http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: KATRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/1966

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) SIKRI, S.M. RAMASWAMI, V. SATYANARAYANARAJU, P.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1307            1966 SCR  (3) 328  CITATOR INFO :  R          1970 SC2079  (10)  RF         1974 SC   1  (27)  RF         1979 SC  83  (5)  RF         1983 SC   1  (67)  RF         1988 SC 305  (7)

ACT: Intermediate  Education Act (U.P. 2 of 1921) as  amended  by Act  35 of 1958-Validity of ss. 16A to 161-Sections  whether unreasonable,  discriminatory--Whether  within   legislative power of State Legislature.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants  society  registered  under  the   Societies Registration  Act  21  of 1860--  conducted  an  educational institution  at Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh.   Management  of the  affairs of the society was entrusted by the  memorandum of  association to an Executive Committee  whose  membership was   confined  to  members  of  the  Society.   Under   the Intermediate  Education Act (U.P. Act 2 of  1921)  provision was  made for establishing a Board with powers  to  regulate High School and Intermediate Education This Act was  amended by  U.P. Act 35 of 1958.  By s. 7 of the amending Act  which came  into force on January 23, 1959, ss. 16A to  16I,  were incorporated  into  U.P.  Act 2 of 1921.   By  letter  dated September 12, 1960, the Regional Inspector of Girls  Schools called upon the Society to submit and get approved a  scheme of  Administration  of the institution managed by  it.   The society thereupon presented a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ quashing the orders of. the Regional Inspector and requiring the authorities not  to enforce  the provisions of ss. 16A to 161.  The  High  Court dismissed the petition.  In its appeal to this Court it  was contended on behalf of the Society that (1) The amending Act of 1958 was inoperative to the extent to which it sought  to impose  controls  upon  the  management  of  an  educational institution registered under the Societies Registration  Act and   thereby  directly  trenched  upon  legislative   power conferred  by  Entry 44 of List I and Entries 10 and  18  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

List  HI. (2) Section 16I was discriminatory inasmuch as  it conferred uncontrolled power on the Regional Deputy Director of  Education. (3) The provisions of s. 16B(3) read with  s. 16D(3)(a)  and  (b) were unreasonable.  (4)  Section  16D(4) invaded the society’s right to property guaranteed by  Arts. 19  and  31  of the Constitution.  (5)  The  pro-visions  in question  made unlawful discrimination between  private  and State institutions. HELD  :  (i) The impugned legislation does  not  fall  under Entry 44 of List 1. Board  of Trustees v. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1962 S.C.  458, applied. it  cannot also be said that the pith and substance  of  the impugned   Act   relates   to   charities   and   charitable institutions or to trusts and trustees.  The true nature and character  of the Act falls within the  express  legislative power conferred by Entry 11 of List II and merely because it incidentally   trenches  upon  or  affected   a   charitable institution or the powers of the trustees of the institution it  will  not  on that account  be  beyond  the  legislative authority of the State. [333 E-G] (ii)Section  16F(4)  is  enacted in  the  interest  of  the students   of   the  institution.   When   the   Educational Authorities  do  not  accept the  suitability  of  a  person selected by the management on two successive occa-                             329 sions  in  respect  of the  same  vacancy,  the  Educational Authorities  have been given power to fill up  the  vacancy. It  is  implicit in the provision that the power has  to  be exercised  by the Educational Authority in the  interest  of the institution and for serving the cause of education,  and it cannot be said that the power conferred is  uncontrolled. [334 E] (iii)The   pro-visions  of  s.  16B(3)  read  with   s. 16D(3)(a) and (b) are disciplinary and enacted for  securing the  best  interests  of  the  students.   The  State  in  a democratic  set  up  is vitally  interested  in  securing  a healthy  system  of  imparting  education  for  its   coming generations   of   citizens,  and  if  the   management   is recalcitrant   and   declines  to  afford   facilities   for enforcement  of the statute enacted in the interest  of  the students,  a provision authorising the State  Government  to enter upon the management through its Authorised  Controller cannot be regarded as unreasonable. [335 A-B] (iv)Section  16D(4) does not affect the right  to  property under Arts. 19 or 31.  The property continues to remain  the property of the institution; only the right of management of the  recalcitrant  managers  is taken  away  temporarily  to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. [335 F] (v)The  provisions  of  the  Act  do  not  make   unlawful discrimination  between educational institutions  maintained by private citizens and institutions maintained by the State or the Central Government or local bodies.  The institutions run  by  these authorities are governed  by  definite  rules under  conditions  which are entirely different  from  those prevailing in privately managed institutions.  The materials on  record  were  sufficient to indicate that  the  plea  of unlawful discrimination had no basis. [337 B, C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1965. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated May 1, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.  Writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

