T. K. BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Rule directed against the State of West Bengal and the Education Directorate thereof and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education challenging certain orders. The petitioners are the Society and some of the members of the Governing Body of the Society. The facts relating to the making of the present application may be briefly noted. ( 2 ) SOME time towards the middle of the 19th Century, people from South India particularly Tamilians started coming to Calcutta, Howrah and other parts of Bengal in pursuit of trade, commerce, professional employment and Government service. In those days, there was only one Province under the British Government in the South India i. e. Madras Presidency dominated by the Tamilians and such people coming from Madras Presidency were called in Calcutta 'madrasis' or 'south Indians'. ( 3 ) IN the year 1913 Anglo-Tamil School was established in the premises of Madras Social Club, Champatola Central Calcutta by Tamil speaking people in Calcutta for imparting education to the children of Tamilians. The medium of instruction was Tamil. Late N. R. Iyer, a leading member of the Tamil community in Calcutta took the initiative in establishing the said School and late Sir C. V. Raman, Kt. FRS was closely associated with the said School. In the year 1929-30 the Tamilians started moving from Central Calcutta to South Calcutta. The management of the Anglo-Tamil School purchased a plot of land out of the school funds at 164, Sarat Bose Road for the purpose of constructing a building thereon for shifting the school. However it was decided that a society should be established to run the said School. ( 4 ) IN 1935 the present Society was formed, inter alia, to take over the school with all its assets and liabilities including the buildings fund. The membership of the Society was restricted only to persons belonging to South Indian community. Thereafter the School was shifted to its new building and was renamed as National High School when the management was taken over by the Society. The school was a co-educational school. The medium of instruction upto Class IV was Tamil till 1966. However, the medium of instruction in higher classes was English. Tamil remained as the first language, in the higher classes. However Hindi was also introduced as another first language. The school was a co-educational school. The medium of instruction upto Class IV was Tamil till 1966. However, the medium of instruction in higher classes was English. Tamil remained as the first language, in the higher classes. However Hindi was also introduced as another first language. The school was managed by the Society. ( 5 ) ON the 21st July, 1948 the Governing Body of the Society by a resolution decided that the Governing Body of the Society shall be the Governing Body of the National High School (hereinafter referred to as the School ). But there shall be a School Managing Committee for the school acting as the Executive Committee of the Governing Body of the Society in regard to the affairs of the school. It was further resolved that the Managing Committee shall consist of the President and the Secretary of the Society. Four nominees of the Society, three representatives of the parents and guardians of students two representatives of the teaching staff and Head Master as ex officio member. ( 6 ) IN 1957 the Society out of its own funds purchased approximately 33 cottahs of land at 42/1, Hazra Road for constructing a building. In 1960, the co-educational school at 164, Sarat Bose Road was bifurcated into Girls and Boys Section. There was also a primary section at the above premises. ( 7 ) IN the year 1963 the School received a cyclostyled circular from the Office of the Education Department, Government of West Bengal wherein it was stated that educational institutions enjoying a special constitution would be required to apply to the Education Department/board for obtaining the approval of such special constitution. The Society, according to the petition, under a mistaken belief, made an application on the 20th October, 1963 for the approval of its special constitution. On the 11trh May, 1964 the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) accorded approval by a letter to the special constitution. ( 8 ) ON the 26th March, 1973 the Assistant Inspector of School, Government of West Bengal wrote a letter to the School at 164, Sarat Bose Road intimating that a representative of the Government will visit the school as an institution for linguistic minority community on the 30th March, 1973. ( 8 ) ON the 26th March, 1973 the Assistant Inspector of School, Government of West Bengal wrote a letter to the School at 164, Sarat Bose Road intimating that a representative of the Government will visit the school as an institution for linguistic minority community on the 30th March, 1973. In terms of the above letter on the 30th March, 1973 the Linguistic Minority Commission visited the school at 164, Sarat Bose Road. ( 9 ) ON the 19th April, 1974, pursuant to an amendment of the relevant rules of the Board, another Circular was issued whereby the school was asked to apply for approval of the special constitution. Again, according to the petitioners, under a mistaken belief, an application was made as required. On the 27th September 1975 by a letter the School was informed that the special constitution was approved. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER the Headmaster of the School conducted an election for the constitution of the Managing Committee. Serious irregularities were detected in the conduct of the election. As such the Managing Committee of the School as well as the Society by letters informed the Headmaster that the election not having been held properly no effect could be given thereto. Copies of the letter was sent to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal and the Board. ( 11 ) ON the 16th December, 1977 the Board appointed Smt. Madhabi Mazumdar, Assistant Inspectress of Schools as an Administrator of the School for a period of six months or until further orders whichever is earlier with a direction to take steps for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the School strictly in accordance with the special constitution as approved by the Board and complete the same within the tenure of her appointment. ( 12 ) IN January, 1978 Smt. Madhabi Mazumdar assumed charge as Administrator but did not reconstitute the Managing Committee within the period six months for which she was appointed. ( 13 ) ON the 9th September, 1978 the Board by a letter to the Administrator of the School approved a revised special constitution of fourteen members. The representation of the Society to the Managing Committee of the School was reduced from four to two, teachers representatives were increased from two to three and guardians representatives increased from three to four. The representation of the Society to the Managing Committee of the School was reduced from four to two, teachers representatives were increased from two to three and guardians representatives increased from three to four. According to the petitioners, the Society never applied for any revision of the special constitution nor was such revision made after any reference to the Society or giving the society an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The Society only came to know about this revised special constitution on the 8th May, 1979. In October, 1978 Smt. Madhabi Mazumdar was transferred and Shri N. C. Das took charge from her. He also started functioning as