NGAMKHOLET LHANGHAL Vs. SECRETARY EDUCATION GOVT OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.11.90 of the Secretary (Education), Government of Manipur, approving shifting of Leisan Tampak Aided J.B. School from Leisan Tampak Churachandpur to Songpi Village, Churachandpur.

(2.) The facts briefly are mat the inhabitants of Leisan Tampak hill village including the petitioners are Christians by religion. They established Leisan Tampak J.B. School for providing education to their children residing in hill villages, namely Leisan Tampak including its machets/sub-villages, Phaikot, M Bungmuol, G Sorggel, Patjang, C Molphei and Molcham Khengmuol within the district of Churachandpur. After establishing the said school, the Managing Committee of the school has been administering the same with the aid received from the State Government, some contributions from the villagers and donations received from the local public. The Chairman of the earlier Managing Committee of the said school made a request to the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur to shift the said school to Songpi village. But the said request was examined and rejected by the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur in his communication dated 26.7.89 to the District Education Officer, Chuirachandpur district. Notwithstanding the said communication of the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur, the District Education Officer, Churachandpur, inspected the aforesaid school on 16.11.89 for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said school should be shifted to Songpi village and submitted a report dated 20.11.89 to the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur in which he pointed out that there was only one table and one desk in the school; and that the school building was in a very bad shape; and that the teachers were not found in the school; and that in the interest cf public, the school should be shifted to Songpi village. On the basis of the said report dated 20.11.89, the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur wrote to the Secretary (Education), Government of Manipur in his letter dated 25.9.90 to convey the approval of the Government to the proposal of shifting of the said school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi village and by order dated 16.10.90, the Secretary (Education), Government of Manipur, conveyed the approval of the Government for shifting of the said school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi village of Churachandpur district

(3.) Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that when the District Education Officer, Churachandpur, visited the school on 16.11.89, the school was closed. He referred to the notice dated 25.10.89 issued by the then Secretary of the School Managing Committee, a copy of which has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure- A/2, in which it was notified that the school will remain closed for 20 days with effect from 26.10.89 to 16.11.89 on account of harvesting holiday; and that all teachers and students should attend the school regularly with effect from 17.11.89. He further stated that as the school was closed during the aforesaid period from 26.10.89 to 16.11.89 there were obviously no teachers or students in the school on 16.11.89 when the District Education Officer , Churachandpur district visited the school. Referring to the averments made in the writ petition, Mr. Nilamani Singh submitted that the tables and desks of the school had been sent to the nearby local Church for facilitating service there and for the convenience of Christians visiting the Church. Hence it was not factually correct that the school was not [functioning properly; and that there were no tables, desks and other facilities; and that there were no teachers or students attending the school regularly. He further submitted that though on an earlier occasion, the Chairman of the Managing Committee had requested for shifting of the school, the said request had been turned down by the Director of Education(S), Government of Manipur, after examination of the same and the present Managing Committee has not made such request for shifting of the school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi village in view of the fact that such shifting of the school will deprive the local children in and around Leisan Tampak hill villages of Primary education. He pointed out that the school was a minority educational institution; and that under the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, fundamental rights has been guaranteed to religious minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. According to Mr. Nilamani Singh, such rights to establish and administer educational institution of their choice would include their right to choose the place where the educational institution would be established and the State Government would infringe the said fundamental right by directing shifting of the said school from Leisan Tampak to Songpi Village. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association Vs. Union of India and others, (1986) 4 SCC 707 in support of his aforesaid submission. Mr. Nilamani Singh further contended that the State Government has no authority whatsoever under the law to interfere with the administration of the aforesaid school by directing shifting of the said school to another village and it is settled position of law that every act done by the Government or by its officers must, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, be supported by some legislative authority (Rennet Coleman & Co. Limited and others Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1973 SC 106).