http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: REV. FATHER W. PROOST AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/09/1968

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. MITTER, G.K. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  465            1969 SCR  (2)  73  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1970 SC 259  (20)  R          1970 SC2079  (10)  RF         1971 SC1737  (7)  D          1974 SC1389  (11,24,83,97,103)  RF         1975 SC1821  (23)  RF         1979 SC  52  (39)  R          1979 SC  83  (5)  RF         1980 SC1042  (2,35,81,94,108)  RF         1988 SC 305  (7)

ACT: Constitution  of  India, Articles  29(1)  and  30(1)-Whether minority  can  only claim protection under  Art.  30(1)   in furtherance of  rights under Art. 29(1).

HEADNOTE: The  St. Xavier’s College was established by the Jesuits  of Ranchi and was affiliated to Patna University in 1944.   The management  of  the College was in the hands of a  governing body  consisting of 11 members. The terms of service of  the religious staff of the College were determined by the Jesuit Mission  authorities and those of the lay staff,   including their appointment, were determined by the governing body  of the  College. The object of rounding the college inter  alia was  "to  give Catholic youth .a full course  of  moral  and liberal   education,  by  imparting  a  thorough   religious instruction and by maintaining a Catholic atmosphere in  the Institution".   However,  the  college  was  open  to   non- Catholics  and  all  non-catholic students received a course of moral science.     The petitioners in the present petition under Article 32 contended  that  the  college was  rounded  by  a  Christian minority  and  claimed  the  right to  administer  it  as  a constitutional  right guaranteed to minorities by  Art.  30. The  petitioner’s complaint was that the Bihar  Legislature, by  introducing s. 48-A in the Bihar Universities  Act  with effect .from March 1, 1962, deprived them of the right under Art.  30 in that Its provisions required, inter  alia:  that appointments, dismissals, reduction in rank, etc., of  staff

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

must be made by the Governing body on the recommendation  of the  University Service Commission for affiliated  colleges; in  no  case could the Governing body appoint a  person  not recommended  by  the Commission; the Commission  had  to  be consulted   in all disciplinary matters and  any  punishment imposed on a teacher only in accordance with the findings of the Commission, etc.  Subsequent  to  the  introduction   of s.  48-A,  in  view  of  differences  arising  between   the University  and  the college, the  University  withdrew  the affiliation  of  the  college  on  September  26,  1967  for violating the provisions of the Act and the statute  of  the University.     While  the  present  petition  under  Art.  32  of   the Constitution was pending s. 48-B was inserted into the Bihar Universities Act whereby it was provided that the  Governing body of affiliated colleges established by a minority  based on  religion or language which .the minority had a right  to administer,   would  be  entitled  to   make   appointments, dismissals,  termination of service or reduction in rank  of teachers or take other disciplinary measures subject only to the  approval  of the Commission and the Syndicate  of  the. University.   The petitioners therefore   also  claimed  the protection of s. 48-B.     On  behalf of the respondents it was conceded  that  the Jesuits  answered  the description of a  minority  based  on religion;  but  it was contended that as the  protection  to minorities  in  Art.  29(1) is only a right  to  conserve  a distinct language, script or culture of its own, the college did not    qualify for the protection of Art. 30(1)  because (i) it was not bounded Sup. CI/69-6 74 to conserve them and (ii) it was open to all sections of the people.   The  question therefore was whether  the  college: could only claim protection of s. 48-B of the Act read  with Art.  30(1)  of the Constitution if it proved. that  it  was furthering the rights mentioned in Art. 29(1).     HELD: The protection claimed by the petitioners  clearly flowed from the words of Article 30(1).     The   width  of  Art.  30(1)  cannot  be  cut  down   by introducing  in  it considerations on which  Art.  29(1)  is based.  The latter  article  is  a general protection  which is given to. minorities to, conserve their language,  script or culture.  The former is a special right to minorities  to establish  educational  institutions of their choice.   This choice  is  not limited to institutions seeking  W  conserve language, script or culture and the choice is not taken away if the minority community having established an  educational institution  of  its  choice also admits  members  of  other communities.   This  is a circumstance  irrelevant  for  the application  of  Art.  30(1) since  no  such  limitation  is expressed  and  none  can  be implied.   The  two.  articles create  two  separate rights, although it is  possible  that they may meet in a given case. [80 G, H]     In re the Kerala Education Bill,  1957,  [1959]   S.C.R. 995,  Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and Ors. v. State of Bombay and Anr. [1963] 3 S.C.R. 837, 850; considered.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Wilt Petition No. 1 of 1968.    Petition  under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India  for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. M.C. Setalvad and R. Gopalakrishnan for the petitioners.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

