Back
2000 Supreme(Ker) 252
Kerala High Court
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
All Kerala Unaided Recognised Schools Parents Association, Aluva - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Decided On : 06/02/2000
V. M. Kurian, for Petitioners.
An individual managing a school cannot claim minority institution status under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India, and government policy decisions within the executive authority's domain are not subject to judicial review unless they offend statutory provisions.
Headnote:
Art. 30(1) - Minority Educational Institution - The court held that an individual managing a school cannot claim minority institution status under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The government's decision not to sanction plus-two courses in unaided recognized schools was found to be constitutional, as it was within the executive authority's domain and did not violate any statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an association of parents and a recognized school, sought a direction to sanction plus-two courses in unaided recognized schools, claiming protection under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the school, managed by an individual, did not qualify as a minority institution under Art. 30(1) and that the government's decision not to sanction the courses was constitutional and within the executive authority's domain. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or discrimination.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the school to protection under Art. 30(1), the constitutionality of the government's decision, and the petitioners' vested rights to sanction for opening new schools.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an individual managing a school cannot claim minority institution status under Art. 30(1) and that the government's policy decision, not subject to judicial review, did not offend any statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
The first petitioner is an Association of Parents of students and the second petitioner is a recognised school. The second petitioner claims to be an educational institution established and administered by a minority community entitled to the protection of Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It has made an application, Ext. P3, pursuant to Ext. P2 notification inviting application for opening Higher Secondary Schools.
2. They seek a direction to the effect that the decision of Government not to sanction plus-two course in unaided recognised schools as unconstitutional and seek a direction to sanction such course to the second petitioner.
3. What happened to the second petitioner's application, Ext. P3, is not disclosed in the Original Petition. Based on a write up in a vernacular daily , they presume that there is a Government decision not to sanction such course in recognised schools.
4. Ext. P3 application shows that the applicant is one Fr. George Chatholil and that the school concerned is under individual management. It is not an application by any denomination of minority community. So it cannot be contended that the institution is a minority institution entitled to the protection of Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Merely because the applicant belongs to minority community, the institution run by him will not become a minority institution. Only a corporate body can manage a minority institution and not an individual. The individual shall be at least an office bearer of such body. The second petitioner has also not, apart from an evasive averment, shown and substantiated that this institution had been established and administered by a minority community or its denomination. So it is not entitled to the benefits of Art. 30(1), as claimed.
5. What is the real decision of Government as impugned in the Original Petition is not legibly disclosed in the Original Petition. If the Government decides to sanction new Higher Secondary Schools in Government and aided schools alone, based on a policy, it cannot be said to be faulty. Government can exert more control and it can regulate the running of the school if the schools are sanctioned in such sectors, because such managements are bound to follow the guidelines set by Government in the matter of admission of students, levying of fees, protection to students of backward communities, salary of teachers, curricular activities, etc. The Government cannot imposed such control in respect of schools in unaided recognised sector. When Government takes such policy decisions, which shall have an object to be attained, it cannot be subjected to judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. When there is clear cut distinction between recognised schools on the one hand
and schools in other sector, such a decision cannot be termed as discriminatory. Moreover, the petitioners do not have any vested right to get sanction for opening new higher secondary schools. Merely became Government invited applications from management of recognised sector, it does not mean that schools shall be granted to them as well. Even after invitation of application , Government is free ever, even to drop the idea of sanctioning of new schools, depending on several factors.
6. The petitioners have no case of any mala fides or ulterior motives attributable to the respondents. It is also not demonstrated how the process of taking the impugned decision is vitiated to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to subject the decision to judicial review :
"Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. '(Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11).
In the matter of judicial review, the repeated notes often sounded by the Apex Court is to the following effect :
"This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of