No. 2892 of 1960. Gopinath Kunzru, D. D. Verma, S. S. Khanduja and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant. K.L.   Misra,  Advocate-General,  Uttar  Pradesh,  C   B. Agarwala, Atiqur Rehman and O. P. Rana, for the respondents. Shah,  J.  The  appellant--A society  registered  under  the Societies   Registration   Act  21  of  1860   conducts   an educational   institution   styled  "Dwarka   Prasad   Girls Intermediate  College"  at  Allahabad.   Management  of  the affairs  of  the Society is entrusted by the  memorandum  of association  to  an Executive Committee  consisting  of  six office-bearers, seven members elected at the general meeting of the Society, and two nominees of the settlors of  certain buildings,  in  which the College is conducted,  and  it  is provided  by the memorandum that no one who is not a  member of  the  Society can become or remain  an  office-bearer  or member of the Executive Committee. Under  the Intermediate Education Act (U.P. Act 2  of  1921) provision  was made for establishing a Board with  power  to prescribe  courses  of  instruction  for  the   Intermediate classes and the Higher Sections of English Schools, to grant diplomas or certificates 330 to  conduct examinations at the end of the High  School  and Intermediate courses, to recognize institutions for purposes of  its  examinations,  and to do all such  other  acts  and things  as may be requisite in order to further the  objects of  the Board.  This Act was amended by the U.P. Act  35  of 1958.  By S. 7 of the amending Act which came into force  on January 23, 1959, ss. 16A to 161 were incorporated into U.P. Act 2 of 1921.  By s. 8 the State Government was  authorised to  promulgate Regulations in respect of matters covered  by ss. 16A to 161. By letter dated September 12, 1960 the Regional Inspector of Girls  Schools,  IIIrd  Region, Allahabad  called  upon  the Society   to   submit   and  get  approved   a   Scheme   of Administration  of  the  institution  managed  by  it.   The Society thereupon presented a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution  in the High Court of Judicature  at  Allahabad for  the issue of a writ quashing the orders passed  by  the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools and requiring the  State of  U.P., the Director of Education, the Regional  Inspector of  Girls  Schools and the Board of High School  and  Inter- medicate  Education, who were respectively respondents  Nos. 1  to 4, not to enforce the provisions of ss. 16A to 161  as originally  enacted  or  as  modified  by  the  Removal   of Difficulties Orders issued under s.9  of  the  amending Act.   It was submitted by the Society that ss. 16A  to  161 were not within the competence of the State Legislature, and also  because they infringed the fundamental rights  of  the Society guaranteed by Arts. 14, 19(1) (c), 19(1) (f) and  31 of  the  Constitution.   It  was  urged  that  by  the   Act unreasonable restrictions were imposed on the management  of educational institutions and the Act conferred unguided  and untrammelled   powers   upon   executive   authorities,   no distinction  having  been  made  between  "well-managed  and badly-managed"  institutions.  The High Court  rejected  the contentions raised by the Society.  With special leave,  the Society has appealed to this Court. The  effect of ss. 16A to 161 which were added to  the  U.P. Act  2  of 1921 by the amending Act 35 of  1958  is  briefly this.   For  every institution there shall be  a  Scheme  of Administration which shall amongst other matters provide for the  constitution of a Committee of Management  vested  with authority   to  manage  and  conduct  the  affairs  of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

