond 58 years of age, the  management is  free to do so but if the management does so,  the State  shall not  be  responsible  for  paying grants towards  the salary of such teacher or employee. This provision does  not in any way interfere with the minorities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 25  

right of  administration  of  its  institution.  Clause  (g) provides that  only such  fees shall  be  charged  from  the students as  prescribed by  the State  Government P  and the management is  not permitted  to charge  higher fees  except with prior  approval of the State Government. In the counter affidavit filed  on behalf  of the  State it has been stated that education  upto matriculation  is free in the State and therefore no  fees is  charged from the students. Consistent with the general policy the State has made it a condition of recognition to  a minority  school in  providing  that  fees shall be  charged from  the students  as prescribed  by  the State Government  and if  the management  decides to  charge higher  fees   it  must  seek  the  approval  of  the  State Government. This  provision is regulatory in nature it would not be  in the  interest of  the minority  schools to charge higher fees  as that  would be  against the  interest of the institution itself.  If the  managing committee  finds  that circumstances exist  to charge  higher fees to meet the need of the institution. 77 it may  place the  necessary facts  and circumstances before the State  Government and in that event the State Government shall consider the question of granting permission.      Clause (h)  provides for  the  inspection  of  minority secondary school  by the  authorised inspecting  officer  of Education Department  and officers of Health Department. The object and purpose of inspection is to ensure that the money from the  public funds given to a minority school as grants- in-aid,  is  utilised  for  the  purpose  it  is  given  and inspection by  officers of  Health Department  would  ensure hygiene, cleanliness  and health  of  the  students  in  the institution. Clause  (h) in  our opinion does not in any way trespass upon  the minorities  fundamental right. Clause (i) of Section  18(3) provides  that it shall be the duty of the minority  institution   to   obey   instructions   regarding admission and  transfer  of  the  students,  discipline  and punishment,  records   and  accounts,   curricular  and  co- curricular   activities,    rules   regarding   health   and cleanliness issued or made by the Government. This clause is wide and general in nature, it contemplates framing of rules by the  State Government  regarding health, cleanliness, and accounts. It  further requires  the minority  institution to obey instructions  issued by  the State  regarding admission and transfer  of students,  discipline, and  maintenance  of accounts. The  instructions which  may be  issued under this clause relating  to  admission,  transfer  of  students  and discipline, punishment or maintenance of accounts must be in confirmity with  the minorities freedom under Article 30( I) of the Constitution. Under the guise of this power the State Government  cannot   trespass  on  the  forbidden  field  of minorities right  of administration  of their schools. These instructions  must   relate  to  secure  the  efficiency  in educational standard,  and should be regulatory in nature to achieve  efficiency   in  the  administration.  Laying  down principles and methods relating to admission and transfer of students and  discipline and  punishment and  maintenance of record and accounts and essential to maintain the efficiency in the  administration of  the institution, and no exception can be  taken to  instructions  relating  to  these  matters unless they  interfere with  the right of administration. No instructions or  rules, as  contemplated by  clause  (i)  of Section 18(3)  were placed  before us  by  the  petitioners, which may  have tendency  to interfere  with the  minorities right of  administration of  their institutions. However, we would like  to express our view that if the State Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 25  

in exercise  of its powers under clause (i) of Section 18(3) issues instructions  or frames  rules, interfering  with the minorities  right   such  instructions  or  rules  would  be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution but if the 78 instructions and  rules  are  issued  with  the  object  and purpose of  securing efficiency  in the administration or in securing the  educational standard  the same would be valid. It must  be  borne  in  mind  that  as  the  aided  minority institutions receive  money from  public revenues  the State Government is  entitled to issue instructions or frame rules for  the  maintenance  of  records  and  accounts  and  such instructions  or   rules  would   not  interfere   with  the minorities right  under Article  30(l) of  the Constitution. Similarly, no  exception can  be taken  to  instructions  or rules regarding  health and cleanliness such instructions or rules would be in the interest of the institution itself.      Clauses (j)  and (k)  of Section  18(3) confer power on the State  Government to  issue instructions consistent with the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution for efficient management  and  for  improving  the  standard  of teaching and  a minority  school is  required to comply with those instructions. The State Government has no unrestricted power to  issue instructions on the other hand these clauses expressly refer  to Articles  29 and  30  and  provide  that instructions   shall    not   be   inconsistent   with   the constitutional provisions. The State Government has power to make regulatory  provisions for  achieving efficiency in the management and  improving the  standard of  education in the minority schools,  it may  therefore issue  instructions for securing that  purpose. If  instructions are  issued for the better management  of the  minority schools, no grievance to their validity  can be raised, as now, it is well-settled by a number  of authorities  of  this  Court  that  a  minority institution  has   right  to   administer  its   educational institution but  it has  no right  to maladministration. Any rule or instruction issued by the Government to prevent mal- administration would  be valid.  Clause (k) provides that if any instructions  are issued  by the  State or  any  of  its authority or  rules are framed, or if any officer authorised by the  State Government issues any order for the withdrawal or recognition  or withholding  or stopping  of grants  to a minority school  the  managing  committee  of  the  minority school has  right to  raise a  grievance before  an  officer authorised by  the State  Government within  sixty days.  It further provides  that the  authorised officer  shall  after hearing the case take his decision which shall be binding on the parties.  This clause  confers a right on the management of the  minority school  to challenge any arbitrary exercise of power  by  an  authority  of  the  State  in  withdrawing recognition or  with-holding or stopping the disbursement of aid to  the institution.  Apparently  clause  (k)  has  been enacted by  the Legislature to safeguard the interest of the minority school  and it  does  not  in  any  manner  violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution 79      Clauses (a)  to (k) of Section 18(3) lay down terms and conditions for  granting recognition  to a  minority school. and these  are regulatory  in nature  which seek  to  secure excellence in  education and  efficiency  in  management  of schools. These provisions do not confer any unguided blanket or veto power on any outside agency or authority to veto the decision of the management of the school. Instead minority’s right to  manage its  school in accordance with rules framed by it  is fully preserved. The Legislature has taken care to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 25  