   C.K.  Daphtary,  Attorney-General and  U.P.  Singh,  for respondents No. 1 and 4. P.K.  Chatterjee, for respondent No. 3.  R.  Gopalakrishnan, for the interveners. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Hidayatullah, C.J.  The Principal and the Rector of  St. Xavier’s  Co,liege, Ranchi and two parents of students  have filed   the   present  petition  under  Art.   32   of   the Constitution.   The  petition also purports to be  filed  on behalf of St.  Xavier’s  College, Ranchi and the Association of  St. Xavier.  The petitioners challenge s. 48-A  of  the’ Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi)  Act, 1960 as amended by Second Amendment Act,  1961 as ultra vires Arts. 29 and 30 of the Constitution.     St.  Xavier’s College was established by the Jesuits  of Ranchi. It was affiliated to Patna University in 1944.   The management  of  the  college  vests  in  a  Governing   Body consisting of 11 members. They are:        "(i)  The Superior Regular of Ranchi  Jesuit  Mission --President ex-officio.  75                   (ii-v)  Four Counsellors to  the  Superior               Regular to be nominated by the Jesuit  Mission               authorities.               (vi)      The      Principal      of       the               College--Vice-President   and  Secretary   ex-               officio.                      (vii)   One   representative   of   the               teaching  staff of the college elected by  the               members of the staff.                (viii)   One  representative  of  the   Patna               University.               (ix-xi)  Three  persons  to  represent  Hindu,               Muslim and Aboriginal interests." The  terms of service of Religious staff are  determined  by the Jesuit’ Mission Authorities, but those of the members of the Lay staff including their appointment are determined  by the   Governing  Body.  All appointments  to.  the  teaching staff, both Religious and Lay are reported to the  Syndicate of the Patna University.  The object of rounding the college inter alia is ’to give Catholic youth a full course of moral and liberal education,  by  imparting  a thorough  religious instruction   and by maintaining  a Catholic  atmosphere  in the.  institution.’   The college is, however, open  to  all non-catholic  students.  All non-catholic students   receive a course of moral science.     The College was thus rounded by a christian minority and the petitioners claim they have a right to. administer it, a constitutional  right guaranteed to minorities by  Art.  30. The  petitioners’  complaint is that the  Bihar  Legislature passed   an  amending  Act  and  introduced  in  the   Bihar Universities Act s. 48-A  to  come into force from March  1, 1962,  which  deprives  them  of  this  protection  and  is, therefore, ultra vires.  The provisions of this section  are as follows:--                     "48˜A.  Establishment of  a   University               Service Commission for affiliated colleges not               belonging  to  the State Government  and.  its               powers and functions :-                  (1  )  With effect from such  date  as  the               State  Government may,  by   notification   in               the   Official Gazette, appoint,  there  shall               be  established a Commission  by the name   of               the  University Service Commission.                  (2)  The  said Commission shall be  a  body

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             corporate having perpetual succession. and   a               common  seal,  and shall by the said name  sue               and be sued.                  (3)  The  commission  shall  consist  of  a               Chairman and two other members to be appointed               by the State Government who shah be whole time               officers, 76               and  shall  hold office for a  term  of  three               years from the date of assumption of charge of               office, on the expiration of which term  they,               or  any of them, may be reappointed  for  only               one  more  term which shall not  exceed  three               years.               (4)  There  shall  be  a  Secretary   to   the               Commission  who  shall also  be  a  whole-time               officer   to   be  appointed  by   the   State               Government.               (5)  Other terms and conditions of service  of               the  Chairman members and the Secretary  shall               be determined by the State Government.               (6   )   Subject  to  the  approval   of   the               University, appointments, dismissals, removals               termination of service or reduction in rank of               teachers   of   an  affiliated   college   not               belonging  to  the State Government  shall  be               made by the governing body  of  the college on               the recommendation of the Commission.               (7)    (i)In   making   recommendations    for               appointment  to every post of teacher  of  any               such affiliated college, the Commission  shall               have   the  assistance of two experts  in  the               subject  for  which an appointment  is  to  be               made, of whom one shall whenever possible be a               teacher   of  the University  to be  nominated               by  the  Syndicate and the other  shall  be  a               person,   other    than  a  teacher   of   the               University,  to be nominated by  the  Academic               Council.               (ii) The experts shall be associated  with the               Commission as assessors whose duty it shall be               to give expert advice to the  Commission   but               who shall have no right to vote.               (8)  The Commission shall, wherever  feasible,               recommend  to the governing body of a  college               for appointment  to  every post of teacher  of               the  college names of two persons arranged  in               order  of  preference and  considered  by  the               Commission   to   be   the   best   qualified’               therefore.               (9) In making appointment to a post of teacher               of  a  college,  the  governing  body  of  the               college  shall, within three months  from  the               date  of  the receipt  of  the  recommendation               under sub-Section (8), make its selection  out               of  the names recommended by  the  Commission,               and in no ease shall the 77                         governing body appoint a person  who               is not recommended by the Commission.                     (10) Notwithstanding anything  contained               in the preceding sub-sections, it shall not be               necessary  for the governing body  to  consult               the Commission if the appointment to a post of               teacher  is not expected to continue for  more