institution, and which shall describe the powers, duties and functions  of  the Headmaster or the Principal  and  of  the Committee  of Management in relation to the institution  and that the Headmaster or the Principal of the institution  and two  teachers  thereof  selected by  rotation  according  to seniority shall be exofficio members of the Committee with a right  to  vote : (S. 16A).  In the case of  an  institution recognized  at the date of commencement of the  Intermediate Education  (Amendment) Act, 1958, a draft of the  Scheme  of Administration  shall  be  prepared  and  submitted  to  the Director for his approval: (s. 16B); and if the Scheme                             331 of Administration is not submitted within the time  allowed, the Director shall take action in accordance with cl. (a) or (b)  of  sub-s. (3) of s. 16 D: (s. 16C).  The  Director  is authorised to inspect recognized institutions and to  remove defects or deficiencies found on inspection or otherwise and if  the management fails to comply with any  directions  the Director   may,   after  considering  the   explanation   or representation,  if  any, given or made by  the  management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition or recommend  to  the State Government to proceed  against  the institution  in the manner provided by sub-s. (4) of s.  16. If  on receipt of a recommendation, the State Government  is satisfied  that the affairs, ,of the institution  are  being mismanaged,  or  the  management  of  the  institution   has wilfully  or persistently failed in the performance  of  its duties, or the institution is being conducted otherwise than in  accordance  with the Scheme of  Administration,  or  the draft of the Scheme of Administration has not been submitted within  the time allowed, the State Government may by  order provide  for exercising control over such institution by  an Authorized  ,Controller for such period as may be  specified by  the  Government,  and on the making of  such  order  the institution  and its management shall, so long as the  order continues,  in  force,  be  conducted  and  carried  on   in accordance  with  the  provisions of the  order,  and  every person having any function of management of such institution shall comply with such directions.  Where the management  or any person having any function of management does not comply with  or  refuses to carry out any direction  given  by  the Authorized  Controller, that Officer may, with the  previous approval of the State Government and for such period as  the State  Government may fix, take over the management  of  the institution  including  management of the  land,  buildings, funds  and  other  assets  belonging to  or  vested  in  the institution, to the exclusion of the management or any  such person and wherever the Authorized Controller so takes  over the  management he shall have in relation to the  management of  the  institution all such powers and  authority  as  the management would have if the institution were not taken over under  sub-ss.  (4) or (5) : (s. 16D).   Qualifications  for appointment  as  Principals,  Headmasters  and  teachers  of different  subjects  shall be prescribed by  regulation  and there shall be constituted in every recognized institution a Selection Committee for selecting candidates for appointment as  teachers in the institution: (s.  16E).   Qualifications which the Principal or Headmaster or teacher shall  possess, and the procedure for appointment of selected candidates  to the office of Principal or Headmaster or teacher are also to be  prescribed  :  (s. 16F).  Every  person  employed  in  a recognised institution shall be governed by such  conditions of  service  as  may be prescribed by  Regulations  and  any agreement  between the management and such employee  insofar as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

