JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Daughters of the cross, a society registered under the west Bengal Societies Registration Act 1961 and 9 others claiming to be President and members of the Managing committee of St. Agnes Convent school. They challenge the action of the State Government and the Assist that Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools, west Bengal. One Mrs. Augustine who was an erstwhile teacher in the said school has also been made respondent as respondent no. 6 to this application. The main challenge in this application centre round the order dated 17th of march, 1978. The said order reads as follows : "1. Whereas it appears that St. Agnes's Convent School, situated at 1, king's Road, Howrah, has no governing Body duly constituted in conformity with provisions of Ch. II of the Code of Regulations for european (now Anglo Indian)Schools in Bengal (now West bengal), 1929. And Whereas the said school has failed to maintain proper records, to maintain the desired standard of discipline and to appoint adequate number of properly qualified teachers. Now, therefore, the Government in the Education Dept. is pleased to appoint, in the public interest, Shri k. M. Parvat Asst. Inspector in anglo Indian Schools as the administrator of the said school to exercise the powers and to perform the duties and functions of the governing body and do all such things as may be considered necessary for proper functioning of the said school till such time as a governing Body is duly constituted. By Order of the Governor Sr. K. P. Banerjee dy. Secretary to the 17. 3. 78. Govt. of W. B. " The other challenge relates to the order of stoppage of payment of dearness allowances and the order of reinstatement of Mrs. Augustine as a teacher of the said school. 2. IN order to appreciate the contentions and the challenge it is necessary to refer to certain backgrounds. It is stated that as early as August, 1880 daughters of the Cross St. Agnes's Con vent School, popularly known as St. Agnes's Convent School, was established at no. 1, King's Road Howard, by the congregation of the Daughters of the Cross which was a religious organisation, composed of members professing the Catholic faith. One Sister maria, Superiors of St. It is stated that as early as August, 1880 daughters of the Cross St. Agnes's Con vent School, popularly known as St. Agnes's Convent School, was established at no. 1, King's Road Howard, by the congregation of the Daughters of the Cross which was a religious organisation, composed of members professing the Catholic faith. One Sister maria, Superiors of St. Vincent's home, it is stated on behalf of the petitioners, took the initiative in establishing the School and the sisters during the initial days of the school according to the narration of the petitioners, had to attend the school by crossing the river highly by boat. The management of the school was entrusted with a Managing committee nominated by and formed under the guidance of the Provincial superior of the Calcutta Province of the Daughters of the Cross. It is. the case of the petitioners that all the religious congregations including Daughters of the Cross professing the Roman Catholic faith are constituted and function according to Canon Law i. e. laws of the Roman Catholic Church. The authority over the members of a religious congregation and its various institutions of any particular territory, according to the Canon Law, is exercised, according to the petitioners, for the said territory by a superior appointed by the superior General of the whole Congregation. In case of religious congregation of the Daughters of the Cross, all the members of the Congregation, and all its institutions in West Bengal were directly under the jurisdiction of the sister Provincial of Calcutta, who used to be appointed for a fixed period by the Superior General of the whole congregation. St. Agnes's School, Howrah, being one of the educational institutions constituted and run by he daughters of the Cross and situated within the jurisdiction of the Sister Provincial of Calcutta, the ultimate power of administration of the said school was, according to the petitioner vested in the said Sister Provincial. The said sister Provincial in exercise of power and authority vested in her constituted the Managing Committee of the school by nominating its members and filled up vacancies as might occur due to death or otherwise by nominating new members. The said Managing Committee, was according to the petitioners, entitled to establish and administer the school in accordance with the direction and supervision of the said Sister Provincial. The said Managing Committee, was according to the petitioners, entitled to establish and administer the school in accordance with the direction and supervision of the said Sister Provincial. In this connection the petitioners have relied upon in this application on an affidavit of Lawrence Cardinal piracy S. J. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Calcutta. I shall have occasion to refer to the said affidavit later. The school is affiliated to the Council of Indian School certificates. The said council issues rules and circulars regarding syllabus and examination. There are, issues rules and circulars regarding syllabus and examination. There are, however, according to the petitioners, no rules framed by the Council for the administration of the school. The school was recognised by the then Provincial Government of Bengal and is still recognised by the Government of west Bengal. The Government of Bengal in or about 1929 had framed a cede known as the Code of Regulation for european Schools in Bengal which is now known as the "code of Regulation for European" (now Anglo Indian) Schools in Bengal (now West Bengal)1929. The petitioners state that the St. Agnes's School is an Anglo Indian School within the meaning of the said Code i would have occasion to refer to the said Code later. It does not appear, however, that the said Code was framed by the Government in exercise of any legislative power. According to the petitioners the said Code contains only administrative instructions. It is also necessary to note that the Government of west Bengal has from time to time issue 1 various notifications and orders grant-in-aid to the high schools in West Bengal members of the teaching staff of the school like all other recognised school used to get Rs. 162/- per month, Clerical staffs used to get Rs. 139. 50 per month and Class IV staffs used to get rs. 138. 50 per month as deranges allowances. The genesis of trouble leading to the present application according to the petitioners is the action taken against one Mrs. Augustine a member of the teaching staff of the school. It is stated that on or about 1st of January, 1970 a letter was issued appointing Mr. Augustine as a member of the teaching staff of the school on probation for on year. Augustine a member of the teaching staff of the school. It is stated that on or about 1st of January, 1970 a letter was issued appointing Mr. Augustine as a member of the teaching staff of the school on probation for on year. The letter of appointment, it stated, stipulated that probates might be extended for another year doing which time the agreement might be terminated with one month's notice on either side, in default of which on month's salary must be remitted. It further provided that at the end of the said 1 period the drawing up of a formal agreement between the teacher of the management would be taken up. According to Mr. Augustine in her affidavit in this rule no formal agreement was. in fact drawn up. It is stated that Daughters of the Cross was registered as society under the West Bengal Societies registration Act, 1961 interalia, with the object to perform, do all such things may be deemed necessary or expediter for the education of youth, pursuit of science and general diffusion of sociamoral religious and secular knowledge in accordance with the charitable, dedicational, moral and religious principles of the Daughters of the Cross, hereinafter known as the Congregation. This is the first object of the society. There were, seven members of the Governing Body and rules, and regulations have been provided as required under the Societies Registration Act, 1961. Only members of the Congregation are eligible to be members of the society. 'provincial' has been defined to mean the member of the congregation appointed Head of the province of Calcutta. It is further provided in the rules of the said registered society that the Provincial for the time being shall be President of the Society and during her absence through illness or otherwise such member of the Governing Body as shall be nominated by the president shall act as the President of the Society. The rules provided for membership and other ancillary matters. The rules also provided for convening of general Meetings which are described as Annual General Meetings and Extraordinary General Meetings. The businesses to be conducted at the Anural General Meeting are also provided and how the proceedings at the General meetings will be conducted have been stipulated. The rules provided for membership and other ancillary matters. The rules also provided for convening of general Meetings which are described as Annual General Meetings and Extraordinary General Meetings. The businesses to be conducted at the Anural General Meeting are also provided and how the proceedings at the General meetings will be conducted have been stipulated. The rules and regulations further stipulate that the Governing body shall consist of the President and not less than six other members of the society who' shall be appointed to the governing Body and may be removed there from at any time by the President at her discretion. The members of the first Governing Body are stipulated and it is further provided that any casual vacancy which may occur in the Governing Body by reason of resignation or otherwise may be filled up by the President. The rules also stipulate the procedure to be followed by the Governing body. The rules and regulation prescribe that the management and control of the Society shall be vested in the governing Body who shall be entitled to exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as the Society is authorised to do under the Act. The rules and regulations also provide for other ancillary matters like accounts, appointment of auditor etc. 3. IT is stated that on or about 7th of October, 1974 two teachers, one Mrs. Augustine and another Mrs. Vulson were alleged to have been found fighting with each other within the school premises. It is the case of the petitioners that on being reported of the said incident the Head Teacher of the said school decided on the same day to suspend the said two teachers from services of the school on and from 7th of October, 1974 and requested the Secretary of the school to communicate the said decision to- the teachers concerned and referred the matter before the Managing committee. Sister T. Antony, acting as secretary of the school by two separate letters dated 7th of October, 1974 communicated to the teachers concerned the said decision. A show cause notice was issued according to the petitioners to Mrs. Augustine as to why her services should not be terminated. On the 29th of October, 1974 Mrs. Augustine replied to the said show cause notice. A show cause notice was issued according to the petitioners to Mrs. Augustine as to why her services should not be terminated. On the 29th of October, 1974 Mrs. Augustine replied to the said show cause notice. