Civil Appeal No 927 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 5 3 76 of the Kerala High Court in OP No 246974
V M Tarkunde Frank Anthony R Satish and E C Agrawala for the appellant
K T Harindernath and K R Nambiar for Respondents 1 3
A section Nambiar Mrs Pushpa Nambiar and Miss M Poduval for Respondent No 4
611 Frank Anthony R Satish and E C Agarwala for the Intervener Fr Powathil
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA J
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appellant s writ application for quashing the order dated June S 1973 of the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction Trivandrum and the order dated May 2 1974 of the District Education officer issued pursuant to the order aforesaid of the Regional Deputy Director
The constitutional question involved in this appeal is about the vires of Rule 12iii of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules 1959 hereinafter called the Rules
The question is whether the said rule is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution
In the year 1947 Dr A G Pereira a retired Medical officer opened a High School at Kaniyapuram mainly for the benefit of the students of the Christian community
The sanction of the then Government of Travancore for opening the School was accorded to him by letter dated 21st February 1947 Ext
Subsequently the School was transferred to the Trivandrum Roman Catholic Diocese
For the last more than 25 years the School was administered by this Diocese
The appellant is the corporate Manager of the Schools belonging to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Trivandrum
It is not in dispute that as a matter of fact only boy students were admitted ill the School till the end of academic year 1971 72
In the year following the management built a separate building in the School compound to provide accommodation for girl students
The Manager applied to the Regional Deputy Director for permission to admit girl students in the School although according to his case it was strictly not necessary to do so in law
By letter dated June 5 1973 Ext
P 2 the Regional Deputy Director refused to give sanction for admission of the girl students
The main ground of refusal of the sanction contained in the said letter is that St Vincent s High School Kaniyapuram the School in question was not opened as a mixed School that is to say for imparting education both to boys and girls and that the School had been running purely as a boys  School for the last more than 25 years
where is also facility for the education of the girls of the locality in the near girls  School situated within a radius of one mile
 As mentioned in the letter the Manager of Muslim High School Kaniyapuram which was a girl s School said lo be situated within a radius of one mile from the School in question seems to have objected to the grant of permission for admission of girl students in the St Vincent s High School
The girls  School was 612 established by the Muslims and was also a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution
The appellant filed a revision before the State Government from the order of the Regional Deputy Director and pending revision many girl students were admit ted in the School
The District Education officer wrote the letter dated 2 5 1974 Ext
P 4 to the authorities of the St Vincent s High School that since the admission of girl pupils had been prohibited by the Regional Deputy Director no girl should be admitted in the School
The appellant thereupon challenged the orders of the educational authorities by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court
In the judgment under appeal the High Court has said that
although girls School has been defined in Rule 6 of Chapter II of the Rules a boys  School is not defined either in The Kerala Education Act 1958 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act or in the Rules since only boys were admitted in the School for a long time the self imposed restriction by the management made it a boy s School
The authorities of the School could be prevented from admitting the girls in the School under Rule 12iii of Chapter VI of the Rules even though a separate building has been constructed for them in the same compound
In the opinion of the High Court to quote its language The basis of the rule seems to be that it will be better for the girls to get instruction in girls  schools as far as possible and if there is a girls  school why the parents of the minority community should insist on admission of the girls in boys  school is ununderstandable
By the time the child reaches the secondary school stage it would have grown up a little
At that age to keep them under proper guidance and discipline the rule is made that they should as far as possible be given education in girls  Schools only
This is only in the nature of a regulation for discipline and morality
It does not interfere with the power of administration of an educational institution by a minority community
 There is no dispute that the School was an existing School within the meaning of Section 23 of the Act
Thus within the permissible limits without violating the protection given to a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution the Act and the Rules came to govern this School also
As already stated there is no definition of a boys  School either in the Act or the Rules
But in Rule 6 of Chapter II it has been provided Schools where ad 613 mission to some or all of the Standards is restricted to girls shall be known as Girls  Schools
 Rule 12 in Chapter VI reads as follows Admission of Boys into Girls  Schools i All Primary Schools Lower and Upper shall be deemed to be mixed Schools and admission thereto shall be open to boys and girls alike
But under special circumstances the Director may exempt particular institutions from this rule so that admission thereto might be restricted to boys or girls and in the absence of such special circumstances the Director may withdraw such exemption
ii Admission to Secondary Schools which are specifically recognised as Girls  Schools shall be restricted to girls only but the Director may issue a general permission to boys below the age of twelve to be admitted to classes not higher than Standard VII in particular Girls  Schools provided there are no Boys  Schools in the locality
But such boys on completing the age of twelve shall not be allowed to continue in such schools beyond the school year in which they complete the age of twelve
