Judgment In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Appeal Committee of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Appeal Committee) holding that it had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the Appeal No. 75/72 preferred by Joseph D'Sa Pravu the respondent No. 4 against the authorities of the St. Xavier's Collegiate School, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the school). The petitioners Nos.1 to 11 are members of the Managing Committee of the school who are stated to have been nominated by the Provincial Superior of the Calcutta Province of the Society of Jesus. The petitioner No. 13 is the school which is claimed to have been established by the said society of Jesus and has been and is being run, managed and administered by the Jesuits of Calcutta. It is, therefore, claimed that the school was established and has been and is being managed and administered by a religious minority community within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The school is an unaided Higher Secondary School and it sends up candidates for the Higher Secondary Examination held by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The respondent No. 4 was appointed as a lay teacher of the school in 1958. For certain acts of indiscipline he was suspended and thereafter he was given a chargesheet and was asked to show cause why his services in the school should not be terminated. The respondent No.4 showed cause against the said charges and after considering the same the Managing Committee of the school terminated his service. The respondent No. 4 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 527 of 1972 against the school in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, which is pending. The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 75/72 before the Appeal Committee and prayed for ad interim stay of his suspension and dismissal. The Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school duly appeared and placed all relevant papers before the Appeal Committee and opposed the prayer for ad interim stay. The Appeal Committee decided that there was no case for ad interim stay. The Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school duly appeared and placed all relevant papers before the Appeal Committee and opposed the prayer for ad interim stay. The Appeal Committee decided that there was no case for ad interim stay. The school submitted its objections to the said appeal inter alia challenging the jurisdiction of the Board to exercise and control over the school and that of the Appeal Committee to entertain or hear the appeal. By a letter dated 24th January, 1973 the respondent No. 4 forwarded to the school a copy of a letter dated 20th January, 1973 issued by the Secretary of the Board a copy whereof was also subsequently received by the school from the Secretary of the Board. From the said letter dated 20th January, 1973 it was found that on the 19th December, 1972 the Appeal Committee had directed reinstatement of the respondent No.4 and it was stated that the school was absent on the date of hearing of the appeal in spite of notice of such hearing although no such notice was received by the school. The petitioners moved a writ petition in this Court challenging the said decision of the Appeal Committee wherein a rule nisi was issued. The respondent No. 4 appeared and contested the said Rule. By an ordered dated 18th February, 1975 this Court set aside the said order of the Appeal Committee solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in passing the said order while the rights and contentions of the parties in the said appeal including the question jurisdiction of the Appeal Committee were left open by the said order. At a meeting of the Appeal Committee held on the 28th January, 1976 the Rector and President of the school appeared and submitted a letter of even date before the Appeal Committee, inter alia, contending that the school was an institution founded, established and managed by Christians and was protected by Article 30 of the Constitution of India and nothing contained in the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 or the rules and regulations and bye laws framed thereunder applied to the school including matters of termination of service or disciplinary action against any teacher. Thereafter by a letter dated 9th June, 1977 the Secretary of the Board forwarded to the school the decision of the Appeal Committee in the said appeal taken at its meeting held on the 18th May, 1977. The relevant portion of the said decision is set out below :- “It is on record that St. Xavier's Collegiate School, Calcutta is recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Since it is recognized by the Board the school is governed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the Rules and the regulations made thereunder. In the instant case, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Appeal Committee of the Board which had been constituted under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. 1963. The Appeal Committee of the Board is to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Manner of Hearing and Deciding Appeals by Appeal Committee) Regulations, 1964 framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963. 2. It is also found that the name of St. Xaviers Collegiate School, Calcutta does not appear in the schedule of names of the Christian Missionary Institutions in respect of which the State Government framed special rules for their management. 3. That being the position, the Appeal Committee is of opinion that it has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal, being No. 75/72 preferred by Mr. J. D'Souza Pravu against the authorities of St. Xaviers Collegiate School, Calcutta. 4. Resolved: That the Appeal Committee has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal preferred by Mr. J. D'Souza Pravu against the authorities of St. Xaviers Collegiate School, Calcutta. Both the parties be informed accordingly. 5. As already stated this writ petition is challenging the said order. 6. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioners, referred to Article 30 of the Constitution of India and submitted that the said Article was in Part III of the Constitution which relates to fundamental rights and it preserved and safeguarded the rights of all minorities whether based on religion or language to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioners, referred to Article 30 of the Constitution of India and submitted that the said Article was in Part III of the Constitution which relates to fundamental rights and it preserved and safeguarded the rights of all minorities whether based on religion or language to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The school had been established by the society of Jesus, a religious organisation professing Roman Catholic faith and has always been and still is run, manager and administered by the Jesuits of Calcutta, a religious minority community within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution. The Managing Committee is nominated by and formed under the guidance of the Provincial Superior of the Calcutta Province of the Society of Jesus. While the terms and conditions of service of the religious staff are determined by the said Society but those of the members of the lay staff of the school including their appointment, dismissed, termination and other conditions of service are determined by the said Society but those of the members of the lay staff of the school including their appointment, dismissed, termination and other conditions of service are determined by the Managing Committee of the school. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 constitute the Managing Committee of the school having been nominated by the Provincial Superior of the Calcutta Province of the said Society. It is an unaided school. 7. The learned Advocate referred to the Code of Regulations for European (Now Anglo Indian) Schools in Bengal (now West Bengal), 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Regulations) 2nd submitted that even those schools which received aid from the State Government under the Code of Regulations were not subject to the supervision and control of the Board or of its Appeal Committee with regard to appointment or dismissed or termination of service of its teachers and he referred to Regulations 1 to 8 in Chapter III of the Code of Regulations. He submitted that it is absurd to suggest that an unaided school established and run by a minority religious community, being a section of the Roman Catholic Christian Community, would come under the control and jurisdiction of the Board and its Appeal Committee although such aided schools would not so come. He submitted that it is absurd to suggest that an unaided school established and run by a minority religious community, being a section of the Roman Catholic Christian Community, would come under the control and jurisdiction of the Board and its Appeal Committee although such aided schools would not so come. The case of the respondents is that as the school is recognised by the Board, therefore, the Board has jurisdiction over the school and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the rules, regulations and bye-laws framed thereunder applies to it, cannot be sustained. There is no denial in the affidavit-in-opposition of Gopal Kishore Bhattacharjee affirmed on 11th May, 1978 on behalf of the Appeal Committee, the Board and the Secretary of the Board that (i) the school is a Christian Missionary School established by the Society of Jesus and is run, managed and administered by the Jesuits of Calcutta, (ii) the school was established and has been and is administered by a religious minority community within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution, (iii) the Managing Committee thereof had always been and still is nominated by the Provincial Superior of the Calcutta Province of the Society of Jesus and (iv) it is an unaided school. Merely because the name of the school does not appear in the schedule to the 'Special Rules' framed by the State Government as observed by the Appeal Committee being 'Special Rules' for the Management of Secondary Schools established and run by a Christian Church/Missionary Society (Board)/Religious Society etc. framed by State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 33 of Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 which was published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 31st May, 1974 under Notification No. 641-Edn. (S)/8B-3, pt. VII dated 23rd May, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Special Rules) does not go to establish or prove that the school is not a school established and managed by a Christian Missionary Society, a minority religious community. (S)/8B-3, pt. VII dated 23rd May, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Special Rules) does not go to establish or prove that the school is not a school established and managed by a Christian Missionary Society, a minority religious community. Reference was also made to a certificate dated 17.3.76 granted to the school by K.C. Parvat on behalf of the Deputy Director of Public Institution (Anglo India Schools), West Bengal, being Annexure 'C' to the petition, wherein it was certified that the school was recognised as a Secondary School by the Government of West Bengal under the Code of Anglo Indian Education, West Bengal. It was submitted that the respondent No. 4 has no doubt denied that the school is founded, established and managed by the Christian Community and has asserted that the fact that the school was not brought under the purview of the said Special Rules shows that the school was not founded, established and managed solely by the Christian. It was further asserted by the said respondent that inasmuch as the petitioners did not claim for inclusion of the name of the school in the schedule to the said Special Rules as a school founded, established and managed by Christians, the school therefore did not come within the purview of Article 30 of the Constitution. It was urged by Mr. Gupta that no particulars have been given by the respondent No. 4 to show that there were any non-christians who are or had been interested in the foundation, establishments or management of the school. The said allegations are utterly vague and Devoid of any particulars and particularly