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. No. 767 (Education), dated 10th June, 1969. The learned Judge held that the impugned order was violative of Article 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 Bothers 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 for over20 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 27th May, 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, would 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document