Case: Rt. Rev. Magr. Mark Netto Vs. Govt. Of Kerala &amp; Ors

2. 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. P-1. Subsequently the school was transferred to the Trivandraum 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 Diocess of Trivandrum. It is not in dispute that as a matter of fact only boy students were admitted in 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. Vincents 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. There 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 girls school said to be situated within 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. Vincents High School. The girls school was established by the Muslims and was also a minority institution with the meaning of Art. 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 admitted in the school. The District Education Officer wrote the letter dated 2-5-1974, Ext. P-4 to the authorities of the St. Vincents 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.3. 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 boys school. The authorities of the school could be prevented from admitting the girls in the school under Rule 12 (iii) 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 :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 of morality. It does not interfere with the power of administration of an educational institution by a minority community."

Reasoning: In the case of St. Xavires 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 orderely, efficient and sound administration of the school in the matter of maintaing discipline, health, morality and so on 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. Xavires 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 C. J., 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 maydominant 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 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 dont 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 12 (iii) as already adverted to is of a very limited character and for a limited purpose. Perrmssion was granted to Dr. Pereira for opening the school in 1947 as a High School. No. resriction 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 dae 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. Vincents 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 instruction 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 Mulsim 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 of girls students in the boys 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 2-5-1974 passed by the Regional Deputy Director and the District Education Officer respectively are bad and invalid and must be quashed.