the respondent No. 4 being the party vitally interested it was only natural that he would deny all statements made by the petitioners which might result in the success of the writ petition. The ambit and extent of preservation of the rights of the religious or linguistic minority to establish, administer and manage educational institutions of their choice came up before the Supreme Court and this Court in various cases. In (1) Iilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina & Ors., reported in AIR 1979 SC 52 the St. The ambit and extent of preservation of the rights of the religious or linguistic minority to establish, administer and manage educational institutions of their choice came up before the Supreme Court and this Court in various cases. In (1) Iilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina & Ors., reported in AIR 1979 SC 52 the St. Joseph's Training College for Women, Ernakulam which was an educational institution established by the Congregation of the Mothers of Carmel a religious society of Nuns belonging to the Roman Catholic Church was affiliated to the University of Kerala and was administered by a Managing Board, of which the Provisional of the Congregation was the President. In considering the scope and ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution 'the Supreme Court observed that the right of the minority to administer institutions of their choice as enshrined in Article 30(1) meant management of the affairs of the institutions. This right, however, was subject to the regulatory power of the State for the purpose of ensuring that such right to ad minister might be better exercised for the benefit of the institution but anything beyond that which would impair the right to administer, would be violative of Article 30. The interference by the State cannot be justified on the plea of interest of the general of the but could be justified only as being in the interest of the minority concerned. The Supreme Court struck down the Ordinance which conferred a right of appeal to an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that it took away and interfered with the disciplinary powers of the minority community with regard to their educational institution and its employees. The Supreme Court in this context referred to its earlier decisions in (2) Rev. Father W. Proost v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1969 SC 465 and (3) Sr. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1389 . 8. Mr. Gupta referred to the above two cases to show that these were cases of St. Xavier's College in other States and admittedly they were institutions established, managed and administered by a religious minority. 9. In (4) N.R. Iyer Memorial Educational Society and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 8. Mr. Gupta referred to the above two cases to show that these were cases of St. Xavier's College in other States and admittedly they were institutions established, managed and administered by a religious minority. 9. In (4) N.R. Iyer Memorial Educational Society and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 85 CWN 113 which related to a school established by the Tamil Community in Calcutta, the Managing Committee thereof was superseded by the Board and an Administrator was appointed which was challenged in a writ petition. T.K. Basu, J. observed that under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India the religious and linguistic minority had a right not only to establish but also to administer their educational institutions which, however, might be subject to certain regulatory measures by the State in the interest of public health, sanitation, maintenance of academic standard and so on but such measures must not amount to any restriction on the right of the minority to administer their institutions. If it does, it will be violative of Article 30 of the Constitution. It was held that supersession of the Managing Committee and appointment of the Administrator went far beyond the permissible limits of regulatory measures. The unilateral revision of the special constitution by the Board without any application in that behalf by the society and without any reference to it was not only contrary to all known canons of justice and fair play, cut was also violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 10. In (5) Daughters of the Cross and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and others reported in 1978 (2) C.L.I. 518 which related to St. Agenes Government School, Howrah a school, established and administrated by a Roman Catholic Religious congregation named Daughters of the Cross, the administration whereof was vested in a governing body constituted according to the rules of the canon law which governed the congregation. Here, the service of one of the teachers was terminated by the governing body as a disciplinary measure. The teacher made a representation to the State Government against the termination of her service. The State Government after making an enquiry directed the governing body to reinstate the teacher. Here, the service of one of the teachers was terminated by the governing body as a disciplinary measure. The teacher made a representation to the State Government against the termination of her service. The State Government after making an enquiry directed the governing body to reinstate the teacher. On the refusal of the governing body to comply with the said direction, the Director of the Public Instruction issued a show cause notice to the governing body as to why the dearness allowance paid to the school by the State should not be stopped and why the recognition accorded to the school should not be stopped and why the recognition accorded to the School should not be withdrawn. Ultimately the State decided to stop payment of dearness allowance and appointed an Administrator to take over the administration of the school which was challenged by the petitioners in a writ petition. Here also the dismissed teacher filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 180 of 1974 in the Court of the 4th Munsif, Howrah wherein she made an application and obtained an ex parte order of injunction which was ultimately vacated. There was an appeal from the said order before the District Judge and an ex parte ad intaim order was obtained in that appeal which was ultimately dismissed. There were also other proceedings. The said school was not one of the schools mentioned in the schedule to the said special rules. