Case: Sindhi Education Society  Vs. Chief Secretary,Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi&amp;Ors

e appellant - Sindhi Education Society (hereinafter referred to asSociety) is a Society established and duly registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society is running, inter alia, a school known as S.E.S. Baba Nebhraj Senior Secondary School at Lajpat Nagar, Newto the Society, Sindhi language is one of the languages included in VIII Schedule of the Constitution and the people speaking Sindhi language are scattered in various parts of the country. As Sindhi language is not spoken by the majority of people in Delhi, therefore, the Sindhi community in Delhi is and has been held to be a linguistic minority by virtue of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Society, therefore, has a constitutional right to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice. In furtherance of such an object, the school was established for preservation of Sindhi language and managing the affairs of the school as per its constitution and under the provisions of the relevantthe year 1973, the DSE Act came into force with a view to provide better organization and development of the school education in Union Territory of Delhi and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Soon after coming into force of the provisions of the DSE Act, 1973, the Society felt that certain provisions of the DSE Act infringed the minority character of the Society, particularly, in matters related to administration and management of theappears that the society filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi being Writ Petition (C) No. 940 oftitled Sindhi Education Society (Regd.) v. Director of Education andwhich came to be disposed of by a detailed judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 14th July, 1982. In that judgment, the Court specifically held that the Society was a linguistic minority and the provisions of the DSE Act as specified in the judgment would not be applicable to the Society. In order to put the matters with clarity, it will be useful to refer to the findings recorded by the Court which read as underthe present case the Delhi School Education Act is applicable only to the Union territory of Delhi. It is with reference to this Territory that one has to consider as to whether Sindhi is a language spoken by the majority or minority of the people. On this there can be no doubt. Sindhi is not spoken by majority of the people in Delhi and, therefore, the Sindhi community in Delhi can legitimately be regarded as a linguistic minority. Just as a religious minority may be composed of persons whose mother-tongue may not be the same, similarly a linguistic minority may not necessarily be composed of people who belong to a religious minority of the State. As such, every person, who is a Sindhi, would be regarded as belonging to a linguistic minority irrespective of the fact as to whether he is a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian to the effect that some of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would not apply to minority institutions, while some other provisions could be made applicable only with certain modifications or in accordance with the observations made by the Court. We may now summarise the decision of this Court with regard to those provisions of the Act and the Rules which it held as not being applicable, or being applicable as per the directions contained therein, because the learnedfor the petitioner states that a similar direction should be issued in this casee aforesaid provisions are not to apply to the school but the Director of Education, Delhi should be kept informed of any order of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of service of an employee by the management. If the Administration receives information that the disciplinary powers are being abused by the school then the Administration will have a right to suspend, reduce or stop the grant-in-aid to the School after giving a hearing to the27A and BThe said provisions are not to apply to the minoritywrit petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms and, like in Jain Sabhas case (supra), it is directed that the aforesaid provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder will not apply to the petitioner or would apply only in the manner in which they have been interpreted by this Court. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsels feeaforesaid judgment appears to have attained finality and, in fact, was not impugned before this Court. The Division Bench, while deciding the above case, clearly held that certain Rules would not be applicable and it specifically noticed the provisions relating to the constitution of the Managing Committee under Rule 59, Rule 64, different Clauses under Rule 96(3), Rule 98, Rule 105 and Rule 120 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (for shortRules) in that behalf. The Court held that Rule 64 of the DSE Rules is to be construed in respect of minority schools to require compliance only if those provisions of the Act and the Rules and instructions thereunder are in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution, particularly, with Article 30(1) of the64, primarily, deals with the conditions of providing grant-in- aid and further states that no aid is to be granted unless suitable undertaking is given by the Managing Committee. Rule 64 came to be amended by Notification Nos. 1340-2340 dated 23rd February, 1990. This Rule prescribe certain limitation which the Competent Authority can impose in exercise of its powers. Even before amendment of this Rule, on 12th March, 1985, instructions were issued by the Deputy Director of Education, addressed to the appellant stating, inter alia, that in accordance with provision of Rule 64 