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             than six months and cannot be delayed  without               detriment to the  interest of the College:                       Provided  that  if it is  proposed  to               retain the         person so appointed in  the               same  post for a period         exceeding  six               months  or to appoint him to another  post  in               the    college   the   concurrence   of    the               Commission  shall be necessary in the  absence               of    which the appointment shall be deemed to               have      been  terminated at the end  of  six               months.                     (11)   (ii)  The  Commission  shall   be               consulted by the   governing body of a college               in  all  disciplinary    matters  affecting  a               teacher  of the college and no   memorials  or               petitions  relating to such matters  shall  be               disposed  of nor shall any  action  be   taken               against,  or  any punishment  imposed  on,   a               teacher  of  the  college  otherwise  than  in               conformity with the finding of the Commission:                 Provided that it shall not be  necessary  to               consult the Commission where only an order  of               censure, or an order  withholding   increment,               including   stoppage at an efficiency bar,  or               an        order    of    suspension    pending               investigation  of   charges is passed  against               a teacher of a college.                   (12) It shah be the duty of the  Commission               to present annually to the University a report               as  to  the  work done by  the  Commission  in               relation  to such  colleges affiliated to  the               University and a copy  of the report shall  be               placed before the Senate  at its next meeting,               and  the  University  shall   further  prepare               and   submit   to  the  State   Government   a               memorandum  explaining,  as  respects      the               cases,  if  any,  where  the  advice  of   the               Commission  was not accepted, the reasons  for               such   non-acceptance and the State Government               shall  cause  the same to be laid  before  the               Legislature          of the State".       This provision completely. takes away the autonomy  of the  Governing Body of the College and virtually  vests  the control of 78 the  college  in the University  Service  Commission.   Long correspondence ensued into. which it is not necessary to  go because  of what followed.  The University  began  enforcing Article 178(2) of the New Statutes.  That Article provides:                     "178(1) All appointments of teachers  in               admitted   colleges  shall  be  made  by   the               Governing  Body  of the college  concerned  on               the  recommendation of the University  Service               Commission,  and  shall  be  subject  to   the               approval   of   the   Syndicate.    No    such               appointment shall be approved unless:                  (a) the post exists or the  Vice-Chancellor               is satisfied and its creation is necessary;                  (b) the claims of teachers, possessing  the               requisite  qualifications  and  serving  in  a               lower grade in the college, for promotion have               been examined and rejected;                  (c)  the   vacancy  was  duly   advertised,               except where promotion was recommended;                  (d)  the  person  appointed  possesses  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