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that on or about 4th of December, 1974 a two-member committee consisting of father Verstraeton, President of the managing Committee and one Dr. S. K. Sen, a member of the Managing committee gave a personal hearing to mrs. Augustine on behalf of the Managing Committee. According to Mrs. Augustine, however, at the relevant time there was no properly constituted Governing Body. On 8th of December, 1974 the Managing Committee passed a reisolution terminating the services of mrs. Augustine and Mrs. vulson by offering three months salary in lieu of notices. The said decision of the Managing Committee was communicated to mrs. Augustine by the letter of the secretary dated 9th of December, 1974. On the 17th of December, 1974, Mrs. Augustine instead of receiving her dues in terms of the letter of termination filed a suit being Title Suit No. 180 of 1974 before the learned Fourth Munsif, howrah. On her application the learned Munsif was pleased to pass ah ad interim order of injunction on the same day in the said suit as prayed for by her. On the 23rd of December, 1974 the defendants to the suit entered appearance. On or about 11th of January, 1975 two applications were moved in the said suit on behalf of the defendants, one for stay of the operation of the exparte order passed on 17th of December; 1974 and the other for vacating or varying; the interim order dated 17th of December, 1974. The learned Fourth Munsif upon hearing the parties was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 17th of December, 1974 and gave directions for filing affidavits in the application for injunction as well as the application for variation. On or about 10th of june, 1975 after the affidavits were completed the learned Munsif by judgment and order was pleased to dismiss the application for injunction, inter alia holding that the plaintiff has not acquired any statutory status, the Code of regulations of European Schools in Bengal have no statutory force. On or about 10th of june, 1975 after the affidavits were completed the learned Munsif by judgment and order was pleased to dismiss the application for injunction, inter alia holding that the plaintiff has not acquired any statutory status, the Code of regulations of European Schools in Bengal have no statutory force. The learned munsif, further, held that the plaintiff, has failed to establish that the order of suspension and the order, of dismissal were prima facie illegal. The learned munsif also came to a finding that the order of suspension was passed by the head Mistress of the school and the same had been communicated to the two teachers by the Secretary of the school. The learned Munsif, further, held that Mrs. Augustine had been given opportunity to appear before a committee consisting of Rev. Father verstraeton and Dr. S. K. Sen. . it is stated that on the 7th of July, 1975 Mrs. Augustine preferred an appeal against the order dated 10th of June, 1975 in respect of rejecting her application for temporary injunction. The said appeal was numbered as MIS. Appeal No. 109 of 1975. The learned District Judge on her application was pleased to jassan exparte ad interim order restraining the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school from giving effect to the order of mention and further directed the president and the Secretary of the Managing Committee to deposit the salary of Mrs. Augustine month by month with effect from July, 1975. The learned district Judge was further pleased direct that Mrs. Augustine should join the school till the disposal of appeal. Thereafter on or about 14th of august, 1975 Mrs. Augustine moved an application under Article 226 of the constitution before this High Court challenging the order of suspension dated 7th of October, 1974. It may be mentioned here that before the learn munsif one of the objections raised on behalf of the Managing Committee was that according to the Code of Regulation for European (now Anglo India)School in Bengal now West Bengal, 1929, mrs. Augustine's right if any was o move the Government and not to go : o the Court. This factor is being mentions d because there is a contention raised on behalf of the respondents in this application that the-petitioners are taking inconsistent attitude in this application. Augustine's right if any was o move the Government and not to go : o the Court. This factor is being mentions d because there is a contention raised on behalf of the respondents in this application that the-petitioners are taking inconsistent attitude in this application. However, in the application dated-14th of August 1975 referred to hereinbefore the State of West Bengal as well as the Head Mistress of the school amongst others were made party respondents. The said application was marked as Civil Rule No. 15425 (W) of 1975. In the said proceedings the members of the Managing Committee, according to the petitioners, for the first time came to know that Mr. Augustine had made a representation to the Government of West Bengal in respect of the termination of her services. It must, however, be mentioned that in the petition a copy of the said representation upon which Mrs. Augustine was basing her claim in the application had been annex therefore, at least from that time oil ward the petitioners were aware of the representation made by Mrs. Augustine. On the 1st of September, 1976 Appeal no. 109175 was disposed of by the First additional District Judge who held : "that the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. The order complained of is hereby affirmed. " 4. ON or about 2nd of September, 1976 the said Civil Rule No. 15425 (W)of 1975 came up for hearing and was disposed of by Mr. Justice M. M. Dutt in view of the contentions raised in this application it is necessary to set out in extension the order of Mr. Justice m. M. Dutt. "the petitioner Mrs. A. Augustine is a teacher of St. Agnes School, howrah. It is not in dispute that the said school is governed by the code of Regulation for European (Anglo-Indian) Schools in Bengali (Now West Bengal), 1929. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent No. 6 who claims to be Head Mistress of the school. Against the order of her termination the petitioner has submitted a written representation to the Inspector of European Schools, west Bengal. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent No. 6 who claims to be Head Mistress of the school. Against the order of her termination the petitioner has submitted a written representation to the Inspector of European Schools, west Bengal. In this connection it may be stated that paragraph 4 of chapter III of the said regulations" provides as follows : "no teacher may be dismissed either summarily or with due notice save by the Governing Body who shall in all cases of summary dismissal immediately report the fact with full particulars to the Inspector. A teacher, who considers himself or herself unjustly dismissed, shall be permitted to make representation to the Inspector of European Schools, bengal and the Governing Body shall in such case defer final action until they shall have received from the Inspector an expression of his views The petitioner also instituted a suit challenging the order of her termination. The suit is still pending. Strictly speaking due to the pendency of the suit, the writ application is not maintainable. But Mr. Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal states that the Government will see that the representation made by the petitioner to the Inspector of european Schools is disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The respondent no. 1, the State of West Bengal, supports the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that the Inspector of european Schools has authority to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner and that his decision will be binding upon the parties including the school authorities. On behalf of the respondent no. 6, the Head Mistress, it has been argued that no writ application is maintainable for the purpose of enforcement of the said paragraph 4 of the Regulations as the Regulations have no statutory force and that they are mere executive instructions. In the suit one of the objections taken on behalf of the respondent no. 6 was that, if the petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of termination, she could prefer an appeal to the Inspector of European schools. In the suit one of the objections taken on behalf of the respondent no. 6 was that, if the petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of termination, she could prefer an appeal to the Inspector of European schools. Be that as it may, as the respondent No. 1, the State of west Bengal, is willing to have the representation made by the petitioner disposed of in accordance with law, i do not think that the technical objection to the maintainability of the writ petition will stand in the way of such disposal. The State of west Bengal and the respondent no. 4 the Deputy director of Public Instruction for anglorlndian Schools, art directed to see that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the order of her termination is disposed of within two months from date as suggested by Mr. Bose. " It is stated that between 15th of September, 1976 to 21st of September, 1976 the Deputy Director of Public instructions for Anglo Indian Schools being respondent no. 2 herein by letters called upon the school authorities to appear before him with all necessary papers in connection with the termination of the services of Mrs. Augustine. It is stated that on the 27th of September, 1976, the Secretary of the School being petitioner no. 4 herein appeared before the respondent no. 4 on the 27th of September, 1976. The Secretary was directed to come again with all the relevant papers. It is stated that the secretary informed the said respondent that all the papers had been handed over to the learned advocate of the school for filing in connection with the pending cases in Howrah Court. It is alleged that on or about 7th of January, 1977 the respondent no. 4 sent another [letter to the school authority to appear before him which was replied by the school authorities by a letter dated 13th of January, 1977. The school authorities although could not produce the papers connected with the termination of the services of Mrs. Augustine the Secretary of the school, however forwarded a copy of the order passed by the learned fourth Munsif, Howrah refusing to pass the interim order of injunction as prayed for by Mrs. Augustine in the suit filed by her. On or about 24th of February, 1977 the respondent no. Augustine the Secretary of the school, however forwarded a copy of the order passed by the learned fourth Munsif, Howrah refusing to pass the interim order of injunction as prayed for by Mrs. Augustine in the suit filed by her. On or about 24th of February, 1977 the respondent no. 4 who is deputy Director of Public Instruction (Anglo Indian School, West Bengal) by a: letter requested the Secretary of the governing Body of the school to appear before him for hearing along with the relevant papers connected with the termination of the services of Mrs. Augustine including the Minute Book of the Governing Body on 2nd of March, 1977 at 12-15 p. m. It was further stated that in case of non-compliance hearing would be taken up exparte for expression of views on the matter of termination of services of Mrs. Augustine. The Secretary of the school, on or about 2nd of March, 1977 in reply to the letter dated 24th of February, 1977 informed the respondent no. 4 that no copy of the representation made by Mrs. Augustine had yet been served upon the institution and as such the school authorities were not in a position to submit any effective objection. Without prejudice however to the preliminary objection that the decision of the Governing Body not being an exparte one, no appeal lay against the said decision, the respondent no. 4 was requested by the petitioners to advice Mrs. Augustine to serve copy of the representation to the school authorities. This seems to me to be purposeless because as I have mentioned before in the petition filed before the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution a copy of such representation had been annexed. The said respondent was further requested to stay his hands in the matter till a copy of the said representation was served. It is the case of the petitioners that the same letter dated 22nd of March, 1977 was delivered by Peon Book on the same day and the respondent no. 4 had received it before the time fixed for hearing. It is stated that a copy of the said letter was also sent by Registered A D. The said respondent however did not send any reply to the said letter. 4 had received it before the time fixed for hearing. It is stated that a copy of the said letter was also sent by Registered A D. The said respondent however did not send any reply to the said letter. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no denial that the letter dated 22nd of March, 1977 was served and received by the respondent no. 4 before the time for hearing fixed by him on the 22nd of march, 1977. On the 22nd of March, 1977 respondent no. 4 by a letter forwarded a copy of the memorandum dated 18th of March, 1977 containing his views with regard to the termination of the services of Mrs. Augustine. The said respondent held, inter-alia as follows : considering the fact and circumstances of the case it appears that adequate opportunity for self defence was not given to Mrs. Augustine before dismissal was ordered. "the management does not appear to be fair in their dealings with a teacher of the school who had been serving the institution since January 1970. In view of the facts of the case I express this view that the suspension of Mrs. Augustine followed by dismissal by the school management has not been fair and not done strictly according to rules. " 5. ON or about 29th of March, 1977 the Secretary of the School by a letter to the respondent no. 4 acknowledged receipt of his letter dated 21st of march, 1977. In that letter complaint was made on behalf of the petitioners that no action had been taken to serve upon the institution any copy of the representation made before the respondent no. 4 by Mrs. Augustine. As I have mentioned before strictly and formally that assertion of the petitioners may be correct but the petitioners were aware or should have been aware of the representation made by Mrs. Augustine to the respondent no. 4 in view of the fact that a copy of the representation had been annexed with the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Mrs. Augustine before the high Court. The petitioners in that letter dated 29th of March, 1977, however, contended that an exparte view had been taken without giving due opportunity to the petitioners as prayed for in violation of the principles of natural justice. Augustine before the high Court. The petitioners in that letter dated 29th of March, 1977, however, contended that an exparte view had been taken without giving due opportunity to the petitioners as prayed for in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners further contended that the matter was subjoined in a competent Court of Law and the case had not been withdrawn from, the howrah Court by Mrs. Augustine. The petitioners further stated that the matter would be placed before the Governing body of the Institution for necessary direction. It is alleged by the petitioners that on or about 4th of April, 1977, 5th of april, 1977 and 6th of April 1977, Mrs. Augustine forced her entry into the school premises, took the teachers attendance register and made an entry of her name in the register without the permission of the school authorities. She also stayed inside the school premises it was alleged throughout the working hours causing disturbance in the normal function of the school. On or about 6th of April, 1977 an emergency meeting of the Governing Body of the school was held at the school premises to consider the memorandum of the Deputy director of Public Instructions (Anglo Indian Schools, West Bengal) and the repeat of what the petitioners described as unseemly conduct of Mrs. Augustine in the school premises on the 4th, 5th and 6th of April, 1977. It is alleged that between 16th of April, 1977 and January, 1978, several proceedings were initiated in the Civil and Criminal courts Howrah in respect of the alleged illegal and forgeable entry of Mr. Augustine in the school premises the school authorities filed Title Suit No. 71 of 1977 against Mrs. Augustine and moved an application for interim injunction restraining Mr. Augustine from entering into the school premises. No ad-interim order was, however, passed and direction for filing affidavits were given and notice to show cause was issued. It is further alleged by the petitioners that one Sree ramanand, the Durwan of the school was assaulted by Mrs. Augustine for which it was further alleged that he had to be hospitalized in the How rah General hospital. The said Sree Ramanand filed a criminal case against Mrs. Augustine under Sections 323/325/503. In the application filed by Mrs. It is further alleged by the petitioners that one Sree ramanand, the Durwan of the school was assaulted by Mrs. Augustine for which it was further alleged that he had to be hospitalized in the How rah General hospital. The said Sree Ramanand filed a criminal case against Mrs. Augustine under Sections 323/325/503. In the application filed by Mrs. Augustine under Section 144 Criminal Procedure code the Executive Magistrate, Howrah was pleased to pass an order for status quo, namely, to allow free ingress and egress on 22nd of January, 1978. However, upon hearing the parties the said order of status due was vacated on 31st of January, 1978. On 31st of October 1977 the Assistant Inspector of Schools, sree K. M. Parvat, respondent no. 5 by a letter informed the Head Mistress of the school that he would be visiting the school on 4th November, 1977 for inspection and directed certain records to be kept ready. On the 1st of November, 1977 the Deputy Director of Public instruct Otis by a letter to the Head mistress of the School informed that he had been directed to advise the Head mistress to re-instate Mrs. Augustine in her post as a teacher of the school immediately. The Head Mistress was also requested to report to his office immediately about the action taken in this regard. On the 4th of November, 1977, respondent no. 5 the Assistant Inspector of Anglo Indian School visited the school. As good deal has been made of the report that he had made it would be necessary to refer to that report which has been annexed to the affidavit of kailash Nath Parvat affirmed on the 4th of April, 1978 and filed in this proceedings. In the said report after setting out what he stated to be rules that a recognised and aided Anglo Indian school were required to follow Sree Parvat stated in his report that there was was no regular Head Mistress of the school at the time when he visited the school. He further stated that Rev. Sr. Anthony could not inform him clearly anything about the Governing Body. The acting Head Mistress was alleged to have informed respondent no. 5 that the latest date of the reconstitution of the governing Body given by her was October, 1956. It is, further, alleged that the acting. He further stated that Rev. Sr. Anthony could not inform him clearly anything about the Governing Body. The acting Head Mistress was alleged to have informed respondent no. 5 that the latest date of the reconstitution of the governing Body given by her was October, 1956. It is, further, alleged that the acting. Head Mistress could not produce the Minute Book of the Governing body for the last 5 years because the same was in the custody of the Howrah munsif Court IV, since the case regardling Mr. Augustine's dismissal was pending there. She, however, showed to the Inspector a small register which according to her was the present Minute book of the Governing Body. According to the Inspector in the said Minute Book the resolution of only three meetings were recorded and the dates of those meetings were 15th of February, 1976, 7th of April, 1977 and 27th of June, 1977. The names of the members of the governing Body were also indicated to the Inspector. It was further indicated that from the Minute Book that names of all the members had been recorded on the dates of the meeting by one person and at the end Rev. Fr. Versatraeton has signed. It is alleged that in the minute Book the members of the Governing Body did not seem to have signed their presence in the meeting. According to the Inspector meetings of the governing Body were not held regularly and there was a gap of more than a year between the two meetings dated 15th of February, 1976 and 6th of April, 1977. According to the Inspector there should have been at least four meetings according to the Code of Regulations for Anglo Indian School between February, 1976 and April, 1977. The Inspector further complained that no procedure was followed for reconstitution of the Governing Body. According to the Inspector there has been frequent changes of the heads of the school after 1973, In 1974 rev. Sr. Joseph was transferred to St. Joseph's School, Matagorda. She had been the Principal and Secretary to the school for quite a long time. After she left, according to the Inspector there was no stability in the post of Principal (Headmistress). The latest Headmistress was Rev. Sr. Dorothy Adam who was on long sick leave. Sr. Joseph was transferred to St. Joseph's School, Matagorda. She had been the Principal and Secretary to the school for quite a long time. After she left, according to the Inspector there was no stability in the post of Principal (Headmistress). The latest Headmistress was Rev. Sr. Dorothy Adam who was on long sick leave. It was alleged by the Inspector that there was a strong belief among some of the senior teachers of the school that Sr. Anthony was responsible for frequent changes of Head mistress and since the reopening of the school after Summer Vacation in June, 1977, Rev. St. Anthony had assumed charge of the school as Acting Headmistress. In the said report the Inspector further, interalia, stated as follows : "as regards the qualification of rev. Sr. T. Anthony she stated en the date of inspection that she is a senior Cambridge and after that she did her teachers training course. It is, thus clear that she does not possess proper qualifications to become the Headmistress of the school. However, it has to be admitted that sr. . T. Anthony is a competent and capable lady leaving aside the the question of her proper qualification to hold the post of a Headmistress of a high school or even to be senior teacher in top classes of a high School. She is soft spoken, gentle and very intelligent. Teaching staff : the names and qualifications of teachers are enclosed hereto. Of the 28 teachers who are drawing government Dearness allowance only 14 appear to have undergone teachers training course which amounts to 50% of the staff only. As per rules at least 75% teachers must be trained in order to get recognition. It is thus expected that a recognised school should maintain at least 75% trained staff if it is not possible to have all the teachers trained. There is not dearth of Teachers Training Colleges in Calcutta and Howrah now. It has been found in course of inspection of the school that the teachers of the school are divided into two groups. Majority of teachers who are either new or less qualified or less experienced are pro management. Some of the teachers who are more qualified or more experienced seems to be very critical of the school authorities particularly Rev. Sr. Majority of teachers who are either new or less qualified or less experienced are pro management. Some of the teachers who are more qualified or more experienced seems to be very critical of the school authorities particularly Rev. Sr. T. Anthony who is the Secretary of the Governing Body and acting Headmistress of the school at present. Such teachers feel that there should be a properly qualified and experienced headmistress in the school or alternatively a Government officer should be appointed as Administrator of the school, so that the state of affairs in the school can be improved. General Discipline : St. Agnes' Convent School has been always famous for its discipline among the students. Although, it cannot be very emphatically said that there is no discipline among the students and staff, it seems to be evident that general discipline of students and staff has deteriorated perhaps due to absence of a proper Headmistress and group is among the teachers. It will be better for this prestigious Institution if immediate steps are taken to see that general discipline does not further deteriorate. Provident Fund of teachers The school authorities maintain separate pass Books at the Local Post Office for depositing the contribution of provident Funds of teachers. These pass Books were checked and it was found that Provident Fund money upto October, 1977 is deposited. Attendance Registers for the teachers : the school authorities maintain Attendance registers for teachers. Mrs. A. Augustine has signed attendance Register on 4th April, 1977 and on 8th and 9th August, 1977. According to the Acting Headmistress, mrs. Augustine did not come to school on 8th August but on 9th August, 1977 she got the attendance Register and signed for both the 8th and 9th August, 1977 by force. The Acting Head Mistress also reported that Mrs. Augustine does not come to school regularly but whenever she comes, she creates troubles here. The Attendance Register is not kept in the school office to prevent Mrs. Augustine from signing her name. On the date of inspection that is on 4th November 1977 no current teachers' Attendance Register was available. It is doubtful whether the teachers Attendance Register is regularly marked. It is believe that teachers are asked to sign attendance Register for many day: on a particular day. This information is based on oral statement of some teachers who likes to be unidentified. It is doubtful whether the teachers Attendance Register is regularly marked. It is believe that teachers are asked to sign attendance Register for many day: on a particular day. This information is based on oral statement of some teachers who likes to be unidentified. Class Teacher of Mrs. Augustine's daughter: Miss Elizabeth augustine i. e., Mrs. Augustine's daughter is in class IV-B. Miss neolam Sukla is her class teacher. It is believed that Mr. Augustine directs her daughter to behave with teachers improperly so that some confusion may arise and she can get chances of scolding teachers. Miss Sukla reported that at least on one occasion she got fainted in the school due to troubles created by Mrs. Augustine. Majority of teachers reported that they are scared of Mrs. Augustine and her daughter. They do not like to talk with Mrs. Augustine or be the class teacher of her daughter's class. Mrs. A. Augustine : Majority of teachers does not like Mrs. Augustine's joining the school. But some of the senior teachers feel that Mrs. Augustine's reinstatement will pave way for security of services of other teachers and therefore they feel that the Government should do something for Mrs. Augustine so that she can be immediately allowed to resume her duties in the school. Although Mrs. Augustine does not seem to be a soft spoken and very well-behaved lady as per the statements of many