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. held that a disciplinary matter was a management function and was an exclusive right of the minority community and thus the disciplinary action taken against the teacher could not be interfered with by the State Government particularly when the teacher was given a hearing. The order of reinstatement could not, therefore, be sustained. It was also held that whether the Code of Regulations was applicable, was doubtful, Chapter II, Rule I whereof enjoins that every school to which aid was given shall be under the management of the Governing Body duly constituted and acting under definite rules which the State Government might demand to be submitted for approval. It was also held that whether the Code of Regulations was applicable, was doubtful, Chapter II, Rule I whereof enjoins that every school to which aid was given shall be under the management of the Governing Body duly constituted and acting under definite rules which the State Government might demand to be submitted for approval. It was also held that Rule I of Chapter II of the Code of Regulations which have the State Government 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 Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and could not be enforced. That the name of the school was not entered in the schedule to the said special rules was of no consequence. 11. Mr. A.K. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the Board, referred to Rule 33 of Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969, and submitted that neither any special rules were framed by the State Government so as to attract the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution in respect of the school nor it is one of the schools whose names are entered in the schedule to the said special rules. That the school was established or administered by a religious or linguistic minority was not raised by any competent authority at any time before the State Government. In any event, the same being a question of fact could not be decided in this writ petition. The letter No. 28819/G.D. dated 5.12.1955 written by the Board informing the school of its recognition by the Board was given on the basis of the letter dated 26th September, 1955 written by the school authorities. By a letter dated 6th December, 1961 the Secretary of the Board informed the Headmaster of the school that the special constitution of the school was sanctioned as requested, by the school by its letter dated 20th November, 1961. By a letter dated 7th June, 1967 the Board directed reconstitution of the Managing Committee by 30th September, 1967 but the same was not complied with. The school having been recognised by the Board on the application of the school in that behalf it was, therefore, governed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. The school having been recognised by the Board on the application of the school in that behalf it was, therefore, governed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. The school has been following the Board's directions with regard to syllabi, examination schedules and taking advantage of the examinations held by the Board and sending students to sit for such examinations and thus the Board has jurisdiction to supervise, control and manage the school. Consequently the Appeal Committee of the Board has also jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and dispose of the appeal preferred by the aggrieved teacher. Neither the said Special Rules having been made applicable to the school nor any other Special Rules in accordance with Rule 33 having been framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and the Management of Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 are applicable to the school. It was also urged that Inasmuch as Article 30 of the Constitution is challenged the State Government is a necessary party to the proceeding and the writ petition cannot be maintained in its absence. It was further urged that no materials were placed by the petitioners before the Court that they constituted a religious minority. In any event this is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. 12. Mr. Indrajit Sen, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4, the teacher whose services were terminated, urged that the petitioners have failed to satisfy that the members of the Managing Committee of the School were appointed by the Society of Jesus, the religious organisation which is alleged to have established and founded the school. In paragraph 20 of his counter-affidavit the respondent No. 4 has specifically denied that the school was established or was or is managed by the Christian Community yet nothing has been disclosed by the petitioners in support of their claim and as such, they did not come within the purview and ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution. There is no supporting affidavit from any authority of the Society of Jesus, corroborating the case of the petitioners. The Special Rules were framed, inter alia, with regard to the powers and functions of the Managing Committee of Secondary School established and run by a Christian Church/Missionary Society (Board)/Religious Society etc. There is no supporting affidavit from any authority of the Society of Jesus, corroborating the case of the petitioners. The Special Rules were framed, inter alia, with regard to the powers and functions of the Managing Committee of Secondary School established and run by a Christian Church/Missionary Society (Board)/Religious Society etc. in the State of West Bengal to which the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India applied. The same were framed on the application of the West Bengal Association of Christian Schools. In the Schedule to the said Special Rules the schools to which the said Special Rules were made applicable were enumerated. Item 15 of the said Schedule shows St. Lawrence High School, 27, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta-19 was the only school established and managed by the Society of Jesus which was also recognised as such a school by the Board. There is no mention of St. Xaviers Collegiate School. This fact dearly shows that the said school was not one established or managed by the Society of Jesus. The certificate dated 17th March, 1976 signed by K.C. Parvat certifying that St. Xaviers Collegiate School, Calcutta is recognised as a secondary school by the Government of West Bengal under the Code of Anglo-Indian Education, West Bengal does not go to prove anything. It is not known what post or office the said K.C. Parvat held. The Director of Public Instructions or the State of West Bengal is not a party to the proceeding and thus neither any credence can be given to nor any reliance can be placed on the said certificate of K.C. Parvat. 13. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in (6) Arya Vyasa Sabha v. Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments, Hyderabad and Anr., reported in AIR 1916 SC 475. The appellant Arya Vyasa Sabha was a Society or association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and maintained various institutions pursuant to its objects set out in its Memorandum of Association which included, inter alia, to provide for and improve the religious and social association, commerce, trade and educational need of the 'Arya Vyasas' and to provide free food and education for 'Arya Vyasa' boys and girls etc. The Endowment Department of the State included various institutions of the appellant in the list of religious institutions published under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Act XVII of 1976 and called upon the appellant to have the said institutions registered under the provisions of the said Act. The appellant challenged the same in a writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the said Act was not applicable to the appellant which was a private institution or religious denomination or society registered under the Societies Registration Act and Arya Vyasa Community were a religious denomination within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition observing, inter alia, that whether the institution of the appellant was or was not a religious denomination or any section thereof within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution was a question of fact and in any event a mixed question of fact and law which could be more satisfactorily and effectively adjudicated upon in a competent Civil Court and report to writ remedy was in appropriate and misconceived and the appellant was at liberty to establish its claim that its institutions were a religious denomination in a competent Civil Court. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and it was contended that the High Court was wrong in making observations indicating that the members of the appellant did not belong to a religious denomination. The Supreme Court did not accept such contention and held that the High Court left the question undetermined and open holding that they were disputed questions of fact and could not be appropriately determined in a writ petition and the appellant was left to establish its claim in that behalf in a competent Civil Court. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and it was contended that the High. Court was wrong in making observations indicating that the members of the appellant did not belong to a religious denomination. The Supreme Court did not accept such contention and held that the High Court left the question undertermined and open holding that they were disputed questions of fact and could not be appropriately determined in a writ petition and the appellant was left to establish its claim in that behalf in a competent Civil Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 14. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 14. There is no denial by the Board or by the Appeal Committee of the Board or by the Secretary of the Board that St. Xaviers Collegiate School was established by the Society of Jesus, a religious organisations professing Roman Catholic faith and that the school was always and still is run and managed and administered by the Jesuits of Calcutta and was administered is still being administered by a religious minority community within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution. There is also no denial that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 are members of the Managing Committee of the School nominated by the Provincial Superior of the Calcutta Province of the Society of Jesus. In paragraph 3 of his affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No. 4 the teachers whose services were terminated denied that there is any properly constituted Managing Committee of the School nominated by or formed under the guidance or authority of the Society of Jesus. This denial, in my opinion, is merely as to the proper constitution of the Managing Committee of the School and not of its nomination or formation under the guidance or authority of the Society of Jesus. The said respondent in paragraph 20 of his said affidavit has denied that the school is an institution founded, established or managed by Christians or the same has been founded, established and managed solely by Christians. This allegation is based on the ground that the name of the St. Xaviers Collegiate School is not entered in the schedule to the said Special Rules. Although the respondent No. 4 has stated that the school has not been founded, established or managed solely by the Christians, he has not, however, given any particulars or shown anything to support his contention that any non-Christian was ever connected with or interested in or was, or is connected in the administration or management of the school. In my opinion, the assertion of the respondent No. 4 is of little probative value on which the Court can act or form its opinion. In my opinion, the assertion of the respondent No. 4 is of little probative value on which the Court can act or form its opinion. The decision of the Supreme Court in Arya Vyasa case (supra) did not decide anything it only did not disturb or interfere with the observations of the High Court that the question whether the association was an religious denomination or not should not be gone into in a writ petition but should be decided in a suit in the proper form. In the facts and circumstances of that case the High Court came to such conclusion and the Supreme Court on such facts and circumstances observed that the High Court was right in its opinion. The said decision of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, does not help the respondent No. 4 in his contention that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the school was established or founded or was and is administered and managed by the Jesuits of Calcutta or its Managing Committee was nominated by the Provincial Superior of the Calcutta Province of the Society of Jesus. 