JUDGMENT - Mrs. SUJATA MANOHAR, J.:---The first petitioner viz., the Hyderabad (Sind) National College Board is a public trust. The first petitioner owns and administers a number of educational institutions which are set out in paragraph 2 of the petition. About eleven colleges are managed and administered by the first petitioner. The first petitioner Trust was created by the Sindhi Community, which is a minority community in the State of Maharashtra. The material terms of the Memorandum of Association state that the objects for which the first petitioner Board is set up are, inter alia, (i) to promote secondary, university and technical education in India, (ii) to acquire and take over the exclusive management of the Rishi Dayaram and Seth Hassram National College, Bandra, Bombay and the science institute attached thereto and other institutions that may be opened hereafter by the said Board at Bombay or elsewhere in India and (iii) to establish, acquire, take over manage for the purposes of promoting higher cultural and technical education in India, any educational institutions and centres. The control and direction of all educational institutions which are set up by the first petitioner Board, is vested in the Board. From the very inception the members of the Board have always been members of the Sindhi Community. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the colleges set up by the first petitioner Board are minority educational institutions entitled to the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

2. There is considerable force in this submissions. As far back as in 1969 the Supreme Court in the case of (W. Proost v. State of Bihar)1, reported in A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 465, has said that the width of Article 30(1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it considerations on which Article 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 i.e. Article 30(1) is a special right to minorities to establish educational institutions of their choice. Therefore, these educational institutions need not be educational institutions which are set up to conserve language, script or culture of the minority community. The minority community can establish and manage educational institutions of their choice which may impart secular education and may even admit members of other communities also. The protection of Article 30(1) is not taken away. The same decision has been recently upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of (St. Stephen's College v. The University of Delhi)2, reported in J.T. 1991(4) S.C. 548. In view of this position in law, there is no serious dispute before us on the question whether the first petitioner Board is a minority institution or not. In our view, the first petitioner Board is an educational institution run by a minority community and hence it is entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

3. In this context we have to consider the effect of certain government resolutions and university circulars which are placed before us by the petitioners. The Government Resolution dated 30th March, 1981 issued by Government of Maharashtra, Education and Employment Department, bearing No. USG-5079/151912-UNI-3, provides that in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 77-C of the Bombay University Act, 1974, and the other Universities Acts which are mentioned there, the Government is pleased to issue instructions to all the non-agricultural universities in Maharashtra in regard to the reservation of posts to be made in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while making appointments to teaching and non-teaching posts in the university, affiliated colleges and recognised institutions. The reservation so provided is 13% for Schedule Castes, 7% Scheduled Tribes and 4% Nomadic Tribes and Vimukta Jatis. There are other instructions in the above circular which are not material

Click Here to Read the rest of this document