teachers of St. Agnes's School, it is reported so, perhaps because such teachers may be acting under the direction of the school authorities to report to me in this way so that the Government may not be very sympathetic with Mrs. A. Augustine, However, it may not ruled out that Mrs. Augustine is not a hot-tempered-lady. But it does not mean that a hot tempered person should be unnecessarily blamed and be dismissed. In such case it is the nature of the person that is at fault and the person concerned should be approached friendly and sympathetically otherwise the things take undesirable trend of which the present case may be a model example. To sum up it may be stated that the constitution and functioning of the Governing Body of St. Agness school, Howrah do not seem to be fully regular,' methodical and shrilly as per rules. To sum up it may be stated that the constitution and functioning of the Governing Body of St. Agness school, Howrah do not seem to be fully regular,' methodical and shrilly as per rules. To certain extent it appears to be in the hands of a few selected persons who are most probably managing the school in the name of the Governing Body. It could not be ascertained from documents available whether these few persons are duly authorised to act so. There seems to be some clear grounds on which steps may be taken to regularise the state of affairs in the school in which three points (1)Proper constitution of the Governing body, (2) Proper functioning of the governing Body with regular meetings, (3) Proper maintenance of records of presence of members and minutes of the meetings of the Governing Body appear to be most important. I would like to end this report by stating clearly that these are my findings based on personal understanding of the situation and also on reports that I could gather from teachers without any prejudice to any one concerned. I would also like to express my sincere thanks for sincere co-operation that Rev. Sr. Anthony extended to me during inspection. 6. AS mentioned hereinbefore respondent no. 5 submitted a report recommending to take steps to regularise the state of affairs on (l) Proper constitution of the governing body, (2) Proper Functioning of the governing Body with regular meeting and (3) Proper Maintenance of records of presence of members and minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body. According to the petitioners the copy of the said report was however not sent to the school at any time prior to this application. The Secretary of the school however on the 18th of November, 1977 informed the respondent no. 4 that his letter would be placed before the Governing Body for consideration. It was further alleged that the services of Mrs. Augustine were not terminated by way of dismissal. A copy of the letter dated l0th of November, 1977 addressed to mrs. Augustine was also forwarded to respondent No. 4. 4 that his letter would be placed before the Governing Body for consideration. It was further alleged that the services of Mrs. Augustine were not terminated by way of dismissal. A copy of the letter dated l0th of November, 1977 addressed to mrs. Augustine was also forwarded to respondent No. 4. On the 23rd of December 1977 the Director of Public Instruction by a letter called upon the Headmistress of the school to show cause as to why the Government Dearness Allowance paid to the school should not be stopped and the recognition of the school should not be withdrawn for non-compliance with the directions given by Government. The school was closed for christmas Vacation form the 24th of December, 1977. On or about 4th of January, 1978 the Secretary of the school made a representation to the Ministering-charge stating all the facts with a request to direct the D. P. I. to stay all ex-part proceedings so far as taken against the school till the decision about the propriety of the action was taken by the Governing Body which was subjoined. The Deputy Director of Public Instruction for Anglo Indian Schools informed the Headmistress on the 5th of January, 1978 that the Government has decided to stop the deamess allowances paid to the school due to non-compliance with instructions issued from his office. The Headmistress, was advised not to submit any government dearness allowances, bill to the office. On the 31st of January, 1978 the Secretary of the school by g letter written by her lawyer submitted that St. Agnes's Convent School was established, run and administered by a, minority community. The order and or directions dated 1st of November, 1977, 23rd of December, 1977 and 5th of January, 1978 were violative of Article 30 of the Constitution. The respondent no. 4 was. therefore, requested to withdraw and or rescind the said order and/or directions fortwith. It was further stated that in the event the Deputy Director of Public Instruction did not act as per the said letter an application under Article 226 of the Constitution would be moved in this high Court for redress. On the 16th of February, 1978 the Deputy Director of public Instruction sent a circular to the school whereby the Headmistress was requested to send the dearness allowances bill for the period ending 28th of february, 1978. On the 16th of February, 1978 the Deputy Director of public Instruction sent a circular to the school whereby the Headmistress was requested to send the dearness allowances bill for the period ending 28th of february, 1978. It is further alleged that the Headmistress sent the deaniss allowances bill in duplicate on or about 21st of February 1978 and although dearness allowances for teaching and non-teaching staff of the school is remitted to the school ordinarily towards the end of the relevant quarter, yet no payment had been made to the school of the petitioners. It is alleged that on the 17th of march, 1978 one officer of the Education department along with Sri K. N. parvat, came to the school with the copy of the order dated 17th of March, 1978. It is further alleged that the said order was shown to the Secretary of the School who read the said order but did not and could not according to the petitioners receive the same because it was not addressed to the Managing Committee. have set out the said order in the beginning of this judgment. On the 18th of march, 1978 was a holiday for the successful results of the candidates sent by the school for Indian School leaving Certificate Examination. A letter was sent on the 18th of March, 1978 which was a Saturday to the Deputy secretary, Education Department to secretary, Education Department to withdraw and or rescind the order. It is allege that on that same date Sr. K. N. Panvat inspite of receiving the said letter sent the letter to the school through the peon and the same was handed over to the durwan of the school at about 8 p. m. in the evening. On the following Monday on the 20th of March, 1978 this application under Article 226 of the Constitution was moved before me and I had granted an interim order of injunction staying further action in respect of the impugned order. 7. BEFORE I deal with the rival contentions in this case it would be relevant to refer to certain other facts. As i have mentioned the petitioners have relied on the affidavit of Lawrence Cardinal Peachey, sworn on the 18th of April 1978. He is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Calcutta. He states in his affidavit as follows : "1. 7. BEFORE I deal with the rival contentions in this case it would be relevant to refer to certain other facts. As i have mentioned the petitioners have relied on the affidavit of Lawrence Cardinal Peachey, sworn on the 18th of April 1978. He is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Calcutta. He states in his affidavit as follows : "1. "i say that I am the Roman catholic Archbishop of Calcutta. I knew about and am conversant with the constitutions and functions of all the religious congregations professing the Catholic faith operating in the State of West Bengal deluding that of the Daughters of the cross. All these religious congregations are constituted and function according to Canon Law i. e. Laws of the Roman Catholic Church "2 The Daughters of the Cross is a Religious Congregation (Society) of the Roman Catholic church, constituted and governed in accordance with Canon Law i. e. Laws of the Roman Catholic church. " "3 I say that in accordance with canon Law, the authority over the members of a religious congregation and its various institutions of any particular territory is exercised for the said territory by a superior appointed by the Superior General of the whole Congregation. " "4 I say that in the case of the religious congregation of the daughters of the Cross, all the mum bars of the Congregation, and all its institutions in West Bengal are directly under the Jurisdiction of the sister Provincial of Calcutta, who is appointed for a fixed period by the Superior General of the whole congregation. " "5. I say - that St. Agnes's school. Howrah, being one of the educational Institutions constituted and run by the Daughters of the cross, and situated within the jurisdiction of the Sister Provincial of calcutta, the ultimate power of administration of the said school is vested in the Sister. Provincial," "6. I further say that the said Sister Provincial in exercise of power and/or authority vested in her. is empowered to constitute the managing Committee of the School by nominating its members and fin up vacanies as may occur due to. death or otherwise by nominating new members. The said Managing committee is to administer the school in accordance with the direction and final supervision of the said sister Provincial. " 8. I need not refer to the affidavit of Mrs. death or otherwise by nominating new members. The said Managing committee is to administer the school in accordance with the direction and final supervision of the said sister Provincial. " 8. I need not refer to the affidavit of Mrs. Augustine who has bitten complained in her affidavit about internal politics in the school and the alleged aristocratic manner in which Rev. Sr. T. Anthony conducts the affairs of the school. According to her the senior teachers of the school are terrified and terrorized by Rev. Sr. T. Anthony. She also denies the alleged incidence of fighting which resulted in her alleged dismissal. She says that there is no properly constituted Governing Body and this Rev. Sr. and some group of people who were monopolizing the affairs of the school. She has also controverter the allegation about her daughter. Before entering into any controversy I wish to make it quite clear, that I have personally seen the class report of Mrs. Augustine's daughter. She is a child with an excellent record of both academic potentialities and good manners. The remarks of her teacher about her moral conduct are excellent. I wish and I hope irrespective of the result of this application she would be kept out of this controversy. The other aspect to which I must refer is the Code of Regulations for European (now Anglo-Indian) Schools in Bengal (now West Bengal). My attention has not been drawn to any regulations or statutory powers entitling the making of the said Code. Chapter ii of the said Code deals with the governing Body, Chapter III deals with the employment of teachers and Chapter iv deals with the grades of the school. The said Code so far as the Governing body is concerned provides as follows : "1. Every school to which aid is given shall be under the management of a Governing Body, duly constituted and acting under definite rules which the Department may demand to have submitted for approval. " "2, the management of the business and affairs of the school shall he vested in the Governing body. " "3. Meetings shall be duly cal led and held at least once every quarter. Note-The rules should expressly state how meetings are called, as well as the procedure to be followed at such meetings. " "4. " "2, the management of the business and affairs of the school shall he vested in the Governing body. " "3. Meetings shall be duly cal led and held at least once every quarter. Note-The rules should expressly state how meetings are called, as well as the procedure to be followed at such meetings. " "4. Rules shall be drawn up to provide a method by which governors shall be chosen and from time to. time removed or replaced. " 5. The Governing Body shall have power- (a) to make rules from time to time for their own guidance not inconsistent with the terms of this Chapter (b) to delegate, subject to such conditions as they think fit, any of their powers to sub-committees consisting of such members as they shall think fit, and to make such regulations as to the proceedings of such subcommittees as may seem expedient (c) to make and enforce all rules in their opinion necessary or expedient for the management and control of the school in all its department's, including any hostel or hostels that may be established in connection with the school ; (d) to appoint and to re move a Secretary, and (e) to appoint and to dismiss school teachers, boarding-masters, matrons, sergeants, clerks and servants in the employ of the school, and to fix the remuneration to be paid to them. 6. The Secretary shall cause true accounts to be kept of the moneys received or expended by the school, and the matters in respect of which such receipt and expenditure takes place, and of the assets, credits of liabilities of the school. 