SHRI GURU NANAK KHALSA COLLEGE & HIGHER v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & Ors.

:: 24/04/2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. N. BHANDARI Mr. M.S.Singhvi, for Petitioner (s). Mr. M.R.Singhvi, for Respondent No.3. Mr. K.L.Thakur, AAG, for State. Heard Mr. M.S.Singhvi, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. M. R. Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. K.L.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Substantially, this writ application was filed challenging the letter dated 20th January, 2007 as contained in Annexure-8, issued by the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby and whereunder, a direction was issued to the petitioner – institution to show compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3241/2000 by appointing the senior most 2 teacher to act as the Principal in charge in absence of the duly selected Principal. The petitioner – Shri Guru Nanak Khalsa College and Higher Secondary School, Sri Ganganagar is said to be a minority institution established under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the status of the institution, no outside interference was needed in day-to-day affairs of the administration of the College in question.

It is also submitted that the Commissioner of College Education has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter by issuing the letter as contained in Annexure-8, nor there was any direction of the Apex Court with regard to the functioning of the petitioner's College as decided in Civil Appeal No.3241/2000. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner- College though receives grants-in-aid from the State Government, cannot be governed by the dictates of the Administrative Authorities in day-to-day affairs. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and also State Counsel, on the contrary, submitted that the 3 College in question is not a recognized minority college and the Commissioner of College Education has merely issued direction to appoint the senior most teacher as Principal in charge in compliance of certain directions issued by the Apex Court and, therefore, no interference would be required.

It is not in dispute that the College in question was a minority institution as established under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. This question, as it appears from the material on record, was raised before this Court and this Court vide order as contained in Annexure-2 held the petitioner to be a minority institution. It is settled by various judgments of the Apex Court so far minority institutions are concerned, that no interference is required in day-to-day business of its administration, except in the matter of grants-in-aid. The State Authorities can only regulate the grants given to the college in question, but in no way they can interfere in business of the college. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Secy., Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose, 2007 (1) SCC 386. Besides the question, it appears that the Apex Court, 4 while dealing with some other matters, made certain observations in Civil Appeal No.3241/2000 and no decision, however, was rendered or directions issued in regard to the petitioner's institution.

The Commissioner of College Education, in that view of the matter, wholly erred in directing the petitioner – institution to comply with the direction of the Apex Court. So far as status of the institution is concerned, has not been questioned, nor it was the question before the Commissioner of College Education. The writ application was admitted only so far the order impugned as contained in Annexure-8 is concerned and we have to see the propriety of the order as contained in Annexure-8. In view of settled law as referred to above, per se it appears from Annexure-8 that the Commissioner of College Education tried to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the institution, without having any authority in law. We have already referred that so far the grants-in-aid is concerned, that may be regulated by the authority but not otherwise. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the direction given in the letter as contained in Annexure-8 5 dated 20/01/2007 is held to be wholly without jurisdiction.