Administrator of the National High School. ( 14 ) ON the 12th November, 1978 the Society by a letter to the Secretary, Education Department contended that the School has been established and managed from its inception by an organization of a linguistic minority community in Calcutta, and as such it was entitled to the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. As such the Education Department requested to allow the Society to run the institution. A similar representation was made by the President of the Society on the 12th December, 1978. ( 15 ) THEREAFTER there was a representation to the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education. Meanwhile the new Administrator Shri Das kept on writing to the Society about the Provident Fund of the staff, opening of a primary section, the schools' liabilities to the Society and so on. In May, 1979 the Society came to know about the holding of election of the Managing Committee in terms of the revised constitution. This was according to the petitioners held entirely behind the back of the Society. ( 16 ) ON the 11th May, 1979 the present Rule was obtained. ( 17 ) IN the Rule, the main challenge is directed against the revision of the special constitution and the appointment of the Administrator and also the holding of the election as mentioned above. ( 18 ) MR. Subrata Roy Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew my attention in the first place to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India which provides as follows:?30. (1)all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. ( 18 ) MR. Subrata Roy Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew my attention in the first place to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India which provides as follows:?30. (1)all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions 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. ? ( 19 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury in course of his arguments relied on a large number of Supreme Court cases on the scope and nature of the fundamental right guaranteed to religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice. It is not strictly necessary for me to deal with those decisions in any detail because they been very exhaustively discussed and dealt with by a judgment of my learned brother Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. in the case of Daughters of the Cross and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1978 (2) CLJ 518 . Having regard however to the elaborate arguments advanced by Mr. Roy Chowdhury I shall briefly deal with the various cases relied on by him. ( 20 ) THE earliest case that was relied on by Mr. Roy Chowdhury is a decision of the Supreme Court In re : The Kerala Educational Bill 1957 reported in AIR 1958 SC 956 . This was really an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on a reference made by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution of India. In that case, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court examined the scope and ambit of the protection given to religious and linguistic minorities by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 23 of the Report S. R. Das C. J. observed as follows: -?the first point to note is that the Article gives certain rights not only to religious minorities but also to linguistic minorities. In the next place the right concerned on such minorities is to establish educational institutions of their choice. It does not say that minorities based on religion should establish educational institutions for teaching religion only, or that linguistic minorities should have the right to establish educational institution for teaching their language only. In the next place the right concerned on such minorities is to establish educational institutions of their choice. It does not say that minorities based on religion should establish educational institutions for teaching religion only, or that linguistic minorities should have the right to establish educational institution for teaching their language only. For the Article says and means that religious and linguistic minorities should have the right to establish educational institution of their choice. There is no limitation placed on the subjects to be taught in such educational institutions. As such minorities will ordinarily desire that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and be eligible for higher university education and go out in the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainment as will make them fit for entering the public service, educational institution of their choice will necessarily include institutions imparting general secular education also. In other words, the Article leaves it to their choice to establish such educational institution as will serve both purpose namely the purpose of conserving their religion language or culture or also the purpose of giving thorough good general education to their children. The next thing to note is that the Article in terms gives all minorities whether based on religion or language, two rights, namely the right to establish and the right to administer educational institutions of their choice. ? ( 21 ) THE next decision referred to by Mr. Roy Chowdhury is the case of Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabbai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1963 SC 540 . In that case the Supreme Court held that unlike Article 19 the fundamental freedom to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities guaranteed under cl, (1) of Art. 30, is absolute in terms; it is not made subject to any reasonable restriction of the nature of the fundamental freedoms enunciated in Article 19 may be subjected to. All minorities, linguistic or religious, have by Article 30 (1) an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and any law or executive direction which seeks to infringe the substance of that right under Article 30 (1) would to the extent be void. This however is not to say that it is not open to the State to impose regulations upon the exercise of this right. This however is not to say that it is not open to the State to impose regulations upon the exercise of this right. The fundamental freedom is to establish and to administer educational institution; it is a right to establish and administer what are in truth educational institution i. e. institution which cater to the educational needs of 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 regulation are not restriction on the substance of the right which is guaranteed; they secure the proper functioning of the institution in matters educational. ( 22 ) REFERENCE was next made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rev. Father W. Proost and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 465 . This is the well known case of St. Xavier's College. In this case, it was held that the width of Article 30 (1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it considerations on which Article 29 (1) is based. The latter article is a general protection which is given to minorities to conserve their language, script or culture. The former is a special right to minorities to establish educational institutions of their choice. This choice is not limited to institution 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. That is a circumstance irrelevant for the application of Article 30 (1) since no such limitation is expressed and none can be implied. The two articles create two separate rights although it is possible that they may meet in a given case. In that case certain