7. The accounts shall be closed on the 31st day of March in each year, and shall be subjected to such audit as the Governing Body may determine and the Department require. 8. It shall be the duty of the secretary, at stated times, to lay before the Governors a clear and complete statement of the accounts of the school. 9. It shall be within the competence of the Governing Body to appoint one of their members to be visiting governor of the school and to frame such regulations as to his functions and powers as they shall consider necessary or expedient. 10. The Governing Body shall frame such rules to define the powers of the head teacher as may seem necessary. 11. 10. The Governing Body shall frame such rules to define the powers of the head teacher as may seem necessary. 11. The Governing Body shall frame such rules to define the duties of the Secretary as may seem necessary or expedient. 12. The Secretary shall in every case be approved by the departments. 13. In communicating with the Department the Secretary shall invariably address the Inspector. 14. It shall be the duty of the head teacher to address the Inspector in all matters relating to the educational welfare of the school, and in such other matters as the rules of the Governing Body. Include in the powers of the head teacher. Rules 3 and 4 of Chapter III as amended provide as follows : "3. No teacher may be dismissed either summarily or with due notice save by the Governing Body, who shall in all cases of dismissal immediately report the fact with full particulars to the Inspector. A teacher who considers himself or herself unjustly dismissed shall be permitted to make a representation to the Inspector of European Schools, bengal, and the Governing Body shall in such a case defer final action until they have received from the Inspector an expression of his views. 4, The Governing Body shall immediately report to the Inspector the name of any teacher who willfully breaks the existing written agreement. " 9. IT may also be mentioned that association of Christian Schools have framed certain rules and regulations for their affairs and these have been incorporated as special rules for the management of secondary schools established and run by the Christian Church Missionary Societies or Religious Societies. This has been done under the powers given under rule 8 of the Rules of Management of recognised non-Government institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969 framed under the West Bengal Board of secondary Education Act, 1963. It may however be mentioned that the school of the petitioners is not one of the schools mentioned in that association. Therefore, i need not consider the said regulations in any detail. 10. IN the background of the aforesaid facts, it is, therefore, necessary to consider (i) whether the action of the respondents In passing the order dated 17th of March, 1978 in appointing an administrator, in the facts and circumstances, of this case was legal, competent and justified ? Therefore, i need not consider the said regulations in any detail. 10. IN the background of the aforesaid facts, it is, therefore, necessary to consider (i) whether the action of the respondents In passing the order dated 17th of March, 1978 in appointing an administrator, in the facts and circumstances, of this case was legal, competent and justified ? (ii) was the order or the steps taken on behalf of the respondents to stop the clearness allowance paid to the teachers for non compliance with the direction. given by the. respondents to the petitioners justified ? (iii) were the respondents competent, ill the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in the background of the previous decision of the High Court to order reinstatement of Mrs. Augustine 7 The controversy in this case will have to be adjudged in the light, of certain constitutional provisions. Article 29 of the Constitution affords protection of certain cultural and educational rights of the minorities. The question involved in this case does not involve any detailed examination of Article 29 of the Constitution. The main basis of the claim of the petitioners will have to be adjudged in the light of Article 30 of the Constitution which is to the following effect : "rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institution ; (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and add this minister educational institutions any of their choice. (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. " Article 337 of the Constitution which deals with special provision with respect to educational grant's for the benefit of Angle Indian community and is to the following effect "337. During the first three financial years after the commencement of this Constitution, the same grants, if any shall be made by the Union and by each State for the benefit of the Anglo-Indian Community in respect of education as were made in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1948. During the first three financial years after the commencement of this Constitution, the same grants, if any shall be made by the Union and by each State for the benefit of the Anglo-Indian Community in respect of education as were made in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, 1948. During every succeeding period of three years the grants may be less by ten percent than those for the immediately preceding period of three years; Provided that at the end of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution such grants, to the extent to which they are a special concession to the Anglo-Indian Community shall cease provided further that no educational institution shall be entitled to receive any grant under this article unless at least' forty per cent of the annual admissions therein are made available to members of communities other than the Anglo-Indian community. " 11. IT may be mentioned that in case I am not also concerned with question of infringement of Article of the Constitution. Article 30 protects the rights of the minorities ased on religion or language to establish as well as to administer educational institutions of their choice. The right is how fold as has been explained in several decisions of the Supreme Court. The right is to establish and further right is to administer educational institutions of their choice. Such institutions, however, need not be confined to the children of the minority community; indeed, it has been reiterated by the Supreme Court that it is in connection with the outside world that the excellence of the children of the minority community and of their culture can best be developed. The right in clause (1) of Article 30 also is not limited to the manner in which such educational institutions should be administered nor as I have mentioned before the right is limited to the educational institutions where predominantly children of minority community are educated or trained. At one point of time a doubt had arisen in my mind as to whether Article 30 was to protect only the minority community in maintaining its own linguistic or religious identity and therefore must be confined to the institutions where predominantly children of the minointy community are educated. At one point of time a doubt had arisen in my mind as to whether Article 30 was to protect only the minority community in maintaining its own linguistic or religious identity and therefore must be confined to the institutions where predominantly children of the minointy community are educated. But in view of the language used in that article of the Constitution and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court it appears to me that the framers of our. Constitution in their wisdom had given to the minority communities, linguistic and religious, right to administer exclusively without interference educational institutions of their choice even though the said institutions cater for predominantly the children of the majority community. That right flows from the clear language used in clause (1) of Article 30 of the constitution. Clause (1) of Article 30 does not restrict the right to administer educational institutions of their choice where only children of the minority communities are educated. It is, further, necessary to bear in mind that I am not concerned in this application with the validity or invalidity of any legislative action taken by the Government. Nor am I concerned with the action of the government taken pursuant to any statutory power. As I have mentioned before the Code has no statutory force. At least my attention has not been drawn to any statutory sanction for the said code. Even if the same is treated as customary law in force at the time of coming into operation of the Constitution and as such law in terms of Articles 13 and 372 of the Constitution I have found nothing in the said Code which authorise the Government or the Slate to appoint and administer in the contingencies that have happened or to direct reinstatement of any teacher in the situation that has arisen in this case. Therefore, as I have mentioned before I am not concerned with any statutory power or the exercise of any statutory power. 12. THAT however does not debar the Government in exercise of its executive power to take action in appropriate cases necessary for the protection of the welfare of the community. Therefore, as I have mentioned before I am not concerned with any statutory power or the exercise of any statutory power. 12. THAT however does not debar the Government in exercise of its executive power to take action in appropriate cases necessary for the protection of the welfare of the community. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Jawaya vs. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1955 S. C. page 549 has held that the functions of a modern State like the police States of old are not confined to mere collection to taxes or maintenance of laws and protection of the realm from external or internal enemies. A modern State is certainly expected to engage in all activities necessary for the promotion of the social and economic welfare of the community, even without any legislative sanction. There the Supreme Court was concerned with the Government's action in taking upon them selves the right of election to the printing and publishing 01 school text books and such right was cognized. Therefore, the action impugned in this application under Article 226 0f the Constitution though examine in nature will have to be adjudged in the light of the principles under Article 30 of the Constitution. Necessarily, one has to refer to the root case namely the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of In re Kerala Education Bill, 1957 A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 956. I am not concerned to examine whether any question of infringement of article 14 of the constitution arises in this case nor am I concerned with the scope of Article 143 of the constitution, under which the reference was made. There under Article 143 the President had referred to the supreme Court for consideration and report on the following questions: " (1) Does sub-cl. (5) of ef. 3 of the Kerala Education Bill, read with cl. 36 thereof or any of the provisions of the said sub-clause, offend art. 14 of the Constitution in any particulars or to any extent? (2) Do sub of (5) of cl. 3, sub-cl (3) of cl. 8 and cls. 9 ca 13 of the Kerala Education Bill, or any provisions thereof, offend cl. (1) of art. 30 of the Constitution in any particulars or to any extent? (3) Does cl. 15 of the Kerala education Bill, or any provisions thereof, offend art. (2) Do sub of (5) of cl. 3, sub-cl (3) of cl. 8 and cls. 9 ca 13 of the Kerala Education Bill, or any provisions thereof, offend cl. (1) of art. 30 of the Constitution in any particulars or to any extent? (3) Does cl. 15 of the Kerala education Bill, or any provisions thereof, offend art. 14 of the Constitution in any particulars or to any extent? (4) Does cl. 33 of the Kerala education Bill, or any provisions thereof, offend Art. 226 of the Constitution in any particulars or to any extent? 