BHAGIRATHI VIDYAPITHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be a (minority institution in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India 19 (in short, the 'Constitution'), and questions authority of the Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur (opp. party no. 3) to constitute a managing committee in -terms of the provisions of Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Schools) Rues, 1991 (in short, the 'Rules'). According to the petitioner -institution which is represented through Sri Chandan Sigh Negi stated to be its President, is a Hindi medium school, and therefore, the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, the 'Act') has no application. Stand of the State is that institution is not a minority institution. Some members of staff of the institution have prayed to be impleaded as parties.

(2.) FACTS necessary to render the decision are as follows : It is the case of the petitioner that managing committee of the institution was re -constituted by order dated 13 -11 -1990 (Annexure -3) to the writ application) and is to operate for five years with effect from 15 -10 -1990 i. e . the date of approval. The Rules have no application because the petitioner is a minority institution, and even if by mistake there was no challenge to re -constituted of the managing committee by Annexure -3, that cannot be treated to be a concession or acquiescence to surrender to the jurisdiction of Inspector of Schools in the matter of constitution of the managing committee, according to the Rules. It is pleadad that the institution was established to impart education to students in Hindi medium and therefore, is a linguistically minority institution. A counter affidavit has bean filed by the State and its functionaries taking stands that the petitioner is not a minority institution; the medium of instruction in the institution is in several languages, like Oriya, Hindi and English; Hindi is taught as one of the Mordern Indian Language subjects, as revealed from the forms submitted by the institution on several occasions. It is not correct as claimed by the petitioned that the institution is a Hindi medium institution. The school in question was neither established as a minority institution, nor had recognition been granted as such, in terms of Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education Orissa in respect of Classes IX and X. There was never any claim that the institution is a minority institution. After promulgation of the Rules, Secretaries of all Non -Government Private High Schools were instructed to re -constitute the managing committees of their schools in terms of the aforesaid Rules. Instructions in this regard were imparted to all the schools by the Inspectorate by memo No. 352 dated 10 -1 1392. Since recognition was granted in the year 1986 up to Class X, the institution became eligible to receive minimum grant -in -aid with effect from 1 -3 -1990 as set out in Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1933, and schools eligible to come under the fold of minimum grant -in -aid arrangement were also treated as aided educational institution. Interestingly Sri C. 'S. Negi, President of the institution submitted proposal for approval of services of members of staff to receive minimum grant -in -aid vids his letter dated 30 -10 -1931 on the basis of which staff position of the school was approved, and the school was held to be entitled to receive minimun grant in -aid vids order No. 1503 dated 25 12 1992. Since the institution has become eligible to receive minimum grant -in -aid with effect from 1 -3 -1990, reconstitution is to be made in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules, and not under Rule 15 as claimed in the writ application. The managing committes of various institutions caused to continue in office on reconstitution of the committees in terms of the Rules within the time stipulated i.e. up to 17 -4 -1992. Therefore, the question of continuance of the managing committee up to 16 -10 -1995 as claimed is misconceived. According to members of staff. who have prayed to be impleaded, the institution is not minority institution as claimed, and on the contrary it is an aided educational institution and with oblique motives the writ application has been filed.

(3.) DOES a minority institution waive its rights by receiving Government grants -in aid is another question. The relationship between Government grant -in -aid and the minority rights is relevant in determining Infringement of those rights For this purpose the educational institutions established or administered by the minorities or to be so established or administered by them in exercise of the rights conferred by that article may be classified into four categories namely, (I) those which do not seek either aid or recognition from the State; (2) those which want aid, (3) those which want only recognition but not grant -in -aid; and (4) those which want both recognition and grant -in -aid.