The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the minority status of the Arya Samaj and the school, and the violation of minority rights under Article 30(1) by the state's actions.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred for two-fold directions, namely, (i) for declaration that the Meghalaya Aided Higher Secondary, Secondary, Upper Primary School Management Committee Rules, 1997, as unconstitutional and void and; (ii) for a direction to the respondents to approve the Managing Committee of the Arya Kanya Vidyalaya High School as proposed by the Arya Samaj vide Annexure 9.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in details. For the purpose of resolving the dispute at hand, it would first be necessary to decide as to whether the Arya Kanya Vidyalaya High School is a religious minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

3. At the outset, it would be relevant to have a glimpse over the characteristics of the Arya Samaj as it would facilitate a decision as to whether this school established by them is a religious minority school within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Arya Samaj is a registered Society established in the year 1935 by the Hindi speaking people of Shillong who have joined the Samaj as members. The Memorandum of the Samaj (Annexure 1) spell out the objectives for which the Samaj has been established. The objectives incorporated in Article 3 of the Memorandum, inter alia, include establishment of schools and educational institutions. Only those persons who accept the ten principles and the constitution of the Arya Samaj are eligible for membership. The Samaj has established many schools within the State of Meghalaya and the school in question was established in the year 1942. Rule 38 of the Memorandum of Association provides that the President of Arya Samaj would be the President of the Managing Committee or ad hoc committees, if constituted by the Government, of all the educational institutions established by the Samaj. The school in question was established to impart education up to class X to the girl students who believe in the principles, thoughts and preaching of Arya Samaj floated by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Most of the members of the Samaj as well as the Managing Committee of the school are Hindi speaking and Hindu by religion. The population of the Hindi speaking Hindus in the State of Meghalaya is less than 3 percent and as such they are linguistic and religious minority. The Samaj has its branches spread throughout the country and abroad. The schools and colleges established by the Samaj are being run in strict compliance with the teachings and principles of the Arya Samaj based on Vadic culture, Devanagari being the script of the members of the Samaj.

4. The characteristics as set out in the writ petition along with the provisions of the Memorandum of Association would be determinative of the status of the Samaj as well as the school in question. Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued at length to dislodge the claim of the minority character of the Samaj. According to him, the Inspector of Schools have been constituting the Managing Committees of the schools since 1981 and therefore, the school cannot be said to be independent of any Government control. Mr. Jindal also argued that the school came into existence long before the Samaj was constituted and, as such, it cannot be accepted that the school was established by the Samaj. In addition, he also questioned the locus standi of the writ petitioners. The learned counsel also made a mention of the earlier Civil Rule No. 69(Sh.)/97 preferred by the writ petitioners.

5. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that in the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 69(Sh.)/97 an interim order of stay was passed on 23-5-97 restraining the State authority from interfering with the affairs of the school. But, the said interim order was stayed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 275/97. Consequent thereupon, the Civil Rule was withdrawn and the writ petition was dismissed. There is nothing on record to s