The main legal point established in the judgment is that private institutions' regulations, when not infringing on religious freedom and when students are well-informed, are upheld by the court.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to abide by the orders of the second respondent i.e., Director of Technical Education, Chennai, dated 19.2.2008 and to refund the fees paid by her to the first respondent college at the time of admission.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 12.12.2008. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner amended the prayer and sought for a direction to the first respondent college to refund the fees paid by her at the time of admission. That amendment was ordered on 26.11.2008. In the application for interim direction to refund the fees, this court merely ordered notice. On notice, from this court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 02.11.2010.

3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's family belonged to Seventh Day Adventist Church. Her father is the Principal of Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation Higher Secondary School. The petitioner had applied for admission in the first respondent college, which is a self financing engineering college. She had applied for B.Tech (Information Technology) branch. Her name was sponsored by the second respondent on 4.8.2006. She had also paid Rs.50000/-as fees and started attending the college with effect from 23.8.2006. The first respondent college belong to all castes and religions.

4. According to the petitioner, she being the Seventh Day Adventist, does not believe in doing work on Saturdays and they are worshiping the God on the said date. The Church all over the World keep Saturday as the day of Sabbath. However, the first respondent college declared all Saturdays as working days. When the petitioner had expressed her difficulty in attending Saturdays which is against her religious belief and also had requested to take leave on Saturdays, no relief was given to her. She was unable to attend the college due to her faith in the Seventh Day Adventist till 30.09.2006. The college fixed Monday to Saturday as working days, but the petitioner was regular and had attended the college in all days except Saturdays. There was no complaint from any teaching staff. Even if she had missed Saturdays for the entire semester, she would have the attendance to write the examination. The Principal of the College had informed the petitioner that she will not be allowed to attend the college on a particular Monday and that she was made to stand outside the college. Her father wrote a letter dated 28.9.2006 and explained the reasons for her inability to attend classes on Saturdays. It was also stated that even Saturdays are skipped, she will have attendance to write examinations. Knowing fully well her religious belief, the first respondent is not willing to relent. In October, 2006, she took leave on Saturdays and she was sent out of the College.

5. It was stated that on 03.10.2006, her father met the Principal of the College and informed him that their leave was on account of their religious belief. But the Principal was unwilling and had categorically stated that if she do not attend the college on Saturdays, she can take her Transfer Certificate and leave the college. The first respondent did not show any respect or tolerance for their religious sentiment. Therefore, she had to take a decision about continuance of her studies in the college. She was forced to discontinue her studies in the college and had applied for transfer certificate. She would not have discontinued the college, but for the insistence of attending Saturdays. The transfer certificate indicated that leaving college was for personal reasons. After getting the transfer certificate, she sought for the refund of fees paid at the time of admission. Later, they refused to refund the fees. Subsequently, the petitioner had joined Mount Zion College of Engineering, Pudukkottai. She also made a complaint to the Chief Minister's grievance cell which was forwarded to the second respondent Director of Technical