15. There is also no challenged to Article 30 of the Constitution by the petitioners. Applicability of Article 30 of the Constitution to an educational institution established, managed and administered by a religious or linguistic minority is not dependent upon framing of any rules or special rules by the State Government. In my opinion, the State of West Bengal is also not a necessary party to this rule as neither any relief is claimed nor any allegation made is against it by the petitioners. 16. There is no challenge to the certificate issued by K.C. Pravat, being Annexure 'D' to the petition either by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 or by the respondent No. 4. All that the respondent No. 4 has stated in paragraph 26 of this affidavit that he does not admit the truth, validity or credence thereof B.N. Banerji, J. (as he then was) in (7) New Central Jute Mills Co. 1, 2 and 3 or by the respondent No. 4. All that the respondent No. 4 has stated in paragraph 26 of this affidavit that he does not admit the truth, validity or credence thereof B.N. Banerji, J. (as he then was) in (7) New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors., 70 CWN 280 and (8) Sahu Jain Ltd. v. Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ors., 70 CWN 399 observed that inasmuch as in writ matters affidavit evidence is the only evidence on which the Court has to proceed and act therefore an averment in the affidavit in opposition or counter-affidavit merely disputing and denying a fact without disclosing any material or basis for such denial or dispute is utterly vague and indefinite and serves no purpose. It was also observed that the expression 'not admitted' is not even a bare denial while the expression 'no knowledge' is worse than 'not admitted'. 17. I respectfully agree with the above observations. 18. That the name of the school was not entered in the schedule to the said Special Rules framed by the State Government and published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 31st May, 1974 does not in any militate against the proposition that the school is entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, being a school which has been founded and established by a religious minority and has always been and is still managed and administered by them. On the facts and circumstances of the case and on the nature of the assertions made by the parties which I have noted and discussed earlier, I am of the opinion that there is no dispute that the St. Xaviers Collegiate School was founded and established by the Society of Jesuits a religious organisation professing Roman Catholic faith and it has always been still is managed and administered by the Jesuits of Calcutta a religious minority community and its Managing Committee is nominated by Provincial Superior of the Calcutta Province of the Society of Jesus and therefore the said school came within the purview of Article 3D of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the said school is recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as a Secondary School and students of the said school are allowed to take part and sit for the Secondary Examinations held by the Board but thereby it could not be said that the said school was governed by the rules and regulations framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 for its administration and management. The school has a special status under Article 30 of the Constitution whereunder the religious minority which founded and established the school is entitled to administer and manage the school and its affairs free of any external interference and control. The Code of Regulations for European (now Anglo-Indian) School Bengal (now West Bengal) 1929 does not apply to the school herein inasmuch as it does not receive any aid from the State Government. The said Regulations appear to apply only to schools receiving aid from the State Government. In Daughters of the Cross case (supra), it was found, that the St. Agnes School, the school concerned in the said case, was not a school mentioned schedule to the said Special Rules published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 31st May, 1974 nevertheless it was held that the said school came within the province of Article 30 of the Constitution. The right of the minority community to administer the school established by them flows from the language of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It does not depend upon whether some special rules framed by the Government were made applicable to it or not or whether it was included as a recognised religious minority school in the schedule to the said Special Rules or not. Right to administer connotes and brings within its purview right to appoint teachers and other staff and to terminate their services and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education or the Appeal Committee thereof would have no jurisdiction to interfere with such right. From the decisions of the Supreme Court in St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (supra); W. Proost v. State of Bihar (supra); and Lilly Kurian v. Sr. From the decisions of the Supreme Court in St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (supra); W. Proost v. State of Bihar (supra); and Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina (supra) it would clearly appear that such right of administration or management of the school or schools of their