confer a  limited power  on the  School  Service  Board  for granting approval  to appointment and dismissal of a teacher which are  necessary in the interest of educational need and discipline of  the minority  school itself.  The  terms  and conditions applicable to a recognised minority school do not compel the  management of a minority school to surrender its right of  administration instead  the management  is free to administer its school in accordance with the rules framed by it.      Guarantee of  freedom to  a minority  institution under Article 30(1)  of  the  Constitution  does  not  permit  the minority institution  to act  contrary to law and order, law of contract, industrial laws or other general laws which are enacted for  the welfare  of the  society. If the minorities claim for  immunity from  the law of the land is upheld that would be  unreasonable  and  against  the  interest  of  the minority  institutions   themselves.  In  Christian  Medical College Hospital Employees’ Union & Anr v. Christian Medical College Vellore  Association &  Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 8818 of 1983,  decided on  20th October  1987) a  question  arose whether Sections  9A, 10,  11A, 12  and 33 of the Industrial Disputes  Act,   1947   were   applicable   to   educational institutions  established  and  administered  by  minorities which are  protected by  clause (1)  of Article  30  of  the Constitution.  This   Court   answered   the   question   in affirmative. The  Court held that the labour legislation was applicable to  the  management  of  a  minority  educational institution and it observed thus:-             "These  rights which  are enforced  through  the           several pieces of labour legislation in India have           got to be applied to every workman irrespective of           the  character   of  the   management.  Even   the           management of  a minority  educational institution           has got  to respect  these  rights  and  implement           them. Implementation  of these rights involves the           obedience to several labour laws including the Act           which is  under consideration  in this  case which           are  brought   into  force  in  the  country.  Due           obedience to those 80           laws would  assist is  the smooth  working of  the           educational  institutions   and  would  facilitate           proper   administration    of   such   educational           institutions. If  such laws  are made inapplicable           to minority  educational  institutions,  there  is           every  likelihood   of  such   institutions  being           subjected to mal-administration. Merely because an           impartial tribunal  is entrusted  with the duty of           resolving   disputes   relating   to   employment,           unemployment,   security   of   work   and   other           conditions of  workmen it  cannot be said that the           right  guaranteed   under  Article  30(1)  of  the           Constitution of  India is  violated. If a creditor           of  a   minority  educational   institution  or  a           contractor who  has built  the  building  of  such           institution  is  permitted  to  file  a  suit  for           recovery of  the money  or damages as the case may           be to  him against  such institution  and to bring           the properties  of such  institution  to  sale  to           realise the  decretal amount  due under the decree           passed in  such suit  is Article  30(1)  violated?           Certainly  not.  Similarly  the  right  guaranteed           under Article  30(1) of  the Constitution  is  not           violated, if  a minority  school is  ordered to be           closed  when   an  epidemic   breaks  out  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 25  

         neighbourhood, if  a minority  school building  is           ordered to  be pulled  down when it is constructed           contrary to  town planning  law or if a decree for           possession is  passed in  favour of the true owner           of the land when a school is built on a land which           is not  owned by  the  management  of  a  minority           school. In  the same way if a dispute is raised by           an employee  against the  management of a minority           educational institution  such  dispute  will  have           necessarily   to    be   resolved   by   providing           appropriate machinery  for that  purpose. Laws are           now  passed   by  all   the  civilised   countries           providing for such a machinery."      We accordingly  hold that  the impugned  Act  does  not violate petitioners’  rights guaranteed under Article 30( l) of the  Constitution. In  the result  petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed but there will be no order to costs. S.L.                                    Petitions dismissed. 81