1991 Supreme(Pat) 166

PATNA HIGH COURT
Satyeshwar Roy, S.N.Jha and G.C.Bharuka JJ.
Rahmani Primary Teachers Training College
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1 of 1988 ;
Decided On : APRIL 18, 1991

The State has the power to regulate the establishment and administration of educational institutions established by religious and linguistic minorities, but it cannot maladminister them. The right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable regulations in the interest of efficiency, discipline, health, sanitation, and the like.

Headnote:

The Patna High Court ruled on the applicability of the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training Colleges and Non-Government Teachers Training Colleges and Non-Government Primary Teachers Education Colleges (Control and Regulation) Act, 1982 (the Act) and the rules framed thereunder to educational institutions established by religious and linguistic minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the provisions of the Act and the rules are regulatory in nature and are neither restrictive nor prohibitive. The State has the power to regulate the establishment and administration of such educational institutions, but it cannot maladminister them. The Court further held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable regulations in the interest of efficiency, discipline, health, sanitation, and the like. The Court also held that the State can lay down minimum educational qualifications for admission to minority educational institutions and can also fix the ratio of teachers and students. However, the State cannot take any action against a minority educational institution for violating the provisions of the Act if it is a truly educational institution established by a minority, religious or linguistic.

Fact of the Case:

Various writ petitions were filed by the petitioners, who were educational institutions established by religious and linguistic minorities, challenging the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder on the ground that they violated their fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners also sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to grant recognition to their institutions and to allow their students to appear at the examinations conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of the Act and the rules are regulatory in nature and are neither restrictive nor prohibitive. The State has the power to regulate the establishment and administration of such educational institutions, but it cannot maladminister them. The Court further held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable regulations in the interest of efficiency, discipline, health, sanitation, and the like. The Court also held that the State can lay down minimum educational qualifications for admission to minority educational institutions and can also fix the ratio of teachers and students. However, the State cannot take any action against a minority educational institution for violating the provisions of the Act if it is a truly educational institution established by a minority, religious or linguistic.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder violate the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the State can regulate the establishment and administration of educational institutions established by religious and linguistic minorities? 3. Whether the State can lay down minimum educational qualifications for admission to minority educational institutions and can also fix the ratio of teachers and students?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of the Act and the rules are regulatory in nature and are neither restrictive nor prohibitive. The State has the power to regulate the establishment and administration of such educational institutions, but it cannot maladminister them. The Court further held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable regulations in the interest of efficiency, discipline, health, sanitation, and the like. The Court also held that the State can lay down minimum educational qualifications for admission to minority educational institutions and can also fix the ratio of teachers and students. However, the State cannot take any action against a minority educational institution for violating the provisions of the Act if it is a truly educational institution established by a minority, religious or linguistic.

Final Decision: The Court held that the provisions of the Act and the rules are regulatory in nature and are neither restrictive nor prohibitive. The State has the power to regulate the establishment and administration of such educational institutions, but it cannot maladminister them. The Court further held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable regulations in the interest of efficiency, discipline, health, sanitation, and the like. The Court also held that the State can lay down minimum educational qualifications for admission to minority educational institutions and can also fix the ratio of teachers and students. However, the State cannot take any action against a minority educational institution for violating the provisions of the Act if it is a truly educational institution established by a minority, religious or linguistic.