iii Girls may be admitted into Secondary Schools for boys in areas and in towns where there are no Girls  Schools and in such cases adequate arrangements should be made for the necessary convenience
The admissions will be subject to general permission of the Director in particular Boys  Schools which will be specified by him
 The language of clause i indicates that in all Primary Schools admission shall be open to boys and girls alike and such Schools shall be deemed to be mixed Schools
But it is open to the Director to exempt a particular institution from this Rule meaning thereby that if the School authorities so want they may run the school for the admission of the boys or the girls only
Similarly clause ii of Rule 12 suggests that admission to Secondary Schools which are specifically recognised as Girls  Schools shall be restricted to girls only but with the permission of the Director boys below the age of twelve may be admitted
The purport of impugned clause iii however is to enable the Director to permit the admission of girls into Secondary Schools for boys in areas and towns where there are 614 no girls  Schools
In other words if there are other girls  Schools permission may be refused for admission of the girls in a School which has been run for imparting education to boys only
The ambit and content of Article 30 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of consideration and pronouncement by this Court in several decisions starting from In Re The Kerala Education Bill 19571 and ending with 9 Judges  Bench decision of this Court in The Ahmedabad St Xaviers College Society  anr
vs State of Gujarat  anr2 In State of Kerala etc
vs Very Rev Mother Provincial etc
3 Hidayatullah CJ speaking for the Court has said at page 740 There is however an exception to this and it is that the standards of education are not a part of management as such
These standards concern the body politic and are dictated by considerations of the advancement of the country and its people
Therefore if universities establish syllabi for examinations they must be followed subject however to special subjects which the institutions may seek to teach and to a certain extent the State may also regulate the conditions of employment of teachers and the health and hygiene of students
Such regulations do not bear directly upon management as such although they may indirectly affect it
Yet the right of the State to regulate education educational standards and allied matters cannot be denied
The minority institutions cannot be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected to educational institutions or under the guise of exclusive right of management to decline to follow the general pattern
While the management must be left to them they may be compelled to keep in step with others
These propositions have been firmly established in the State of Bombay vs Bombay Education Society 1955 1 SCR 568 The State of Madras vs SC Dorairajan   In re the Kerala Education Bill 1957 1959 SCR 995 Sidharajbhai vs State of Gujarat 1963 3 SCR 837 Katra Education Society vs State of UP  Ors 1966 3 SCR 328 Gujarat University Ahmedabad vs Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and ors 1963 Suppl
1 SCR 112 and Rev Father W Proost  ors
vs State of Bihar  In the last case it was said that the 1 1959 section C R 995 2  3 971 I section C R 734
615 right need not be enlarged nor whittled down
The Constitution speaks of administration and that must fairly be left to the minority institutions and no more
 In the case of St Xaviers College Ahmedabad supra the majority decision although by separate judgments has converged to the view that the right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right
This right 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 of the School in the matter of maintaining discipline health morality and morality and so forth
Even the two learned Judges differing from the majority on some of the aspects of the matter under consideration before this Court in St Xaviers College case did not depart from this fundamental principle
The difference was mainly in the application of the principle in relation to some of the provisions of the impugned Statute
As summed up by Das CJ in the Kerala Education Bill case supra the right to administer an educational institution of their choice by a minority cannot mean a right to maladminister
Of course in the application of the salient principles mentioned above opinions have differed from case to case and may differ
Let us examine the constitutionality of Rule 12iii contained in Chapter VI of the Rules and the validity of the impugned orders contained in Exts
P 2 and P 4
The dominant object of the said Rule does not seem to be for the sake of discipline or morality
Any apprehension of deterioration in the moral standards of students if co education is permitted in Secondary Schools does not seem to be the main basis of this Rule although it may be a secondary one
The very fact that girls can be admitted into a boys school situated at a place where there are no girls  school in the town or the area leads to this conclusion
It is to be remembered that no category of a school as a boys  school is specified in the Act or the Rules
Nor was our attention drawn to any provision enabling the educational authorities to force the school authorities to admit girls in a school where they don t want to admit them
The self imposed restriction by the management in vogue for a number of years restricting the admission for boys only per se is wholly insufficient to cast a legal ban on them not to admit girls
The ban provided in Rule 12iii as already adverted to is of a very limited character and for a limited purpose
Permission was granted to Dr Pereira for opening the school in 1947 616 as a High School
No restriction in terms was imposed for not admitting any girl students
If the successor school authorities wanted to depart from the self imposed restriction they could only be prevented from doing so on valid legal and reasonable grounds and not otherwise
As is apparent from the impugned order dated 5 6 1973 of the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction as also from the passage of the High Court judgment which we have extracted above the permission sought for by the appellant for admission of girls in the St Vincent s School was refused not on the ground of any apprehended deterioration of morality or discipline but mainly or perhaps wholly in the interest of the existing Muslim girls  school respondent No 4 in the locality
