SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(Mad) 282

Madras High Court
K. VEERASWAMI,GOKULAKRISHNAN
Director of School Education Government of Tamil Nadu - Appellant
Versus
Rev.Brother G.Arogiasamy S.H.J.Correspondent of Christhuraja Basic Training School, Palayamkottai and representing the Society of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Palayamcottai - Respondent
Decided On : 09/10/1970

Advocates:
Govt. Pleader, for Appellants; M.K. Nambiar for K.K. Venugopal, Anand Das Gupta, Sagar and V. Eapen Verghese, for Respondent.

Article 30(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right of minority communities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and any regulations made by the State must be conceived and made from the standpoint of and for the benefit of the minority institution.

Headnote:

ARTICLE 30(1) - MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - MADRAS EDUCATIONAL RULES, RULE 132 - GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. 767 (EDUCATION) DATED 10-6-1969 - GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. 1090 (EDUCATION) DATED 27-5-1960 - THE GOVERNMENT ORDER OF 1969 VIOLATES ARTICLE 30(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION BY IMPOSING UNREASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a minority community, runs a basic training school. The State Government issued an order requiring the school to follow a specific procedure for admitting students, including scrutiny of the list of selected candidates by a Scrutiny Committee. The school challenged the order, arguing that it violated their right to administer their institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned order violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It found that the order placed serious restrictions on the freedom of the minority institution to make admissions of students according to their choice and threw the students of the minority community into competition with the generality of students belonging to that and all other communities.

Issues: Whether the impugned order violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution by imposing unreasonable restrictions on the administration of minority educational institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution because it placed serious restrictions on the freedom of the minority institution to make admissions of students according to their choice. The court found that the order was not conceived and made from the standpoint of and for the benefit of the minority institution in the matter of its establishment and its administration.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the quashing of the impugned order.

Judgement

VEERASWAMI, C. J. :- This appeal is from an order of Alagiriswami J. by which he allowed the respondent's petition to quash G. O. Ms. 767 (Education) dated 10-6-1969. The learned Judge held that the impugned order was violative of Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. We are of the view that the learned Judge was right.

2. The respondent is the Correspondent of Christhuraja Basic Training School, Palayamcottai, and represents the Society of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Palayamcottai. The Christhuraja Basic Training School is one of several schools run by the Society. The Society consists of members professing the Roman Catholic faith among whose objects, as it is said, is promotion of education by establishing and administering schools and colleges. The Society says that members professing that faith and belonging to the Society are a minority community within the meaning of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. That this is so is not in dispute. It is also not in controversy that the Society has established several educational institutions including the Christhuraja Basic Training school at Palayamcottai and it has been functioning over 20 years. It has been permanently recognised and receives aid from Government. The cost of maintaining the institution it appears is met out of donations from well wishers, fees wherever permitted from scholars and grant-in-aid from the State Government. The practice, according to the respondent, is that the Management of the Basic Training School had been all along selecting candidates from among those students qualified in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by the Government and with Rule 132 of the Madras Educational Rules. As a minority community it has the right of not only establishing schools such as the Christhuraja Basic Training School, but also administering it. The fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution guarantees both the aspects, namely, both establishment and administration of minority institutions. So far, we find, there is again no controversy. The State also admits that admission of students to particular classes of schools belonging to the minority community is within the substance of the right under Article 30 (1).

3. Even so, the appellant, which is the State, contends that it has the right to make reasonable regulations in the form of the impugned Government Order. The order amends the earlier G. O. No. 1090 (Education) dated 27-5-1960. In the Government Order of 1960 it was laid down that a list of candidates selected by the Managements should be got approved by the District Educational Officer or the Inspectress of Girls Schools, as the case may be, before the selected candidates were actually admitted into the Training Schools. This procedure was extended from time to time upto 1969. In that year the Government reviewed the position and decided that in the matter of scrutiny of the list of candidates selected for admission into Government and aided training schools an uniform procedure should be followed. The Government accordingly directed that a list of candidates selected for admission by the aided training schools, both basic and non-basic, men and women, should be scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of the Chief Educational Officer concerned and a non-official member appointed by Government and that no candidate should be admitted before the list is approved by the Scrutiny Committee. The Government Order of 1960 had provided a maximum of 100 marks at the interview and these marks were to be apportioned equally for five items, namely, personality, general knowledge, special abilities, skill in handicrafts and special considerations. By the impugned Government Order the maximum was altered to 75 and it was directed that 25 marks should be allocated for handwriting, music, drama, 25 marks for general knowledge and the remaining 25 marks for aptitude for teaching, personality, special abilities





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top