13. SO far as question no. (1) was concerned it was by the majority held that clause 3 (5) read with clause 36 did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution in any particular or to any extent. It was held by majority, that clause 3 (b), clause 8 (3) and clauses 9 to 13 offended Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, so far as Anglos-Indian Educational Institutions entitled to grant under article 337 of the Constitution are concerned. As regards other minorities pot entitled to grant as of right under any express provision of the Constitution, but on receipt of aid or desirous of such aid and also as regards Anglo Indian Educational Institutions in so far as they were receiving aid in excess of what were due to them under Article 337, clauses 8 (3) and 9 to 13 did not offend article 30 (1) but clause 3 (5) in so far as it made such educational institutions subject to clauses 14 arid 15 did offend Article 30 of the Constitution. Clause 7 (except sub-clauses 1 and 3 which applied only to aided schools) and clause 10 so far as these applied to recognised school to be established after the said bill came into force did not offend Article 30 (1) but clause 3 (5) in so for as it made the new schools established after the commencement of the Bill subject to clause 20 did offend article 30 (1). I am not concerned with the different clauses of the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 as I have mentioned before I am not concerned in this application with the validity or invalidity of any legislative action but it may be instructive in view of the controversy [raised before me to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court appearing at pages 982 to 984 of the report. The Supreme Court observed- " (30) Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Kerala advances the extreme contention that Art. 30 (1) confers on the minorities this fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and nothing more. They are free to exercise such rights as much as they like and as long as they care to do soon their own resources. But this fundamental right goes no further and cannot possibly extend to their getting financial assistance from the coffers of the State. If they desire or seek to obtain aid from the State, they must submit to the terms on which the State offers aid to all other educational institutions established by other people just as a person will have to pay 15 naye paise if hewants to buy a stamp for an inland letter. learned Counsel appearing for the two Anglo Indian schools as well as learned Counsel appearing for the Jamait-ul-ulema-i-Hind, on the other hand, insist in their turn, on an equally extreme proposition, namely, that their clients' fundamental rights under Art. 30 (1) are in terms, absolute and not only can it not be taken away but cannot even be abridged to any extent. They draw our attention first to Art. 19 (1) (g) which confers on the citizens the fundamental right to carry on any business and then to cl. 6 of that article which permits reasonable restrictions being imposed on that fundamental right' and they comend that, as there is no such provision in Art. 30 (1) conferring on the State any police power authorising the imposition of social control, the fundamental rights under Art. 30 (1) must be held to be absolute and cannot be subjected to any restriction whatever. They reinforce their arguments by relying on Arts. 28 (3), 29 (2) and 30 (2) which, they rightly submit, do contemplate the grant of aid to educational institutions established by minority communities. Learned Counsel also strongly rely on arts. They reinforce their arguments by relying on Arts. 28 (3), 29 (2) and 30 (2) which, they rightly submit, do contemplate the grant of aid to educational institutions established by minority communities. Learned Counsel also strongly rely on arts. 41 and 46 of the Constitution which as directive principles of State policy, make it the duty of the State to aid educational institutions and to promote the educational interests of the minorities and the weaker sections of people. Granting of aid to emotional institutions is, according to learned Counsel, the normal function of the Government. The Constitution contemplates institutions wholly maintained by the State, as also institutions receiving aid from the State. If, therefore, the granting of aid is a governmental function, it must, they say, be discharged in a reasonable way and without infringing the fundamental right. of the minorities. There may be no fundamental right given to any person or body administering an educational institution to get aid from the State and indeed if the State has not sufficient funds it cannot distribute any. Nevertheless, if the state does distribute aid or cannot they contend, attach such conditions to it as will deprive the minorities of their fundamental right's under Art. 30 (1). Attaching stringent conditions, such as those provided by the said Bill and summarized above, is violative of the rights guaranteed to the minorities by Art. 30 (1). Surrender of fundamental rights cannot, they conclude, be exacted as the piece of aid do aide out by the State. We have already observed that art. 30 (1) gives two rights to the minorities. (1) to establish and (2) to administer, educational institutions of their choice. The right to administer cannot obviously include the right to mal-administer. The minority cannot surely ask for aid or recognition for an educational institution run by them in unhealthy surroundings, without any competent teachers possessing any semblance of qualification, and which does not maintain even a fair standard of teaching or which teaches matters subversive of the welfare of the scholars. It stands to reason, then, that the constitutional right to administer an educational institution of their choice does not necessarily militate against the claim of the State to insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions to be aided. It stands to reason, then, that the constitutional right to administer an educational institution of their choice does not necessarily militate against the claim of the State to insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions to be aided. Learned Attorney General concedes that reasonable regulations may certainly be imposed by the State as a condition for aid or even for recognition. There is no right in any minority other than anglo-Indians, to get aid, but, he contends, that if the State chooses to grant aid then it must, not say-"i have money and I shall distribute aid but I shall not give you any aid unless you surrender to me your right of administration. "the State must not grant aid in such manner as will take away the fundamental right of the minority community under Art. 30 (1). Shri G. S. Pathak appearing for some of the institutions opposing the Bill agrees that it is open to the State to lay down conditions for recognition, namely, that an institution must have a particular amount of funds or properties or number of students or standard of education and so forth and it is open to the State to make a law prescribing conditions for such recognition or aid provided, however, that such law is constitutional and does not infringe any fundamental right of the minorities. Recognition and grant of aid, says Shri G. S. Pathak, is the governmental function and, therefore, the State cannot impose terms as condition precedent to the grant of recognition or aid which will be violative of Art. 30 (1). According to the statement of case filed by the State of Kerala, every Christian school in the State is aided by the State. Therefore, the conditions imposed by the said bill on aided institutions established and administered by minority communities like the Christians, including the Anglo-Indian Community, will lead to the closing down of all these aided schools Unless they are agreeable to Surrender their fundamental right of management. No educational institution can in actual practice be carried on without aid from the State and if they will not get it unless they surrender their rights they will, by compulsion of financial necessities, be compelled to give up their rights Under Art. 30 (1). No educational institution can in actual practice be carried on without aid from the State and if they will not get it unless they surrender their rights they will, by compulsion of financial necessities, be compelled to give up their rights Under Art. 30 (1). The legislative powers conferred on the legislature of the States by Arts. 245 and 246 are subject. to the other provisions of the Constitution and certainly to the provisions of Part III which confers fundamental rights which are, there forebinding on the State legislature. The State legislature cannot, it is clear, disregard or override those provisions merely by employing indirect methods of achieving exactly the same result. Even the Legisla true cannot do indirectly what it certainly cannot do directly, it is through educational institutions that the language and script of the minority community can be preserved, improved and strengthened. It is, therefore, that Art. 30 (1)confers on all minorities, whether based on religion or language, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The minorities, quite understandably, regard it as essential that the education of their children should be in accordance with the teachings of their religion and they hold, quite honestly, that such an education cannot be obtained in ordinary schools designed for all the members of the public but can only be secured in schools conducted under the influence and guidance of people well versed in the tenets of their religion and in the traditions of their culture. The minorities evidently desire that education should he imparted to the children of there community in an atmosphere congenial to the growth of their culture our Constitution makers recognised the validity of their claim and to allay their fears conferred on them the fundamental rights referred to above. But the conservation of the distinct language, script or culture is not the only object of choice of the minority communities. They also desire that scholars of their educational institutions should go out in the World well and sufficiently equipped with the qualifications necessary for a useful career in life. But the conservation of the distinct language, script or culture is not the only object of choice of the minority communities. They also desire that scholars of their educational institutions should go out in the World well and sufficiently equipped with the qualifications necessary for a useful career in life. But according to the Education Code now in operation to which it is permissible to refer for ascertaining the effect of the impugned provisions on existing state of affairs, the scholars of unrecognised schools are not permitted to avail themselves of the opportunities for higher education in the university and are not eligible for entering the public services. Without recognition, therefore, the educational institutions established or to be established by the minority communities cannot fulfill the real objects of their choice and the rights under Art. 30 (1) cannot be effectively exercised. The right to establish educational institutions of their choice must, therefore, mean the right to establish real institutions which will effectively serve the needs of their community and the scholars who resort to their educational institutions. There is, no doubt no such thing as fundamental right to recognition by the State but to deny recognition to the educational institutions except upon terms tantamount to the surrender of their choice is in truth and in effect to deprive them of their rights under art. 30 (1). We repeat that the legislative power is subject to the fundamental rights and the legislature cannot indirectly take away or. abridge the fundamental rights which it could not do directly and yet that will be the result if the said Bill containing any offending clause becomes law. According to the decisions of this Court referred to above, in judging the validity of any law regard must be had to its real intendment and effect on the rights of the aggrieved parties, rather than to its form. According to the education Codes certain conditions are prescribed-whether as legislative or as executive measures we do not stop to enquire-as conditions for the grant of recognition and it is said, as it was said during the discussion on the question of aid, that the said Bill imposes no more burden than what these minority educational institutions along with those of other communities are already subjected to. As we have observed, there can be no question of the loss of a fundamental right merely by the no exercise of it. There is no case here of any estoppel, assuming that there can be any estoppel against the constitution. Therefore, the impugned provisions of the said Bill roust be considered on its merits. 