the Regulations shall be void: the 332 Regulations  shall  inter  alia provide for  the  period  of probation, the conditions of confirmation and the  procedure and  conditions for promotion and punishment, scales of  pay and  payment  of  salaries, transfer  of  service  from  one recognized  institution  to  another,  grant  of  leave  and Provident Fund and other benefits and maintenance of  record of  work and service etc.  The Committee of  Management  may not  remove  or dismiss from service or reduce  in  rank  or reduce  the  emoluments  of  any  Principal,  Headmaster  or teacher  except  with the prior approval in writing  of  the Inspector:  (s. 16G).  By S. 16H the provisions of ss.  16A, 16B, 16C, sub-ss. (2) to (7) of S. 16 D and ss. 16E, 16F and 16G  are not to apply to recognized institutions  maintained by the State Government or the Central Government and in the case of recognized institutions maintained by a local  body, the  State Government may declare that all or any  of  those provisions  shall not apply or shall apply subject  to  such alterations, modifications or additions as it may make.  The Director  may,  by  notification  in  the  Official  Gazette delegate  all or any of the powers which he exercises  under the Act except certain powers: s. 161. Some of these provisions have been amended from time to time by  orders  issued  under s. 9 of  the  amending  Act.   For reasons  which we will presently set out, we do not  propose in  this  appeal  to enter upon  the  question  whether  the amendments  were validly made.  We have referred to the  act as it was originally enacted. Counsel for the Society contends that the amending Act inso- far  as it incorporates ss. 16A to 161 in the U.P. Act 2  of 1921  is  beyond  the legislative competence  of  the  State Legislature, because in substance it seeks to supersede  the provisions  of the Societies Registration Act, 1860-a  field of legislation which is exclusively within the competence of the  Parliament-and in any event because the Act insofar  as it affects the powers of trustees of charitable institutions cannot be enacted without conforming to the requirements  of Art. 254. Management  of the affairs of the Society was  entrusted  by Its  memorandum of association to the  Executive  Committee, but the Society is required by s. 16A to submit a Scheme  of Administration providing for the constitution of a Committee of Management invested with authority to manage and  conduct the  affairs  of  the  Society, and  of  this  Committee  of Management the Headmaster or the Principal and two  teachers selected  by rotation are ex officio members.  The  Director has  the power to inspect the School and to  interfere  with the  management  calling upon them to remove any  defect  or deficiency found on inspection, and the State Government  is empowered  to appoint an Authorized Controller  to  exercise with  respect  to the institution and  its  management  such functions or control as may be specified in the order of the State Government.                             333 In the matter of appointment and removal of the Principal or the Headmaster, and teachers the authority of the  Executive Comitttee  of the Society is restricted.  Management of  the affairs  since  the  enactment  of  the  amending  Act   has therefore  to  be  carried on not  in  accordance  with  the memorandum of association of the Society, but in  accordance with  and  subject to the provisions of ss. 16A  to  161  as added by the amending Act. Power  of the State Legislature to legislate under the  head "education including Universities" in Entry II of List II of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

