HARMAL PANCHAKROSHI SHIKSHAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the recognition/permission granted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the respondent No. 4 for starting a middle school in the year 1985 and classes VIII and IX in the years 1988 and 1989. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the recognition/permission granted to respondent No. 4 has been in violation of Rule 3(i) of the Grant -in -aid Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Old Rules'), second and third clauses of the Third Proviso to Rule 31(3) and Rules 37(ii) and 37(xx) of the Goa, Oman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'New Rules'). The Goa, Daman and Diu school Education Act, 1984 under which the New Rules were framed will hereinafter be referred to as the 'New Act'. Both the New Act and Rules came into force with effect from 22nd November, 1986.

(2.) IN its affidavit -in -reply, the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent society) staled that representing a religious minority, it opened a school and as such it was entitled to the protection granted under Article 30(1) of the constitution of India. It was stated that the management and control over the school is under the Archbishop of Goa and other priests. The School is to cater the needs of the Roman Catholic population of the town. The education was to be in the background of Catholic Religion. 84% of the students were from Roman Catholic Community. The Roman Catholic Christian population in the territory of Goa, Daman and Diu was 33%. Permission to open the school was obtained under the Old Rules in the year 1981. At that time the permission was for a primary school only. Permission to open up standard V was granted in the year 1985 which was again under the Old Rules as the New Rules had come into force with effect from November 1986. It was further stated that most of the students in the middle and secondary school were from their own school and that until then the school had not admitted any student from the petitioner school.

(3.) THE petitioner No. 1 filed affidavit -in -re -joinder dated March 20, 1989 questioning almost all averments made by the respondent society in its aforesaid two affidavits and in particular disputing its minority status.