             minimum  qualifications  prescribed  for   the               post; and                  (e)   the  appointment  was  made  by   the               Governing Body at its meeting.                      (2)   Within   a   fortnight   of   the               appointment  of any teacher or teachers.  made               by the Governing Body of any admitted  college               on   the  recommendation  of  the   University               Service  Commission,  the  Secretary  of   the               College shall forward to the University, along               with a copy of the advertisement for the post,               the following information:                   (a) Names of the candidates recommended by               the  University Service  Commission   together               with  the  name  or names  of  the  candidates               appointed by the Governing Body;               (b) Age;               (c) Home address;               (d) Previous appointment held by them, if any;                   (e)  Whether they are qualified  to  teach               through the medium of Hindi;                   (f)  Nature  of the appointment  and   the               vacancy against which the appointment has been               made;                   (g)  If the order of preference  indicated               by  the University Service Commission has  not               been  followed  by  the  Governing  Body,  the               reason for not 79               following  the  order of preference  shall  be               indicated.   If  no  appointments  were   made               against  the recommendation received from  the               University  Service   Commission,  the  reason               for  not making the appointments shall also be               indicated." More  correspondence followed.  The University asked for  an explanation  under  Art.  179  of  the  Statutes,  how   the Governing   Body  had  by-passed  the   University   Service Commission  and some teachers were appointed  without  prior consultation.    Finally   the  University  by   a   letter, September  26,  1967, communicated to the College  that  the Senate  had decided  on September 24, 1967 to  withdraw  the affiliation of the College under Article 171 of the Statutes for  violating  the  said  provisions of  the  Act  and  the Statutes  With  effect  from the session  of  1969-70.   The Senate,  however, was: generous enough to put on record  its appreciation  of  the good work done by the college  in  the field  of education. The petition was then filed to.  impugn the offending s. 48-A.     While  this  petition  was pending in  this  Court,  the Governor  of  Bihar promulgated an Ordinance  o.n  July  16, 1968.  It amended the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960  by inserting s. 48-B after s. 48-A.  The new section read:                      "48-B.    College    established    and               administered  by a minority entitled  to  make               appointments   etc.  with  approval   of   the               Commission and the, Syndicate.                     Notwithstanding  anything contained’  in               sub-section (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and  (11)               of  Section  48-A, the Governing  Body  of  an               affiliated  college established by a  minority               based  on  religion  or  language,  which  the               minority has the right to administer, shall be               entitled  to  make  appointments,  dismissals,               removals, termination of service or  reduction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

             in   rank   of   teachers.   or   take   other               disciplinary  measures  subject  only  to  the               approval  of the Commission and the  Syndicate               of the University". Simultaneously  the  Magadh University Act,  1961  was  also similarly amended.     The  petitioners,  therefore, claim  the  protection  of section  48-B  and  submit that  as  an  affiliated  college established  by  a minority based on religion  or  language, they are exempt from the operation of s. 48-A (6), (7), (8), (9),  (10)  and  (11). They say that  if  this  position  is accepted,  they will withdraw the petition which has  become superfluous.  now.   The learned   Attorney   General  while conceding  that  the  Jesuits  answer  the  description   of minority  based on religion, argues that the  protection  is available  only if the institution was rounded  to  conserve ’language, script or culture’ and since the college is  open to all sections of the people and there 80 is  no  programme of this kind, the  protection  of  Article 30(1) is not available. In our opinion, this argument cannot be  accepted.  Before we give our reasons we may read  Arts. 29 (1 ) and 30 ( 1 ), which are involved:               "29. Protection of interests of minorities.                     (1   )  Any  section  of  the   citizens               residing  in  the territory of  India  or  any               p:art  thereof  having  a  distinct  language,               script  or culture of its own shall  have  the               right to conserve the same.               (2)                     "30.  Right of minorities  to  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.     The  learned  Attorney General seeks to  read  into  the protection  granted  by Art. 30(1) a corrollary  taken  from Art.  29(1).  He concedes that the Jesuits  community  is  a minority community based on religion and that, therefore, it has  a  right  to   establish  and  administer   educational institutions   of its  choice.  But he contends that as  the protection to minorities in Art. 29 (1 ) is only a right  to conserve a distinct language, script or culture of its  own, the  college  does not qualify for the protection  ’of  Art. 30(1)  because  it  is not rounded  to  conserve  them.  The question,  therefore, is whether the college can only  claim protection of s. 48-B of the Act read with Art. 30(1) of the Constitution if it proves that the college is furthering the rights mentioned in Art. 29 (1 ).     In  our opinion, the width of Art. 30(1) cannot  be  out down by introducing in it considerations on which Art. 29 (1 ) is based. The latter article is a general protection which is  given to minorities to conserve their language,,  script or culture.  The former is a special right to minorities  to establish  educational institutions of their  choice.   This choice  is  not limited to institution seeking  to  conserve language, script or culture and the choice is not taken away if the minority community having established an  educational institution  of  its  choice also admits  members  of  other communities.  That  is  a circumstance  irrelevant  for  the application  of  Art. 30( 1 ) since no  such  limitation  is expressed  and none can be implied. The two articles  create two  separate rights, although it is possible that they  may meet in a given case.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