the  7th  Schedule would prima facie include  the  power  to impose   restrictions  on  the  management  of   educational institutions in matters relating to education.  The pith and substance  of the impugned legislation being in’  regard  to the  field of education within the competence of  the  State Legislature,  authority  to  legislate  in  respect  of  the maintenance   of  control  over   educational   institutions imparting higher secondary education and for that purpose to make provisions for proper administration of the educational institutions  was  not  denied.  But it was  said  that  the impugned Act is inoperative to the extent to which it  seeks to  impose  controls upon the management of  an  educational institution registered under the Societies Registration  Act and managed through trustees, and thereby directly  trenches upon  legislative power conferred by Entry 44 of List I  and Entries  10  &  18  of  List  III.   This  argument  has  no substance.  Ibis Court has in Board of Trustees v. State  of Delhi (1) held that legislation which deprives the Board  of Management  of  a  Society registered  under  the  Societies Registration  Act of the power of management and  creates  a new Board does not fall within Entry 44 of List 1, but falls under  Entry  32 of List II, for by registration  under  the Societies  Registration Act the Society does not  acquire  a corporate status.  It cannot also be said that the pith  and substance  of  the Act relates to  charities  or  charitable institutions, or to trusts or trustees.  If the true  nature and   character  of  the  Act  falls  within   the   express legislative  power conferred by Entry 11 of List II,  merely because   it  incidentally  trenches  upon  or   affects   a charitable  institution,  or the powers of trustees  of  the institution,  it  will  not on that account  be  beyond  the legislative  authority of the State.  The impact of the  Act upon  the  rights  of the trustees or the  management  of  a charitable institution is purely incidental, the true object of  the  legislation  being  to  provide  for  control  over educational  institutions.  The amending Act  was  therefore within the competence of the State Legislature and the  fact that it incidentally affected the powers of the trustees  or the management in respect of educational institutions  which may  be regarded as charitable, could not detract  from  the validity of the exercise of that power. (1) A.I.R. 1962 S. C. 458. 334 The  plea that certain specific provisions were  invalid  as infringing  Arts.  19,  31 and 14  may  now  be  considered. Section 16F (4) was challenged as conferring an uncontrolled power  upon the Regional Deputy Director of  Education.   By that  provision, when a recommendation for appointment of  a teacher or a Principal or Headmaster made by the  management has  been  rejected  and another  selection  made  is  again disapproved  after  representation  of  the  management   is considered,  the  Regional Deputy Director of  Education  in case  of a teacher, and the Director in case of a  Principal or  Headmaster, may appoint any qualified person out of  the list  of  candidates  applying for the  vacancies  and  such appointment  is made final.  It is clear that the  selection of  teachers and principals or headmasters is in  the  first instance  left  to  the Commttee  of  Management.   But  the exercise  of  the  power  is  subject  to  approval  of  the Education  Authorities.   The  Educational  Authorities  may reject the selection after considering the representation of the  management.   The Selection Committee would  then  have power to make another recommendation.  If that second recom- mendation  also  be  not  accepted  after  considering   the representation  made by the management, power  is  conferred

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

upon  the  Educational Authorities to make  appointments  of qualified persons out of the list of candidates applying for the  vacancies.   But  the person to be  so  appointed  must possess the prescribed qualifications, and his name must  be included in the list of candidates applying for the vacancy’ The provision is enacted in the interest of the students  of the  institution.  Where the Educational Authorities do  not accept  the suitability of a person selected by the  manage- ment  on  two successive occasions in respect  of  the  same vacancy,  the  Educational Authorities have been  given  the power  to  fill  up  the vacancy,  It  is  implicit  in  the provision  that  the  power  has  to  be  exercised  by  the Educational Authority in the interest of the institution and for  serving the cause of education, and it cannot  be  said that the power conferred is uncontrolled. It was then urged that the provisions of S. 16B(3) read with s.  16(d) (3) (a) & (b) are unreasonable provisions.  By  S. 16  D power is given to the Director to  inspect  recognized institutions  and  to  direct removal of  defects.   If  the management  fails to comply with the directions made by  the Director, that Officer may after considering the explanation or representation, if any, given or made by the  management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition or recommend  to  the State Government to proceed  against  the institution under sub-s. (4) and the powers which the  State Government  may  exercise  after being  satisfied  that  the affairs ,of the institution are being mismanaged or that the management  has  wilfully  or  persistently  failed  in  the performance  of its duties, include the power to appoint  an Authorised   Controller  to  manage  the  affairs   of   the institution for such period as may be specified by                             335 the  Government.  The provision is disciplinary and  enacted for securing the best interests of the students.  The  State in  a democratic set-up is vitally interested in securing  a healthy  system  of  imparting  education  for  its   coming generation   of   citizens,  and  if   the   management   is recalcitrant   and   declines  to  afford   facilities   for enforcement  of the provisions enacted in the  interests  of the  students, a provision authorising the State  Government to   enter  upon  the  management  through  its   Authorized Controller cannot be regarded as unreasonable. Section  16B  (3) authorises the State  Government  to  take action  under  s.  16D (3) in the event  of  the  Scheme  of Administration  not  being  submitted.   The  basis  of   an effective exercise of the controls envisaged by the amending provisions  is the Scheme of Administration for  educational institutions.  If with a view to prevent enforcement of  the provisions  of the Act the management seeks to  nullify  the control envisaged by the provisions of the Act by the  State Government,   a  provision  whereby  compliance   with   the requirements  of the statute may be secured cannot  also  be regarded as unreasonable. It was then urged that property of the Society is taken away under  s.  16D (4) if the Scheme of  Administration  is  not submitted  within  the  time  allowed,  and  the  Authorized Controller  is  appointed by the Government  pursuant  to  a recommendation  made under sub-s. (3) of s. 16D.  But  on  a plain  reading of the terms of s. 16D (4) it is  clear  that the  powers contemplated to be entrusted to  the  Authorized Controller  are  merely of management.   Management  of  the institution in respect of which an Authorized Controller has been  appointed  has  to  be conducted  and  carried  on  in accordance  with  the  directions given  by  the  Authorized Controller.   The property continues to remain the  property