of the DSE Rules, the Managing Committee of the Society was required to furnish an undertaking that they would make reservation in the appointments of teachers for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The reference was also made to the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of India, wherein reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Institutions/Organisations was ordered. The relevant part of the said letter reads as underSince the schools are required to apply for grants-in-aid every years on the prescribed proforma as provided under the Act, they are also required to given undertaking to make reservation in the services and posts for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes accordingly. A specimen of the declaration is sent herewith the request that the same be sent to this office duly filled in and signed with stamp of the Authority signing.It may be noted that the future grants-in-aid shall be released on giving the aforesaid undertaking on the enclosedappellant Society responded to that letter vide reply dated 15th April, 1985, inviting attention of the authorities to the judgment of the High Court dated 14.7.1982, in Writ Petition No. 940 of 1975, deciding, inter alia, that the school in question, has been held to be a minority institution and that Rule 64 of the DSE Rules is to be accordingly construed in respect of minority school(s) that they require compliance, only, if the same is in consonance with the provisions of Article 30(1) of theSecretary (Education), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Respondentthereafter vide his communication dated 21st March, 1986, informed the appellant that the undertaking, which was required to be given by all the Government aided schools in the matter of compliance with the provisions relating to reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the institutions, is not applicable to the minority institutions. Thus, they were not required to adhere to the same. It will be useful to refer to the communication of the Government at this stage itself, which reads as followconnection with circular letter issued vide even number dated 12.3.85, this is hereby clarified that an undertaking in writing which was required to be given by all the Govt. Aided Schools in the matter of compliance with the provisions relating to reservation for SC/ST in the institutions is not applicable to the minority institutions. As such the managements of the institutions are at the discretion to adhere or not to adhere to the instructions issued by the Govt. of India regarding reservation of SC/ST."

Court's reasoning:
41. Applying the above test, we have to consider the word "reservation" in the context of Article 16(4) and it is in that context that Article 335 of the Constitution which provides for relaxation of the standards of evaluation has to be seen. We have to go by what the Constitution-framers intended originally and not by general concepts or principles. Therefore, schematic interpretation of the Constitution has to be applied and this is the basis of the working test evolved by Chandrachud, J. in the Electionthe framework of reservation policy should be such, as to fit in within the constitutional scheme of our democracy. As and when the Government changes its policy decision, it is expected to give valid reasons and act in the larger interest of the entire community rather than a section thereof. In its wisdom and apparently in accordance with law Government had taken a policy decision and issued the circular dated 21st March, 1986 exempting the minority institutions from complying with the requirements of the Rule 64(1)(b) of the DSE Rules. Despite this and judgment of the High Court there was a change of mind by the State that resulted in issuance of the subsequent circular of September, 1989. From the record before us, no reasons have been recorded in support of the decision superseding the circular dated 21st March, 1986. It is a settled canon of administrative jurisprudence that state action, must be supported by some valid reasons and should be upon due application of mind. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the State, nothing in this regard could be pointed out and in fact, none was pointed out during the course of arguments. Absence of reasoning and apparent non-application of mind would give colour of arbitrariness to the state action. This aspect attains greater lucidity in light of the well accepted norm that minority institution cannot stand on the same footing as a non-minoritythat, State actions should be actio quaelibet it sua via and every discharge of its duties, functions and governance should also be within the constitutional framework. This principle equally applies to the Government while acting in the field of reservation as well. It would not be possible for the Courts to permit the State to impinge upon or violate directly or indirectly the constitutional rights and protections granted to various classes including the minorities. Thus, the State may not be well within its constitutional duty to compel the linguistic minority institution to accept a policy decision, enforcement of which will infringe their fundamental right and/or protection. On the contrary, the minority can validly question such a decision of the State in law. The service in an aided linguistic minority school cannot be construed asservice under the State even with the aid of Article 12 of the Constitution. Resultantly, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Rule 64(1)(b) cannot be enforced against the linguistic minority school. Having answered this question in favour of the appellant and against the State, we do not consider it necessary to go into the constitutional validity or otherwise of Rule 64(1)(b) of the Rules, which question we leave open.