81     The  learned Attorney General refers to two   cases   of this. Court which he thinks support his contention.  What we find  in,  them does not bear out this submission.   On  the other  hand, they point the other way. In In re  the  Kerala Education Bill, 1957(1),1 Arts. 29 and 30 were considered in relation  to an Education Bill referred by the President  of India  to the Supreme Court for its advisory  opinion.   The points  that  arose in the case were different  but  certain passages  from the opinion were brought to our  notice.  The Court  after pointing out that Arts. 29 and 30  are  grouped together  under  the  heading   "Cultural  and   Educational Rights" points out that the articles are intended to  confer certain  fundamental  rights  on  certain  sections  of  the community which constitute minority communities.  Explaining clause (1 ) of Art. 29. this Court observed at p. 1047:                     "  ......  It is obvious that a minority               community   can   effectively   conserve   its               language,  script  or culture by  and  through               educational  institutions and, therefore,  the               right  to establish and  maintain  educational               institutions  of  its choice  is  a  necessary               concomitant   to   the right to  conserve  its               distinctive language,  script  or culture  and               that is what is conferred on all minorities by               Art. 30(1) which has hereinbefore been  quoted               in full  ......  ".     The learned Attorney General arguesues that here the two articles  were read together.  But the other side relies  on two  other  passages.   The  first is  at  page  1050.   The argument  on  behalf of the State there appears to  be  that there  are  three  conditions.  before  the  protection  and privileges of Art. 30( 1 ) may be claim-                     "(   1  )  there  must  be  a   minority               community,  (2) one or more of the members  of               that community should, after the  commencement               of  the  Constitution, seek  to  exercise  the               right to establish an educational  institution               of  his  or  their  choice,  and  (  3  )  the               educational  institution must be  established’               for   the   members  of  his  or   their   own               community." This  Court repelled the contention that the protection  and privilege  of  Art. 30(1) extended only to  the  educational institutions  established after the  Constitution.   Dealing with Art. 29 (1 ) this Court observed:                     "The real import of Art. 29(2)  and Art.               30(1)  seems  to us to be  that  they  clearly               contemplate  a  minority  institution  with  a               sprinkling of outsiders admitted into it.   By               admitting  a non-member into it  the  minority               institution  does not shed its  character  and               cease to be (1) [1959] S.C.R. 995. 82               a  minority institution. Indeed the object  of               conservation of the distinct language,  script               and culture of a minority may be better served               by propagating  the  same amongst  non-members               of the particular minority community.  In  our               opinion,t  it  is not possible  to  read  this               condition    into    Art.   30(1)    of    the               Constitution." While one side considers that the observation suggests  that the  two articles go together, the other side contends  that

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

mixing of the other communities with the minority  community in  the benefits of educational institution shows  that  the real test is not that there must be an institution purely of one  community.  The learned Attorney General  places  great importance  on  the  word ’sprinkling’ -and  says  that  the minority  must found the institution for itself and not  for others  and the aim or object must be to  conserve  distinct language, script or culture.  In our opinion both sides  are attempting  to read far too. much into. these  observations. They  are not intended to be read in every context.  On  the other  hand,  in Rev, Sidhaibhai Sabhai and others v.  State of  Bombay  and Another(1), there is the  following  passage :--                      "   ......  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." The  emphasis here was rightly placed not upon the needs  of the community exclusively but .upon the  educational   needs of  the citizens or sections thereof.  In other  words,  the suggestion  that Art. 30( 1 ) is limited to the needs  of  a single  community or that only its own culture, language  or script  need to be provided for is not the  right  approach. Here  too if we may say so, the point decided was  different but  the observation does make Art. 30 (1 ) much wider  than the learned Attorney General would have us hold.     In  our judgment the language of Art. 30(1 ) is wide and must  receive full meaning.  We are dealing with  protection of  minorities and attempts to whittle down  the  protection cannot be allowed. We need not enlarge the protection but we may  not  reduce  a protection naturally  flowing  from  the words.  Here the protection clearly flows from the words and there  is  nothing on the basis of which aid can  be  sought from Art. 29 (1 ).     We are, therefore, quite clear that St. Xavier’s College was  rounded  by  a Catholic  Minority  Community  based  on religion  and  that  this educational  institution  has  the protection of Art. 30( 1 ) (1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 837, 850. 83 of  the  Constitution. For the same reason it  is   exempted under  s. 48-B of the Act.  The petition will  therefore  be allowed  with this declaration but in the  circumstances  of the case we make no order about costs. R.K.P.S.                                            Petition allowed. 84