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

of  the  institution: only the right of  management  of  the recalcitrant  managers is taken away temporarily  to  secure compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act.   Temporary deprivation  of  management to secure  compliance  with  the provisions  of the Education Act does not amount  to  depri- vation of property of the educational institution which  may attract  the protection guaranteed by Art. 19 or Art. 31  of the Constitution. It  was  then  urged that unlawful  discrimination  is  made between  educational  institutions  maintained  by   private citizens and institutions maintained by the State Government or the Central Government or local bodies.  On that part  of the  case it may be noticed that the petition filed  by  the Society is singularly defective: it is baldly averred in the petition  that the provisions of S. 16H are ultra  vires  of the U.P. Legislature as they are discriminatory and infringe the  guarantee of the fundamental freedom under Art. 14  ,of the Constitution.  Section 16H exempts all recognized educa- 336 tional  institutions maintained by the State Government  and the  Central  Government  from  the  operation  of   certain specified  provisions  of  the  Act  and  in  the  case   of recognized institutions maintained by a local body the State Government  may declare that all or any of those  provisions shall not apply or shall apply subject to such  alterations, modifications  or  additions as it may  make.  Prima  facie, there is a justifiable classification between the  privately managed educational institutions and those maintained by the State  Government, the Central Government and local  bodies. To  claim  the protection of Art. 14 it must be  shown  that persons  differently  treated  are  similarly  situated  and discrimination  is  made  with  an  uneven  hand.   In   the petition,  no  particulars  are  furnished  as  to  why  the classification made is not based on a rational basis  having relation  to the objects sought to be achieved thereby.   In the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State by the Deputy Director of Education it is stated that since the termination  of  the  Second World War there  was  a  marked increase  in the number of private schools imparting  higher secondary  education and there were many complaints  against the  management of those schools, and  discontentment  among the  teachers was rife.  A Committee appointed by the  State Government  to  enquire into the conditions of  the  private institutions was of the view that the managing committees of the private schools as then constituted were  unsatisfactory as many of them were ridden by factions and they had  failed to  give  a  sense  of security to  teachers,  that  it  was necessary   that   teachers   should   have   a   right   of representation  on  such managing committees, and  that  the Government  should  have  power to  supersede  any  managing committee  for persistent and serious dereliction  of  duty. Another  Committee  appointed by the Government of  U.P.  to examine  the  progress of the scheme  of  reorganisation  of secondary  education  recommended that in  the  interest  of better management of non-Govermment institutions the head of the  institution and representatives of the teachers of  the institution should be included in the managing committee  of each   aided  institution  to  support  and  safeguard   the legitimate  interests of the teachers.  The  Government  had also  received  representations  from  time  to  time   from associations  interested  in  education  that  the   service conditions  of  teachers  should  be  ameliorated  and  high handedness  on the part of the management of the  recognized institutions   should  be  checked.   From  the   statistics collected  by the Director it appeared that a situation  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

