DECCAN MODEL EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition, has prayed for issue of a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant recognition to the Tagore Memorial High School, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.

(2.) The circumstances in which the petition has been presented may be stated briefly and they are follows : It is convenient first to set out those facts which are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Society known by the name 'Deccan Model Education Society'. It is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is asserted by the petitioner that the members are all Christians and it was formed by the Christians for the purpose of establishing educational institutions of their choice. The petitioner's Society runs a primary school upto VII standard at Rajajinagar and that primary school has been recognised by the respondents. The primary school is run in the name and style of Tagore Memorial Nursery and Primary School'. On 8-10-1979, the Society decided to start an unaided High School for standards VIII to X in continuation of the primary school, as the primary school would be feeding the High School, for the academic year 1980 1981. The application for starting a Secondary School is required to be made, by 31st Octr. of the previous year to the year in which the High School is to be started. The Director ot Public Instruction in Karnataka has to communicate his decision whether the permit ion is granted or not before the 15th March of the year in which the school is to commence. In the event of refusal of permission, the applicant can file an appeal before 15th of April. The petitioner has asserted that though an application was made on 8 10-1979, no communication from the 2nd respondent ever came as to whether permission was granted or not till the date on which the petition was filed. However, the petitioner started VIII stadard class on 1- 6-1980 and has been running the class with trained staff. The students who had passed the VII standard in the primary school run by the petitioner institution were admitted to the VIII standard as they did not apply to other High Schools for admission. On 5-10 1980 again an application was sent for permission and recognition for VIII and IX standards for the academic year 1981-82. In response to the latter application, the Deputy Director of Public Instruction having jurisdiction sent a communication for spot inspection of the school on 20 11-1980. On the said date, he carried out the inspection. The petitioner on 15-1-1981 sent a petition to the Minister for Education in Karnataka requesting recognition for the High School. It is asserted that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner Society, the Departmental officials recommended the grant of permission and recognition to the school and sent the file to the Government on 12 5-1980. However, on 21-1-1981 the Dy. Director of Public Instruction sent an endorsement to the Secretary of the School directing the Society to close down the High School, as the same was unauthorised. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the department bad no authority to direct the High School to close down. The Dy. Director of Public Instruction had no authority to require the High School to be closed down in as much as the school is run by a religious minority institution and in terms of sub Art. (1) of Art. 30 of the Constitution the petitioner Society had a fundamental right to start a school of its choice subject only to such reasonable restrictions which the State may impose in order to maintain general standards of education and security of the State and safeguard public health. It is contended for the petitioner that the teaching staff of the VIII and IX standards of the High School consists of Christians only and that there are more than 200 Christian students studying in the Primary and High School classes run by the Society. It is also contended that the High School satisfies all the requirements of R 9 of the Grant-in-Aid Code for Secondary Schools in Karnataka. The petitioner Society has made a further grievance in the petition that the Director of Secondary Education has been repeatedly publishing in the news-papers advising the parents not to send their wards to the schools of the petitioner even without refusing to recognise the school or without disposing of the applications pending before the department for permission to start the school.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. In the statement of objection they deny that the petitioner is a minority institution and is entitled to the rights under Art. 30 of the Constitution. It is also stated that the Government of Karnataka has not recognised the petitioner- institution as a minority institution within the meaning of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution. It is further stated that permission/recognition could only be given in accordance with the provisions of the Grant in Aid code for Secondary Schools in karnataka State. It is stated that when the petitioner approached for permission to start VIII standard, the department examined the claim of the petitioner for permission and after spot inspection the department felt that there was no need for starting the VIII standard and the department was not satisfied in regard to the premises, accommodation location, equipment and the like and therefore it rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly informed on 4 6-1980. It is further stated for the respondents that when the petitioner again applied for permission in the year 1981-82 and for similar reasons, the request was rejected and the endorsement was issued on 25-6-1981. It is asserted that the respondents by several press notes issued and published in the news-papers intimated the public that the High School commenced by the petitioner was unauthorised and therefore the public should not admit students to the institution. It is admitted by the respondents that one of the Inspectors of Schools having jurisdiction visited for the purpose of inspection of primary section and not for any other purpose. In these circumstances, the respondents claim that the petitioner is not entitled to the mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus which it has prayed for.