24. After careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsel we are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in St. Xaviers College v. Gujarat (supra) and the ratio laid down therein should not be taken to declare as an invariable rule that there can be no provision for an appeal against an order passed by the management of a minority educational institution in exercise of its disciplinary proceedings and that any provision providing for such an appeal will constitute serious inroad into the rights secured under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India. So far as the ratio of the decision in St. Xaviers College case (supra) is concerned, the judgment of Ray C.J. could be taken to be generally the sum and substance of the views expressed by the other learned Judges.On the scope of rights secured under Act. 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the learned Chief Justice declared as follows :-

"Therefore, measures which will regulate the courses of study, the qualifications and appointment of teachers, the conditions of employment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students, facilities for libraries and laboratories are all comprised in matters germane to affiliation of minority institutions. These regulatory measures for affiliations are for uniformity, efficiency and excellence in educational courses and do not violate any fundamental right of the minority institutions under Article 30.

The entire controversy centres round the extent of the right of the religious and linguistic minorities to administer their educational institutions. The right to administer is said to consist of four principal matters. First is the right to choose its managing or governing body. It is said that the founders of the minority institution have faith and confidence in their own committee or body consisting of persons selected by them. Second is the right to choose its teachers. It is said that minority institutions want teachers to have compatibility with the ideals, aims and aspirations of the institution. Third is the right not to be compelled to refuse admission to students. In other words, the minority institutions want to have the right to admit students of their choice subject to reasonable regulations about academic qualifications. Fourth is the right to use its properties and assets for the benefit of its own institution.The right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not in an absolute right. This is not free from regulation. Just as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character and content of minority institutions, similarly regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. Das, C.J., in the Kerala Education Bill case (supra) summed up in one sentence the true meaning of the right to administer by saying that the right to administer is not the right to mal-ad-minister." *

25. Even in the decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala v. Mother Provincial (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with the provisions conferring blanket powers upon the Syndicate of the University to interfere with and even wrest the action of the Governing Body of the Institution and it is only in that context the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the bonafide nature of the provisions or the salutary considerations contained therein cannot stand in the face of the constitutional guarantee. The two unreported decisions no doubt do not deal with specifically the pattern of appellate remedies provided under the School Act and the question as to whether it suffers the same vice which the Supreme Court found in the provisions of the enactments considered in the decision reported in Kerala v. Mother Provincial (supra) and St. Xaviers College v. Gujarat (supra). On the other hand, the ultimate conclusions appear to have been arrived at abruptly. Therefore, we are at liberty to consider the q

Click Here to Read the rest of this document