JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :—Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution provides :

"All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice."

The question which arises in these appeals is whether certain provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions Control Act, 11 of 1975, offend against the fundamental right conferred on minorities by Article 30 (1). The appellants are unquestionably minority educational institutions, having been established by members of the Christian community.

2. My learned Brothers, Murtaza Fazal Ali and Kailasam, have examined the authorities bearing on the question before us. The reasons which impelled me to write a separate judgment are my inability to agree wholly with the various observations made by Justice Fazal Ali and with some of the propositions which he has formulated as emerging from the decisions referred to by him, as also with the conclusion to which Justice Kailasam has come. I do not consider it necessary to examine all the decisions of this Court in which Article 30 (1) has received a full and careful consideration. These decisions are reported In Re Kerala Education Bill, 1957; 1959 SCR 995 Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bom., (1963) 3 SCR 837; Rev. Father W. Proost v. The State of Bihar, (1969) 2 SCR 73; State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, (1971) 1 SCR 734; D. A. V. College v State of Punjab, (1971) Supp SCR 688; The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCR 173; Gandhi Feiz-e-am College Shahajahanpur v. University of Agra. (1975) 3 SCR 810 and Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina, (1979) 1 SCR 820. Almost each succeeding judgment has considered and analysed the previous judgment or judgments. I regard the matter arising before us as well settled. Especially after the 9 Judge Bench decision in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and the recent judgment of the Constitution Bench in Lilly Kurian. All that we have to do in this case is to apply the law laid down in these decisions.

3. These decisions show that while the right of the religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice cannot be interfered with, restrictions by way of regulations for the purpose of ensuring educational standards and maintaining the excellence thereof can be validly prescribed. For maintaining educational standards of an institution, it is necessary to ensure that it is competently staffed. Conditions of service which prescribe minimum qualifications for the staff, their pay scales, their entitlement to other benefits of service and the laying down of safeguards which must be observed before they are removed or dismissed from service or their services are terminated are all permissible measures of a regulatory character. As observed by Das C. J., in Re: Kerala Education Bill, "Right to administer cannot obviously include the right to mal-administer" and in the words of Shah J., in Rev. Sidhraj-bhai. "The right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like". Hidayatullah C. J. said in Very Rev. Mother Provincial that "Standards of education are not a part of management as such", that the "minority institutions cannot be permitted to fall below the standard of excellence expected of educational institutions" and that "the right of the State of regulate education, educational standards and the allied matters cannot be denied". Justice Jaganmohan Reddy, in D. A. V. College, reiterated while upholding clause 18 of the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar Act, 1961 that regulations governing recruitment and service conditions of teachers of minority institutions, which are made in order ensure their efficiency and excellence do no offend against their right to administer educational institutions of their choice.

4. In t