Per REBELLO F.I., J.: - Heard. Rule heard forthwith.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

The petitioner No. 2 runs a School which imparts education to mentally handicapped students. In para 2, the petitioners have set out that on 19.8.1971, the petitioner No.1 was established by Roman Catholic Trustees professing and practising Christianity as their religion and the founding Trustees of the petitioner No. 1 were Roman Catholic priest and nuns. It is also set out that ever since the inception, the Trustees of petitioner No. 1 have been priests and nuns who practise and profess Christianity as their religion. The names of the past Trustees of petitioner No.

1 have been set out as also of the present Trustees. The dominant aim and objects of the Petitioner Trust are to provide education to the mentally handicapped children. The management and control of the society is vested in the governing body which necessarily includes Superior, Vice Superior and Principal of the Institution as ex officio members. These persons are appointed by their religious orders and are necessarily nuns. A person can become a member only on the invitation of the governing body and not otherwise. The management and control of the Institution is vested in the governing body comprising of catholic priests and nuns. The population of Roman Catholics in the State of Maharashtra, as pointed out is less than 5% of the total population of the State and therefore the petitioner No. 1 is a religious minority institution as defined under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

13. Petitioner No. 2 was established in 1971 as it was found that a large number of children with mental retardation had no place to go for schooling as "normal" schools had closed their doors to them. Petitioner No. 2 school was recognised and was granted aid by respondent No. 1 in 1975. For the purpose of special needs of the students, the petitioner No. 1 started teachers training centre which is also recognised by the State Government and which imparts training in special education. There are other departments which have been set up by the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the State Government issued a Circular dated 20.11.2001 directing that vacancies in staff be filled from backward class candidates by making special efforts and that the Institutions which were not fulfilling the directions, would be liable to action of stoppage of grants. By letter dated 27.5.2004 petitioner No.2 was called upon to fill up and to appoint reserved category candidates. Petitioners then set out that they were informed that if the same was not done within seven days, action of stoppage of grants would be initiated. There has been subsequent correspondence to that effect. The petitioners replied pointing out that they were unable to accede to the requisition of the respondents as they were minority Institution. The respondents have with held the grant-in-aid by way of salary of their staff and this has been intimated to the respondents. There have been subsequent correspondences exchanged between the parties. The reliefs prayed for in this petition are to quash the various orders and for declaration that the petitioners are entitled to choose the professors/ staff of their choice and they are not bound to effect the appointments based on the reservation policy of the State Government. They have also sought further directions.

A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Yashwant Sonu More, Special Welfare Officer. It is set out therein that it is the policy of Government not to award minority status to Institutions which are schools for special category students like mentally challenged children because, it is not correct for these types of Institutions to restrict admissions only to a particular community children but to all the children who are suffering from disabilities. It is further set out that the petitioners are deliberately avoiding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document