14. IN the case of Sidhrajbhai v. State of Gujarat A. I. R. 1963 S. C. page 540 the Supreme Court had occasion to examine again the ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution. The Supreme court reiterated that unlike Article 19 the fundamental freedom to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities guaranteed under clause (1) of Article 30 is absolute in terms, it is not made subject to any reasonable restrictions of the nature the fundamental freedoms enunciated in Article 19 may be restricted. All minorities, linguistic or religious, have under Article; 30 (1) an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of. their choke and any law or executive direction which seeks to infringe the substance of that right under Article 30 (1) would to that extent be void. That however is not to say that it is not open to the State to impose regulations upon the exercise of that right. The fundamental freedom is to establish and to administer educational institutions ; it is a right to establish and administer what are in truth educational institutions; institutions which cater to the educational needs pf the citizens, or sections thereof. Regulations made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline health sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed. Such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed they secure the proper functioning of the institutions, in matters educational. Clause (2) of Article 30 is only a phase of the non-discrimination clause of the Constitution and does not derogate from the provisions made in clause (1). Such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed they secure the proper functioning of the institutions, in matters educational. Clause (2) of Article 30 is only a phase of the non-discrimination clause of the Constitution and does not derogate from the provisions made in clause (1). This clause is moulded in terms negative, the State is thereby enjoined not to discriminate in granting aid to educational institutions on the ground that the management of the institution is in the hands of the minorities, religious or linguistic, but the form is not susceptible of the inference that the State is competent otherwise to discriminate so as to impose restrictions upon the substance of the right to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities, religious or linguistic. The Supreme Court, further, related the right established by Article 30 (1) was intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in the matter of setting up of educational institutions of their own choice and that right is intended to be effective and not to be whittled down by so called regulative measures connived in the interest not of the minority educational institution, but of the public or the nation as a whole. If every order which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys the power of administration is held justified because it is in the public or national interest though not in its interest as an educational institution the right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) will be of teasing illusion, a promise of unreality. Regulation which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative grant or executive action is a condition, of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a' minority institution effective as an educational institution. Such regulation must satisfy a dual test, the test of reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. Such regulation must satisfy a dual test, the test of reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. There the Supreme Court was examining rule 5 (2) of the rules made by Bombay Government for Primary training Colleges, and Rule 11 and 14 for recognition of Private Training Institution in so far this is related to the reservation of seats therein under orders of Bombay Government and directions given pursuant thereto. The right of the minority community to set up educational institutions and administer the same is absolute as noted above. That right may be exercised by the minority community through organisation and such organisation may be society registered or unregistered. The fact that the minority community exercises the right through registered society does not make any difference as to the content of the right. In the case just noted above the college of the minority community was run by a registered society. This point is emphasised because of the contention raised on behalf of the respondent as i shall note hereinafter. 15. IN the case of W. Proost vs. State of Bihar A. I. R. 1969 S. C. page 465 the Supreme Court again reiterated that the width of Article 30 (1) could not be cut down by introducing in it considerations on which Article 29 (1)is based. Article 29 was a general protection which was given to the minorities to conserve their language, script or culture. Article 30 was a special right to the minority to. establish educational Institutions of their choice. The choice is not limited, according to the Supreme Court to institutions seeking to conserve language, script or culture and the choice is not taken away if the minority community having established an educational institution of its choice also admits members of other communities. According to the Supreme Court that is a circumstance irrelevant for the application of article 30 (1) since n6 such limitation is expressed and none could be implied. The Supreme Court at page 469 of the report referred to the decision of Rev. According to the Supreme Court that is a circumstance irrelevant for the application of article 30 (1) since n6 such limitation is expressed and none could be implied. The Supreme Court at page 469 of the report referred to the decision of Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabbai v. State of Bombay a. I. R. 1963 S. C. page 540 and reiterated that the emphasis was placed in the former case not so much upon the need of the community exclusively, upon educational needs of the citizens or sections thereof. 16. 23. THE question was again examined by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Mother Provincial a. I. R. 1970 S. C. page 2079. THE supreme Court was then examining kerala University Act 9 of 1969 and the validity of certain sections. THE Supreme court reiterated that Article 30 (1)contemplated two rights which were separated in point of time. THE first right was the initial right to establish institutions of minority's choice. It was irrelevant that in addition to the minority community others from other minority communities or even from the majority community could take advantage of these institutions. THE second part of the right according to the Supreme Court related to the administration of such institutions which means 'management' of the affairs of the institutions. This management must be free of control so that the founders or their nominees could mould the institutions as they thought fit and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution in particular would be best served. THEre was, however, an exception that the standards of education were not part of the management as such. THE minority institutions could not be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected, of educational institutions or under the guise of exclusive right of management to decline to follow the general pattern, THE Supreme Court, further, reiterated in that decision that disciplinary action is within the management function which is the exclusive preserve of the minority community, In the case of D. A V. College, bhatnda v. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1971 S. C. page 1731 the Supreme Court again examined this question. There the Supreme Court reiterated that though it is true that no linguistic minority could claim that the University should conduct its examinations in the language or script which the institutions have a right to adopt but in such a case the University must not force those institutions to compulsorily affiliate themselves and impose on them the medium or instruction. For our present purpose the decision need not be examined in any detail. AH these cases were reviewed by the Supreme. Court in the case of St. Xaviers College vs. State of gujarat A. I. R, 1974 S. C. 1389. THE supreme Court reviewed all the previous decisions and examined the scope of the right under Article 29 and 30 and reiterated that the articles created separate rights. THE Supreme Court reiterated that it was permissible for the state to impose regulations in the interest of education and the Supreme court further reiterated that the right conferred on the minorities is not an absolute right1. This right is not free from regulation and the right is to administer but not to mal-administer 01 mis-administer or to administer institutions in such a manner which will be destructive of the principle interest of education. THE Supreme Court again reiterated that the right of minority interest to administer institution implied an obligation and duty of the minority institution to render the very best to the students. In the right of administration, checks and balances in the shape of regulatory measures were often required to ensure appointment of good teachers and their conditions of service. In the case of C. F. College Shahjahan Pur v. Agra University A. I. R. 1975 s. C. page 1821 the Supreme Court was examining a statute requiring that the Managing Committee of minority educational institution should include the principal of the college and the senormost member of the teaching staff under the Agra University Statute. By majority decision the Supreme Court held that such a provision was valid. Article 30 did not invalidate provisions of regulatory character which intended do secure the better administration or an institution, and according to the Supreme court the principal and the senior-most teacher of the college were not outsiders, but insiders already appointed by the governing Body and their presence on 1he Managing Committee would only ensure better administration of the college. Mr. Mr. Justice Mathew who delivered a dissenting judgment on this point, however, observed that the determination of the composition of the body to administer the educational institution must be left to the majority as that was the core of right to administer. Regulations to prevent mal-administration by that body however were permissible. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of st. Joseph's H. S. School v. Ravi shankar A. I. R. 1976 Allahabad, page 390 exmined the question but in view of the problem involved therein it is not necessary to examine the said decision in any great detail. 17. IN the instant case I have set out the first order impugned namely, the order dated 17th of March, 1978. As I have indicated before there is no legislative authority to make the order. 11 the Code of Regulations for European (now Anglo-Indian) Schools in Bengal as amended is considered to be such law to be enforced after the coming into operation of the Constitution then the provisions of that Code do not authorise the appointment of an Administrator in the circumstances mentioned in the impugned order. Furthermore, the first ground far passing the impugned order is that there is no Governing Body duly constituted inconformity with the provision of Chapter II of the Code. This, however, is not correct because Chapter ii of the Code only enjoins that there should be a Governing Body duly constituted and acting under definite rules which the department may demand to have submitted for approval. The governing Body, according to the Canon Law as appears from the affidavit of lawrence Cardinal Picachy, the Roman catholic Archbishop of Calcutta, is duly constituted and functioning. Vacancies in the Governing Body as and when they occur have been filled. Therefore, the first ground has no leg to stand. It is, further the case of the petitioners that the rules were submitted year after year to the appropriate Government departments and were received by them and never any objections were raised. 18. THE second ground mentioned in the order is that the school had failed to maintain proper records. There is no material and the officer concerned has not mentioned any material on which this finding is based. The failure to produce the minute books and, other records which have been filed in the Howrah court cannot be such a ground. 