arisen  which required effective measures to be adopted  for reasonably restricting the activities of the managing bodies of  the  recognized  institutions in  the  interest  of  the students  and  the  teachers with a view  to  harmonise  the relationship  between the teachers and the management so  as to   bring  about  an  atmosphere  conducive  to   efficient imparting  of  education.   A  table  was  incorporated   in paragraph-16   of  the  affidavit  showing  the  number   of recognized   educational   institutions   imparting   higher secondary education. 337 From  an analysis of that table it is apparent that  between the   years.  1956-57  and  1959-60  the  number  of   State Government  institutions  was  less than 9 %  of  the  total number  of  the institutions, and them  ,number  of  Central Government institutions was less than 0-5% and that of local bodies’  institutions approximately 2-5%.  The  institutions run  by the State Government, Central Government  and  local bodies  were  governed  by definite rules  laying  down  the conditions of service of teachers and the institutions  were run  through official agencies under conditions  which  were entirely  different  from the conditions prevailing  in  the privately  managed institutions.  Another table showed  that there  was  year  after year  great  disparity  between  the percentages   of  successful  candidates  trained   in   the Government  and local body institutions, and  non-Government institutions.   The  materials placed on the record  by  the State,  viewed  in  the light of  complete  absence  of  any details furnished by the Society, are sufficient to indicate that the plea of unlawful discrimination has no basis. It was then urged that the State had accorded to the Society and  others similarly situated, as against the  Anglo-Indian Schools   which   are  privately  managed   institutions   a discriminatory  treatment  to the detriment of  the  former. But there is no specific allegation in the petition in  this behalf.   From  the table submitted in paragraph-18  of  the affidavit  of the Director of Education it appears that  the number  of students appearing from the Anglo-Indian  Schools is very small, that no adverse reports were received against the  management  of such institutions, and that there  is  a separate Code of Regulations for the Anglo-Indian Schools in the State of’ U.P. laying down the necessary conditions with regard  to  all the important aspects of  their  educational activities  and  such institutions are not governed  by  the U.P.  Educational  Code  of  1958  which  applies  to  other recognized institutions.  A plea of unlawful  discrimination cannot  be  adjudged  unless the petition  contains  a  full averment  of the grounds on which equality is  claimed,  and the denial of equality is pleaded as not based on a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the  statute which  makes a classification.  We therefore do not  propose to deal with this. question in this appeal. There  only remains to be considered the challenge  to  the. validity  of s. 9 of the amending Act.  By that section  the State  Government  has been authorized for  the  purpose  of removing any difficulties in relation to the enforcement  of the Act to direct that the Act shall take effect subject  to such  adaptations, whether by way of modification,  addition or  omission as it may deem necessary or expedient  and  may make  such  other  temporary provision for  the  purpose  of removing any such difficulty as it may deem to be  necessary or  expedient.   The  High Court was of the  view  that  the legislative  policy has been laid down in the  amending  Act and by- 338

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

s.9 power has been conferred on the State Government  for the purpose of removing any difficulties in relation to  the enforcement  of  the Act, and since this may  be  done  only within  a  period  of twelve months from  the  date  of  the commencement  of the Act and the adaptations whether by  way of  modification, addition or omission may only be made  for the purpose of removing any difficulties in relation to  the enforcement  of the Act, no legislative power was  conferred thereby  on  the State Government, and on that  account  the provisions  are not invalid.  The High Court  also  observed that  the  period in respect of which  various  orders  were passed  had expired and it was therefore immaterial for  the purpose  of  the petition to consider whether s.  9  of  the impugned  Act is invalid.  In our opinion, on the  averments made  in the petition and the materials brought before  this Court,  it is unnecessary to enter upon the question  as  to the  validity of s. 9 and the orders issued thereunder.   No specific Removal of Difficulties Order affecting the  rights or -the Society has been brought to our notice.  But we  may state  that  nothing in this judgment may be  understood  as according approval to the views expressed by the High  Court on  the validity of s.9 or the ordes issued thereunder.   We leave  that question open. to be canvassed when  a  suitable occasion arises. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs Appeal dismissed. 339