( 51 ) IN view of the clear and unambiguous provision contained in Art. 28 (3) of the Constitution, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the said provision is constitutional and no exception can be taken thereto.

( 52 ) CLAUSE 15 (i) of the Code which has been quoted hereinbefore, ipso facto does not suggest that the same is mandatory in nature. It is now well known that a statutory provision has to be read as a whole. Reading the said provision in its entirety, there cannot be any manner of doubt whatsoever that the Board does not intend to interfere with the existing arrangement. Mr. Gupta, however, submitted that the offending portion of the said clause is that a prior approval is necessary for constitution of the Managing Committee. According to Mr. Gupta, the power to approve necessarily includes the power to disapprove. The said provision, as indicated hereinbefore, has to be read with the other provisions contained therein. It has clearly been stated in the said provision that reconstitution of the Governing Body would depend upon the wishes of the school concerned. Such a direction is not mandatory in nature. In the case of The Gandhi Faiz-e-am College, Shahjahanpur v. University of Agra reported in AIR 1975 SC 1821, the Supreme Court held that imposition of a Headmaster and a seniormost teacher of the college in the Managing Committee cannot be said to be unreasonable. The Headmaster and a seniormost teacher of the college were found to be insiders of the school. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that the provision enabling the Governing Body to include two teachers, who were insiders, as members of the Governing Body cannot be said to be violative of the right of the minority institutions under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, it is not a case where the Managing Committee is sought to be composed of a body of teachers or majority of them are outsiders to administer the educational administration which would be admitting the administration of the institution in favour of an outside agency only in which event a right of a minority institution under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India is infringed.

( 53 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that in many of the schools even Headmaster is not a member of the governing body. The said statement implies that in some school at least Headmasters are the members of the Governing Body.

( 54 ) THE Supreme Court in G. F. 's College case (supra) has held that the service of a Headmaster and a teacher would be useful. It is held: -"an activist principal is an asset in discharging these duties which are inextricably interlaced with academic functions. The principal is an invaluable insider - the Management's own choice - not an outsider answerable to the Vice-Chancellor. He brings into the work of the Managing Committee ' that intimate acquaintance with educational operations and that necessary expression of student-teacher aspirations and complaints which are so essential for the minority institution to achieve a happy marriage between individuality and excellence. And the role of the seniormost teacher, less striking may be and more unobtrusive is a useful input into managerial skills, representing as he does the teachers and being only a seasoned minion chosen by the management itself. After all, two creatures of the Society on a 16-member Managing Committee can bring light, not tilt scales. Moreover, the Managing Committee itself is subject to the hierarchical control of the Governing Body and the General Council. We see no force in the objection to the two innocuous considers being seated on the Managing Committee. "

( 55 ) IT is however interesting to note that the cause of Anglo Indian Minority institution has been taken up by the Association of Headmasters. The Governing Bodies of the Minority Institutions which have been arrayed as pro forma respondents have supported the writ petitioner. It is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document