18. THE second ground mentioned in the order is that the school had failed to maintain proper records. There is no material and the officer concerned has not mentioned any material on which this finding is based. The failure to produce the minute books and, other records which have been filed in the Howrah court cannot be such a ground. The next ground is that the alleged failure to maintain the desired standard of discipline. Even the report' of the Inspector maintains that the discipline of the school is examplanary. Not any letter or scrap of paper was produced either before the Inspector or before this Court on behalf of the respondents about any complaint by any guardian or anyone else about discipline in the school. It is therefore, little surprising that in the context of discipline of student community in the country to-day, the Inspector should have thought it fit to make this remark about the discipline of a school of this nature. The academic performances of the stipend of the School have also been very good. The next ground is the failure to appoint adequate number of properly qualified teachers. It is true that according to the Government regulation certain percentage of teachers namely 75% of teachers, will have to be properly trained. That was not done. The Government could have insisted on their proper training and give a warning to that effect. That by itself, in my opinion, does not authorise the appointment of an Administrator in the manner done. Counsel for the respondents contended before me that the Administrator had been appointed only for a temporary period and as a measure of regulatory measure. In the context and in the background of the facts and circumstances of this case the impugned order of appointment of Administrator would have serious consequences on the administration of the school and cannot be treated as a, regulatory measure taken to ensure the proper imparting of education. I am, therefore, unable to upheld the order dated 17th of March, 1978 appointing; the Administrator. The second order impugned in this case is the order of stopping dearness allowances. I am, therefore, unable to upheld the order dated 17th of March, 1978 appointing; the Administrator. The second order impugned in this case is the order of stopping dearness allowances. It is true that there is no fundamentals right to obtain any grant from the State as such, but if other educational institutions are entitled to grant of dearness allowances, on the plea that interference in the disciplinary functioning of the Governing body has not been permitted by the governing Body, a right which the supreme Court has reiterated is an exclusive right of the minority community, cannot be a ground for stoppage of dearness allowance. This would be permitting the State to do indirectly which it cannot do directly. Therefore, this order stoppage "of grant of dearness allowances on the plea of non-compliance with the direction of the Educational Directorate to reinstate Mrs. . Augustine cannot also be upheld. I, therefore, direct that all arrears of due dearness allowances in accordance with the rules upto date should forthwith be cleared and paid by the Government and not later than the 15th of November, 1978. 19. THE third aspect is whether the respondents have any right to direct reinstatement of Mrs. Augustine. It is true in the proceedings before this Court in Civil Rule mentioned before Mr. Justice M. M. Dutt has directed the respondent authorities to consider the matter in accordance with the Law. The case of the Governing Body is that the services of Mrs. Augustine has been terminated as a disciplinary measure because of her conduct in the school in October, 1974. If this is a termination then the Code does not authorise the government to direct reinstatement or to interfere. Therefore, there is no law according to which the respondents were directed to consider the representation of Mrs. Augustine, to direct her reinstatement. It is true that in this matter the Governing Body has not taken a very consistent attitude. First, their plea was that they do not know about the representation of Mrs. Augustine may not be wholly correct, because a copy of such representation was annexed with the petition made to this Court by Mrs. Augustine. In the said petition Mr. Augustine had alleged as follows : "i beg to infom you that on 7. 10. 74 Mrs. A. Vulson an assistant teachers of St. Agnes's Convent school wronged me with her behavior. Augustine. In the said petition Mr. Augustine had alleged as follows : "i beg to infom you that on 7. 10. 74 Mrs. A. Vulson an assistant teachers of St. Agnes's Convent school wronged me with her behavior. And soon after the incident I reported to Sister Mary vacancy, the Principal. She told me that she will look into the matter. But on 8th morning, soon after the school started, Sister Theresa antony, one of seven sisters residing in the school handed over a letter of suspension to me. The letter was dated 7. 10. 74. I was shocked with the letter. From the letter I knew that: she was the secretary of the Managing Committee. I told her that I was not guilty of suspension and also she was not the right person to give the suspension letter. She did not ask me anything about the incident nor did she allow me to talk to her. When I told about the suspension letter to the Principal she told. me that she was not informed about the suspension. I waited patiently till the school closed for winter holidays, i. e. 13th December hoping that she will withdraw the suspension. I came to your office and enquired whether any report against me was made to the office. They told me that they have not received any. Then I has no other way than. going to the court for seeking justice. The 11th munsif of Howrah Court passed an ad-interim injunction an 17. 12. 74. Then on 19th I received a letter dated 9. 12. 74 from the secretary informing me that ray services in the school was terminated from 1st November 1974. This is for your information and necessary action from your end. Kindly let me know. whether the-school authorities informed you about my dismissal before 9. 12. 74 i. e. the date on which the letter of my dismissal was issued and whether they have given the full particulars for my dismissal. " 20. SECONDLY, in the Howrah Court the plea taken on behalf of the petitioners was that if Mrs. Augustine had any grievance she should go before the government. She, therefore, made a representation to the Government. The government was not dealing with the representation. She therefore moved this Court, Though this point was taken before Mr. " 20. SECONDLY, in the Howrah Court the plea taken on behalf of the petitioners was that if Mrs. Augustine had any grievance she should go before the government. She, therefore, made a representation to the Government. The government was not dealing with the representation. She therefore moved this Court, Though this point was taken before Mr. Justice Dutt that the government had no right to interfere it seems that this point was not pressed, atleast no appeal was preferred from, the said decision of Mr. Justice Dutt. Therefore, the right of the Government to deal with the representation as held by Mr. Justice Dutt is binding on the petitioners. But Mr. Justice Dutt did not held that she got any greater right than what was given to her in the Code or what is contained in article 29 and 30' of the Constitution. It has been secondly held by the Supreme court that a disciplinary matter is a management function and an exclusive right of the minority Community. In the context, in my opinion, the disciplinary action taken against Mrs. Augustine can not be interfered with by the respondents. Furthermore, Mrs. Augustine was given a hearing. The respondents were in error in holding that Mrs. Augustine had not been given any hearing. Therefore, the order dated 1st November, 1977 or the direction directing reinstatement of Mrs. Augustine cannot be sustained, and I hereby quash the same. But in view of the attitude taken by the petitioners I direct that the petitioners should pay to Mrs. Augustine her full salary upto the end of August, 1978 and should further pay the three months salary due to be paid to her in lieu of the notice. AH these payments should be made as early as possible and in any event not later than 1st November, 1978. 21. IN the order dated 18th of march, 1977, the Deputy Director of public Instruction has held that Mrs. Augustine had not been given a fair, hearing and according to the rules. He has not referred to the infringement of any particular rule. Notice was given to Mrs. Augustine of the alleged charges. She was heard, and action was taken by a Committee of the Governing body. Augustine had not been given a fair, hearing and according to the rules. He has not referred to the infringement of any particular rule. Notice was given to Mrs. Augustine of the alleged charges. She was heard, and action was taken by a Committee of the Governing body. There may be conflict of version as to the incidence which took place on 7th of October, 1974 and the Deputy director of Public Instruction has not referred to any evidence of fact from which it could be inferred that the incidence complained of about Mrs. Augustine and Mrs. Vulson did not take place. If such an incident did take place within the school in the presence of the teachers and some of the students as alleged then the action taken by the petitioners was pre-eminently justified. Be that as it may in view of the rules and in view of the order of Mr. Justice M. M. Dutt of the attitude taken by the petitioners in this regard in my opinion justice of the situation would be met if Mrs. Augustine is paid the amounts I have directed as before. 22. SRI Parvat, Assistant Inspector of anglo-Indian Schools in his report dated 14th of November, 1977 which proceeded the making of the impugned order of appointment of administrator had suggested three points namely, (i)proper constitution of the Governing body, (ii) proper functioning of the governing Body with regular meeting and (iii) proper maintenance of records of presence of members and minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body. So far as proper constitution of the governing Body is concerned according to the affidavit of Layranee Cardinal picachy, the Sister Provincial is empowered to constitute the Managing committee of the School by nominating its members and fill up vacancy as might occur due to death or otherwise by nominating new members. If the code of Regulation for European (Now anglo-Indian) School in Bengal applicable, which is doubtful, Chapter ii of the said Code only enjoins that every school to which aid is given shall be under the management of a Covering body duly constituted and acting under definite rules which the department may demand to have submitted for approval. If the code of Regulation for European (Now anglo-Indian) School in Bengal applicable, which is doubtful, Chapter ii of the said Code only enjoins that every school to which aid is given shall be under the management of a Covering body duly constituted and acting under definite rules which the department may demand to have submitted for approval. So far as the management of the school under Governing body duly constituted is concerned if the Canon Law is applicable and which seems to be the position by virtue of clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution then no grievance can be made on this aspect. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Governing Body had sent such constitution of the governing Body of the names of the members to the department concerned from time to time and no objection had been raised. This is not seriously disputed. But so far as Rule 1 of Chapter II of the Code enjoins that the Government has the right to approve the rules for the constitution of the Governing Body in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court such requirement of approval would be repugnant to Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution and cannot therefore be enforced. So far as the requirement that the Governing body should meet regularly, I am of the opinion, that such a requirement as contemplated under Rule (2) of the Code can be sustained as a regulatory measure because Article 30 protects certain rights but does not give freedom from conformity to law. The constitutional protection under clause (1) of Article 30 does not create new privileges. It does not deprive the State of its right to legislate. Therefore, in order to ensure proper functioning of the school the governing Body should meet as required by Rule (3) of the Code at least once every quarter. Such a rule should be incorporated by the petitioners and the government should be informed that such rule has been so incorporate. Sri private has also noted in his report that there should proper maintenance of records. These records are of the presence of the members and minutes of the meeting. This is also a salutary recommendation and such a rule should be incorporated by the petitioners in their rules. Sri private has also noted in his report that there should proper maintenance of records. These records are of the presence of the members and minutes of the meeting. This is also a salutary recommendation and such a rule should be incorporated by the petitioners in their rules. In his report the Assistant Inspector states that of 28 teachers who are drawing Government Dearness Allowance only 14 of them undergone teachers training course which amount to 53% of the staff only. As per rules at least 75% teachers must be trained in order to get recognition. Counsel for the respondents contended that there is no fundamental right to get grants. But the Government in my opinion is competent to frame rules for grants. In the instant case if the rules for recognition require that 75% of the teachers must be trained then in my opinion the petitioners should amend their rules so as to ensure that 75% of their teachers should receive teachers training course and make arrangement for the same. But none of these deficiencies warrant the appointment of an Administrator as has been purported to be done. Subject to the directions as aforesaid the rule is made absolute. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. Rule made absolute. Directions given no cost.