GOVERNING BODY OF SIDDHARTH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this application initially prayed for quashing of the order, contained in memo No. 629 dated 9th September, 1992, issued by the Additional Secretary, in the Human Resources Development Department, Government, Government of Bihar, Patna, respondent No. 4, (Annexure 17). Later, by a supplementary petition dated 21-12-1992, the petitioners also prayed for quashing of the order dated 2nd December, 1992. issued by the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (Annexure 19), whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioners to declare Sidharsh Manila Mahavidyalaya, Boring Cannal Road, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'), as minority teaching institution, has been rejected by the State Government.

(2.) In short, the facts of this case are that petitioner No. 2, who claims to be a religious minority organisation consisting of persons having faith in Buddhist religion, established a girls' college in the name of Lord Buddha as the College aforesaid and, further, they constituted a Governing Body for running the said College, which is petitioner No. 1 The teachers were appointed and the students were admitted in 1979-81 sessions. Admittedly, the petitioners do not have their own building of the College. Petitioner No. 1 approached the Magadh University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University") for grant of affiliation on 9-7-1980. The University vide order dated 6-10-1980 appointed the Principal of B.S. College, Danapur as one of the Inspector to inspect the College and to submit report. Accordingly, after inspection, report was submitted on 17-11-1980, a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 4/A to the writ application. The University accepted the report and recommended the case of the petitioners to the State Government for its consent for grant of affiliation to the College. The State Government vide order dated 20-11-1982 gave its consent and, accordingly, the College was granted purely temporary affiliation for three years for the Sessions 1980-81 up to Intermediate level. A true copy of the said order of the State Government is Annexure 5 to the writ application. It appears that the College was also later granted affiliation up to the Bachelor Standard which vide letter contained in Annexure 8 was extended by the State Government for three sessions without any financial liability subject to conditions mentioned in the report submitted by the Inspector.

(3.) In the meantime, an application was made by the petitioners to the University seeking declartion that the College has the protection of the provisions contained in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. The College again was inspected and the report was submitted on 15-4-1-83. The Deputy Director, Higher Education, Bihar, on the application of petitioner No. 1, called for a report from the University, vide letter dated 10th September, 1985. A photo copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ application. Again on 15th January, 1986, the Deputy Director, with reference to the earlier letter dated 10-9-1985, wrote to the University calling for the report. It appears from the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ application that the Inspector of the Colleges wrote to the Deputy Director that the Senate had rejected the claim of the petitioners about the minority character of the College whereupon the Secretary had written to the Vice-Chancellor and other members of the Senate that as the College was established by the religious minority organisation, the recommendation requires to be reconsidered In paragraph 16 of the writ application it has been contended that the University has no jurisdiction 10 reject the claim of the petitioners about the minority character of the College. However, it has been stated that the said matter was again placed for reconsideration by the Senate on 30th July, 1986 when it constituted a Subcommittee to examine the matter. According to this petitioners, the said matter remained pending and no final decision was taken. The petitioners claim to have filed several applications requesting the University and the Government to accept the minority character of the petitioner's institution. Later, University extended the affiliation and also wrote to the Government recommending for grant of affiliation/extension of affiliation to the College.