restrictions imposed by an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor of Bihar on July 16, 1968 with regard to the minority institutions were held not to be applicable to institutions run by minority community in view of the provisions of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. ( 23 ) THE next decision relied on by Mr. Roy Chowdhury is the case of State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, etc. reported in AIR 1970 SC 2079 . ( 23 ) THE next decision relied on by Mr. Roy Chowdhury is the case of State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, etc. reported in AIR 1970 SC 2079 . In that case, it was held that Article 30 (1) contemplates two rights which are separated in point of time. The first right is the initial right to establish institutions of minority's choice. It is irrelevant that in addition to the minority communities those even from the majority community can take advantage of these institutions. The next part of the right relates to the administration of such institution which means 'management of the affairs' of the institutions. This management must be free from control so that the founder or their nominees can mould the institutions as they think fit, and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution in particular will be best served. There is however an exception that the standards of education are not a part of management as such. The minority institutions cannot be allowed to fall below the standard of excellence expected of educational institution or under the guise of exclusive right of management, to decline to follow the general pattern. In this case it was held, that if the University establish syllabi for examinations the minority institution cannot be heard to say that they will not follow them. ( 24 ) NOW I shall deal with the two cases which were cited by Mr. Roy Chowdhury at the very opening of his argument because these are the cases which are not noticed in the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. mentioned above for the simple reasons that they were not available at that time. ( 25 ) THE first decision is a recent one of the Supreme Court in the case of Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina and Ors, reported in AIR 1979 SC 52 . In that decision it was held that the conferral of a right of appeal to an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor under Ordinance 33 (4) takes away the disciplinary power of a minority educational authority. The Vice Chancellor has the power to veto its disciplinary control. There is a clear interference with the disciplinary power of the minority institution. The State may ?regulate? the exercise of the right of administration but it has no power to impose any ?restriction? The Vice Chancellor has the power to veto its disciplinary control. There is a clear interference with the disciplinary power of the minority institution. The State may ?regulate? the exercise of the right of administration but it has no power to impose any ?restriction? which is destructive of the right itself. The conferral of such wide powers on the Vice Chancellor amounts in reality, to a fetter on the right of administration under Article 30 (1 ). This would so affect the disciplinary control of a minority education institution as to be subversive of its constitutional rights and can hardly be regarded as a ?regulation? or a ?restriction? in the interest of the institution. ( 26 ) THE last case to be noticed is another recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rt. Rev. Magr. Mark Netto v. Govt. of Kerala and Ors, reported in AIR 1979 SC 83 . In that case after a review of most of its earlier decision which have been noticed above, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the impugned Rule in its wide amplitude sanctioning the withholding of permission for admission of Girl students in the boys minority school would be violative of Art. 30. If so widely interpreted it crosses the barrier of regulatory measures and comes in the religion of interference with the administration of the institution, a right which is guaranteed to the minority under Art. 36. The Rule, therefore, must be interpreted narrowly and as inapplicable to a minority educational institution in a situation of the kind with which the Supreme Court was concerned in that case. ( 27 ) THE law on the subject is therefore absolutely clear. Under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India the religious and linguistic minorities have a right not only to establish but to administer their educational institutions. That right may be subject to certain regulatory measures in the interest of public health, sanitation, maintenance of academic standard and so on. But those regulations must not amount to restriction. If it does, it will be violative of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. ( 28 ) MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the Board was justified in appointing the administrator on the basis of the Enquiry Report. According to him, the Managing Committee had to be removed. If it does, it will be violative of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. ( 28 ) MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the Board was justified in appointing the administrator on the basis of the Enquiry Report. According to him, the Managing Committee had to be removed. He further submitted that the appointment of an Administrator is a transitional step to prevent and end maladministration of the school. He further contended that the power of approval under Rule 8 is purely administrative. ( 29 ) IN my view, the contentions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury are sound and should be accepted. In my view, the supersession of a Managing Committee and the appointment of the Administrator go far beyond the permissible limits of regulations as interpreted by the various decisions of the Supreme Court. Similarly, the unilateral revision of the special constitution by the Board without any application on behalf of the Society and without any reference to it is not only completely contrary to all known canons of justice and fair play, but it is also violative of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. ( 30 ) IN my view, there can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioner society is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Consequently both the impugned orders of supersession and revision of the Special Constitution must be held to be illegal and struck down. ( 31 ) IN the result this application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. There will be a declaration in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. There will be also a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith, cancel and withdrew the order contained in the letter dated 9th September, 1973 issued by the Board. There will be also a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to forthwith, cancel and withdraw the order dated 6th December, 1977 and a further Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to cancel, withdraw the order of direction dated 26th September, 1975 and 9th September, 1978 issued by the respondent no. 3. 1 to 3 to cancel, withdraw the order of direction dated 26th September, 1975 and 9th September, 1978 issued by the respondent no. 3. There will also to make over charge of the National High School (Boy's) to the petitioner Society so that it can manage and administer the same according to its own regulations or constitution. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.