granted on such compliance. If not, granted, the action of the Administrator would be contrary to the Act and the Constitution and would be assailable in a court of law. " Grant-in-aid

( 20 ) WHY are grants-in-aid given by the State to all the recognised schools? The reason is to be found in the Directive Principles embodied in Articles 41, 45 and 46. Everyone has been given a right to education by Article 41. The State is placed under a duty to provide for free and compulsory education to all children upto the age of fourteen by Article 45. The State has to take special care of the educational interests of the weaker sections of the people under Article 46. This is why the grants-in-aid are universally given to all recognised schools. It is only Article 337 which conferred on the Anglo-Indians the right OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS to obtain grants for their education. As contrasted with this. None-else has been given a Constitutional or a statutory right to obtain a grant for any educational institution. "article 30 (2) shows awareness of the policy of the State to made grants-in-aid to all the schools and reinforces the policy by staling that in granting such aid to educational institutions, the State shall not discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under themanagement of a minority whether based on religion or language. This right not to be discriminated against is not to be construed as a right to obtain grant from the State. The State can refuse to make a grant to a particular educational institution for reasons other than those connected with the school being managed by a religious or linguistic minority. Such a denial of grant would not be contrary to Article 30 (2 ). "

( 21 ) SHRI Anthony for the Jain petitioners argued that aid was not a bounty. We can only understand this to mean that aid is given by the State to all schools because of the obligations placed in the State by Articles 41, 45 and 46. We do not understand this to mean that the State has no discretion in denying the grant to a particular school when such denial is not illegal and does not amount to discrimination on the ground of religion or language.

( 22 ) IN Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, (1963) 3 S. C. R. 837 (6) at 849, the Supreme Court pointed out that the State cannot discriminate against schools of religious and linguistic minorities so as to impose restrictions upon the substance of the right guaranteed by article 30 (1 ). The common ratio of the various judgments in The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 S. C. 1389 (8), also is that the right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) cannot be abridged by restrictions which must be accepted by a minority educational institution as condition precedent to receiving the grant-in-aid. To this extent, the advisory opinion expressed by the Court in Re : The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Reference Under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India, (1959) S. C. R. 995 (9) at 1064-65 approving certain restrictions placed on this right as conditions for granting aid was modified as pointed out by Reddy J. at the end of paragraph 52 of the decision in St. Xaviers College Society case, referred to above.

( 23 ) THE true nature of regulation which can be imposed by the State as the authority making grants was also indicated in the majority judgments in St. Xaviers College Society case as follows : (1) "the right to administer is subject to permissible regulatory measures. Permissible regulatory measures are those which do not restrict the right of administration but facilitate it and ensure better and more effective exercise of the right for the benefit of the institution and through the instrumentality of the management of the educational institutions and without displacing the management. If the administration has to be improved it should be done through the agency or instrumentality of the existing "management and not by displacing it.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document