choice by the minority community, religious or linguistic, is absolute and there can be no encroachment upon such right by the State Government or any other statutory authority. Merely because the Board has recognised the school or it lays down the syllabi or examination schedules for the examinations held by it, which the school follows or is bound to follow if it desires its students to appear at such examinations or because the Board allows the school to send up its students to appear in and also allows them to sit for the said examination held by the Board, would not confer on the Board or its Appeal Committee any power or right or authority to delve into or interfere with the internal management and administration of the school by the religious minority, being the Society of Jesus, being a school of their choice. Internal management and administration includes, inter alia, appointment, suspension, disciplinary actions and dismissal of teachers and other staff of the school. In that view of the matter the Appeal Committee would have no jurisdiction or authority to entertain or hear or decide the Appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 against the order of termination of his service. In suitable cases, however, where the State Government finds that there is maladministration or gross abuse of such powers by the religious minority, the Government may frame rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of the teachers and other staff of the school with a view to secure the tenure of their service and to prevent maladministration and abuse of power. The Government may also appoint an officer of high rank or some high authority with proper guidance who would see that the rules and regulations so framed were not violated and the teachers or other staff were not arbitrarily or capriciously ill-treated or victimized of dismissed by the school authorities. But even so, the Government or any statutory authority are not entitled to interfere with the internal administration and management of the school on the pretext of enforcing the rules and regulations so framed. But even so, the Government or any statutory authority are not entitled to interfere with the internal administration and management of the school on the pretext of enforcing the rules and regulations so framed. In support, of my a have view I can only respectfully refer to the decision of the Supreme Courts in the case of (9) The All Saints High School v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR 1980 SC 2042 where the Supreme Court observed as under: "Artic1e 30(1) enshrines a fundamental right of the minority institutions to manage and administer their educational institutions, ......Although unlike Article 19 the right conferred on the minorities is absolute and unfetteren and unconditional but this does not mean that this right gives a free licence for maladministration so as to defeat the avowed object of the Article, namely, to advance excellence and perfection in the field of education. While the State or any other statutory authority has no right to interfere with the internal administration or management of the minority institution, the State can certainly take regulatory measures to promote the efficiency and excellence and educational standards and issue guidelines for the purpose of ensuring the security of the service of the teachers or other employees of the institution. At the same time, the State or any University Authority cannot under the cover or garb of adopting regulatory measures tend to destroy the administrative authority of the institution or start interfering willy niIly with the core of the management of the institution so as to render the right of the administration of the management of the institution concerned nugatory or illusory. ......Article 30 by its very nature implies that where affiliation was asked for, the University concerned cannot refuse the same without sufficient reason or try to impose such conditions as would completely destroy the autonomous administration of the educational institution. ........Where educational institutions have set up a particular governing body or the Managing Committee in which all the powers vest, it is desirable that such powers should not be curbed or taken away unless the Government is satisfied that these powers are grossly abused and if allowed to continue may reduce the efficacy or the usefullness of the institution. ........Where educational institutions have set up a particular governing body or the Managing Committee in which all the powers vest, it is desirable that such powers should not be curbed or taken away unless the Government is satisfied that these powers are grossly abused and if allowed to continue may reduce the efficacy or the usefullness of the institution. It is, therefore, open to the Government or the University to frame rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of teachers in order to secure their tenure of service and to appoint a high authority armed with sufficient guidance to see that the said rules are not violated or the members of the staff are not arbitrarily treated or innocently victimised." 19. Here the respondent No. 4 was given a charge-sheet and was also given opportunity to show cause against the charges made against him. The respondent No. 4 duly showed cause to the said charge. The Managing Committee of the School duly considered the same and found the respondent No. 4 guilty of the charges and therefore terminated his service. The rules of natural justice were followed. The respondent No. 4 also filed a Civil Suit in the City Civil Court Calcutta, being Title Suit No. 527 of 1972. 20. Mr. Gupta asked for leave to file an affidavit by the Provincial Superior of Calcutta Province of the Society of Jesus in support of the case of the petitioners, but on the view that I have taken I did not consider that such affidavit was necessary and therefore did not grant the leave asked for by Mr. Gupta. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners succeed in this rule and the rule is made absolute. The interim order made herein is also made absolute. The Order of the Appeal Committee dated 28th May, 1977 quashed. There will be no order as to costs.