The basis of the Rule as remarked by the High Court seems to be that it will be better for the girls to get instructions in girls  schools as far as possible
 If that be so then clearly the Rule violates the freedom guaranteed to the minority to administer the school of its choice
But as already stated in our opinion this is not the dominant object of the rule
The Christian community in the locality for various reasons which are not necessary to be alluded to here wanted the girls also to receive their education in this school and specially of their community
They did not think it in their interest to send them to the Muslim girls  school which is an educational institution run by the other minority community
In that view of the matter the Rule in question in its wide amplitude sanctioning the withholding of permission for admission or girl students in the boy s minority school is violative of Article 30
If so widely interpreted it crosses the barrier of regulatory measures and comes in the region of interference with the administration of the institution a right which is guaranteed to the minority under Article 30
The Rule therefore must be interpreted narrowly and is held to be inapplicable to a minority educational institution in a situation of the kind with which we are concerned in this case
We do not think it necessary or advisable to strike down the Rule as a whole but do restrict its operation and make it inapplicable to a minority educational institution in a situation like the one which arose in this case
It follows therefore that the impugned orders dated 5 6 1973 and 2 S 1974 passed by the Regional Deputy Director and the District Education officer respectively are bad and invalid and must be quashed
In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and grant the relief to the appellant to the extent and in the manner indicated above
In the circumstances we make no order as to costs
PHP Appeal allowed 


Summary:
The appellant opened a High School mainly for the benefit of the students of the Christian community in the year 1947
The necessary sanction was accorded by the Govt
Of Travancore
Only boys were admitted in the school till the end of the academic year 1971 72
In the subsequent year the management constructed building in the school compound to provide accommodation for girl students
The Manager applied to the Regional Deputy Director for permission to admit girl students in the school
The regional Deputy Director refused to give sanction for admission of the girl students
The main ground of refusal was that the school was not opened as a mixed school and that the school had been running purely as a boy s school for 25 years
Another reason given was that there was facility for the education of the girls of the locality in a near by girls school which was established by the Muslims and was also a minority institution
An appeal filed before the educational authority failed
Under rule 12i of Kerala Education Rules 1954 all primary schools are deemed to be mixed schools and the admission thereto shall be open to boys and girls alike
Under the special circumstances the Director may exempt particular institutions so that admission thereto might be restricted to boys or girls
Rule 12ii provides that admission to schools which are specifically recognised as girls  schools shall be restricted to girls
However the Director has power to empower boys below 12 years up to 7th standard to be admitted
Rule 12iii provides that the girls may be admitted in schools for boys if in the town there are no girls  schools
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the educational authorities
The High Court came lo the conclusion that since only boys were admitted in the school for a Long time the self imposed restriction by the management made it a boys  school and that the authorities have powers under rule 12iii to prevent the school from admitting the girls
The High Court held that the basis of the rules was that as far as possible girls should be given education in girls  schools only and that it was in the nature of regulation for discipline
Allowing the appeal the Court 610  HELD 1 The ambit and content of article 30 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of consideration and pronouncement by this Court in several decisions
614 A In Re The Kerala Education Bill 1957 1959 SCR 995 The Ahemdabad St Xaviers College Society  Anr
vs State of Gujarat  Anr  referred to
The right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right
The right 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 of the school in the matter of maintaining discipline health morality and so on and so forth
615 A C 2 The dominant object of rule 12 is not for the sake of discipline or morality
Any appreciation of the deterioration in the moral standard of Students if co education is permitted in secondary schools does not seem to be the main basis of the rule although it may be a secondary one
615 E F 3 The self imposed restriction by the management in vogue for a number of years restricting the administration for boys only is wholly insufficient to cast a legal ban on them not to admit girls
While granting the permission for opening the school no restriction was imposed for not admitting any girl student
If the successor school authorities wanted to depart from the self imposed restriction they could only be presented from doing so on valid legal and reasonable grounds and not other vise
The permission in the present case was refused in the interest of the existing Muslim Girls  School
If the basis of the rule is that girls should get instructions in girls  school then the rule violates the freedom guaranteed to the minorities to administer the school of its choice
However that is not the dominant object of the rule
The Christian community in the locality wanted the girls to receive their education in their school
If rule 12 widely interpreted has empowered the government to prohibit a minority school from admitting girl students for the benefit of another girls  school it crosses the barrier of regulatory measures and comes in the region of interference with the administration of the institution a right which is guaranteed to the minority under article 30
The rule therefore must be interpreted narrowly and should be held not applicable to minority educational institution in a situation like the present one
The Court
therefore quashed the order of the Educational authorities
615 G H 616 A F