C B C I SOCIETY Vs. UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners in this Writ Petition have challenged the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Statutes framed by the Bangalore University in exercise of its power under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) THE material averments made in the Petition are as fol -lows: The first Petitioner is a society named Catholic Bishops' Conference of India Society (C.B.C.I. Society) for Medical Education. This is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act on 7 -2 -1961. It is a denominational organisation of the Christians which is a religious minority in this country. The object of the society, inter alia, was to establish a Medical College, as indicated in the Memorandum of Association and the rules annexed thereto (vide Annexure -A). The second Petitioner is St. John's Medical College ('the College' for short) established by the first Petitioner. The third Petitioner is the Dean of the second Respondent -College. The second Petitioner being aneducational institution established by the first Petitioner for the benefit of a religious minority is entitled to the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Bangalore University, which was formerly constituted under the Bangalore University Act, 1964, and was re -established under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, has framed Statutes regulating the service conditions of the teachers on 13 -1 -1981 (Annexure -G) and the Statutes governing conditions of affiliation to the University, on 23 -2 -1981 (Annexure -H). These statutes have been made applicable to all the affiliated colleges of the Bangalore University including the 2ndPetitioner -College. Notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee against interference in respect of administration of the colleges established by religious or linguistic minorities guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution, the Bangalore University has treated minority institution established by the 1st Petitioner just like all other affiliated colleges. The University had no power to frame and apply the statutes, the validity of which has been challenged in the Petition in so far it related to educational institutions established by linguistic or religious minorities. As the University was threatening to enforce the provisions of the statutes, it has become necessary for the Petitioners to challenge the constitutional validity of the statutes.

(3.) HAVING regard to the pleas of the Petitioners and the University, the following questions arise for consideration :