The State cannot interfere with the core of the management of minority institutions under the guise of regulation.

LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. In this writ case, the question for decision is whether the first proviso to Sec. 57-A (1) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 is unconstitutional on the ground that it infringes the fundamental right of the minorities based on religion or language guaranteed under Art.30 of the Constn. The writ application has been filed on behalf of Karim City College, Jamshedpur, through its Governing Body and its Principal. The College is admittedly a minority institution and has been so recognised by the University as indicated by its letter, Annexure 1.

2. The respondent No. 3 was a lecturer in the college and his services were terminated by the Governing Body after initiating a disciplinery proceeding. He moved the Bihar College Service Commission (Respondent No. 2) against this order and the Commission, by the impugned order in Annexure 7 held that the decision about the termination of the petitioners service having not been taken with the approval of the Commission was entirely illegal and cannot be accepted as valid and the respondent No. 3 must be deemed to continue in service. The Commission also sent a letter, Annexure 8, to the Governing Body insisting upon the requirement of such approval. The petitioners have by the present application, challenged the order in Annexure 7.

3. Sec.57-A (1) leaving out the second Proviso which is not relevant is in the following terms:

"57A (1). Appointment of teachers of affiliated colleges, not maintained by the State Government shall be made by the Governing Body on the recommendation of the College Service Commission. Dismissal, termination, removal, retirement from service or demotion in rank of teachers of such colleges shall be done by the Governing Body in consultation with the College Service Commission in the manner prescribed by the statutes: Provided that the Governing Bodies of affiliated minority colleges based on religion and language shall appoint, dismiss, remove or terminate the services of teachers or take disciplinary action against them with the approval of the College Service Commission."

According to the case of the respondents, minority colleges are governed by the Provo quoted above and not by the main sub-section (1). The question for decision is whether this provision infringes the fundamental right of the minorities.

4. The decisions dealing with the meaning and scope of Art.30 are numerous. The first important decision given by the Supreme Court is in re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957. (AIR 1958 SC 956). Later the article was considered at considerable length by a Bench of nine Judges in Ahmedabad St. Xavier College V/s. State of Gujarat (AIR 1974 SC 1389). The position appears to be well settled that while the right of the minorities to establish and administer edurational institutions of their choice cannot be violated, the reasonable restrictions by way of regulations for the purpose of ensuring educational standards can be legally placed. As was observed in All Saints High School V/s. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1980 SC 1042), the conditions of service which prescribed minimum qualification for the staff, their pay scales and laying down of sefeguard which must be observed before they are removed from the service, are permissible measures of a regulatory character. These measures are adopted for improving and maintaining the educational standards of the institutions themselves. The question arises as to whether the impugned provision as contained in the proviso to Sec.57-A (1) can be upheld as a permissible regulatary measure.

5. The Proviso challenged in the present case appears to be similar to several provisions which were considered in All Saints High School V/s. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1980 SC 1042). Certain sections of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions Control Act were challenged in their applicability to minority institutions and I propose to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court i