JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20th July 2006 passed by the Principal, St. Anthony Girls Inter College, Allahabad whereby she was declined admission to 11th standard with Bio-group i.e. physics, Chemistry and Biology. 2. The facts draped in brevity are that the petitioner has been a student of St. Anthony Girls Inter College and she passed her High School in the year 2006. The subjects choice-drawn by her in the High School were Hindi, English, Home Science, Science, Social Science, and Drawing. Having obtained first division in the High School, the petitioner opted for subjects of Bio-group in the Intermediate i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology and in this connection, she also made a representation to the Principal of the college but she was denied the opted subjects on the premises that she had not passed High School with Math as a subject and since physics necessitated studies of Math, she would not be able to cope with the strain involved in Physics as a subject. Aggrieved by the order, the present petition has come to be instituted. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the science stream consists of two groups known as Physics, Chemistry and Math and Physics Chemistry and biology and the science subject studied by the petitioner in the High School included study of Physics, Chemistry and Biology and by this reckoning, he argued that there can be no difficulty in the Intermediate. The learned Counsel also argued that the impugned order declining subjects with bio-group to the petitioner in the 11th standard suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and the order is liable to be quashed. Per contra, Sri Namvar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 relying upon annexure 1 to the counter affidavit, contended that the college had taken a policy decision the substance of which is that unless a student has taken math as one of the subject in the High School, she is not entitled to claim subjects of science stream. He also contended that in the High School, she had not opted for Mathematics and instead, she had opted for subjects like Home Science and Drawing, she cannot be assigned any subject in the science stream. He also contended that in the High School, she had not opted for Mathematics and instead, she had opted for subjects like Home Science and Drawing, she cannot be assigned any subject in the science stream. The learned Counsel replicated the contents of the impugned order arguing that study of Physics involves a good-deal of Maths and hence the student who takes Maths in the High School is allowed to opt for subjects of science stream in the Intermediate. The learned by way of clarification, apprised the Court that the Intermediate Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder are silent on the aspect and further that College being minority Institution is competent to formulate its own policy regulating admission and in consequence, the college formulated policy providing therein that those not having Mathematics as a subject in High School cannot be allowed to opt for subjects of science stream. 4. In view of nature of controversy involved in this petition, the Court sought assistance from the learned Standing Counsel as well. The learned Standing Counsel placed credence on an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, which forms part of counter affidavit filed by one M.K. Raizada on behalf of the State of U.P. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18.8.2006 has been taken on record. The learned Counsel submitted relying upon policy as also various records including the order of the District Inspector of Schools aforesaid that there are two groups in science subject, the first group is known as P.C.M. i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and the other group is called P.C.B. Physics, Chemistry and Biology. It is further submitted that it is permissible for those having bio-group in High School to seek admission opting for subjects of bio-group i.e. physics, chemistry and biology and mathematic as a subject cannot be treated as indispensable for those opting for bio-group in the science stream. 5. On being confronted with the above elucidation made by learned Standing Counsel, the learned Counsel for the Opp. 5. On being confronted with the above elucidation made by learned Standing Counsel, the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party switched to emphasize that the college had taken a policy decision that those opting for subjects in any group of science stream, must have studied mathematics in High School and the Institution had been adhering to its policy decision for quite long time and has not deviated from its policy decision in any circumstance nor any student who had not studied mathematics in High School has ever been assigned any subjects in science stream in the Intermediate. The learned Counsel also assailed the order of the District Inspector of Schools relied upon by the Standing Counsel stating that this letter cannot be treated as a mandate further urging that it is not worthy of any credence being one militating against policy decision of the college. The learned Counsel heavily relied upon T.A.M. Pai case urging that the college being minority institution its autonomy has been guaranteed by the aforesaid decision. 6. Now the question that crops up for consideration in the present case is whether policy decision taken by the college for admission to intermediate classes making mathematic a compulsory subject in the High School for admission to bio-group stream of science in intermediate is arbitrary and is one taken in accordance with the law. 7. I have considered the competing contentions advanced across the bar by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties agreed that there is no restriction imposed by any of the provisions or the Rules contained in the calendar of the Board framed under the Intermediate Education Act and the restriction if any, emanates from policy decision taken by the college. The impugned restriction is based on policy decision of the college and while rejecting representation, the principal relying upon policy decision taken by the respondent college refused to give subjects opted by the petitioner on the ground that the Physics involved a good deal of Mathematics and therefore, the student would not be able to cope with the subject considering that she had no background of Math in the High School. 9. In the perspective of the above facts, it is clearly borne out that in the science stream, there happens to be two groups; one group is known as P.CM. 9. In the perspective of the above facts, it is clearly borne out that in the science stream, there happens to be two groups; one group is known as P.CM. which includes Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and the other group of science stream is called P.C.B which includes, Physics, Science and Biology. It is also borne out from the record and also from close analysis of the submissions made across the bar and also considering the materials on record that a student who has passed High School with science as a subject which includes physics, chemistry and biology, qualifies to opt for science with physics, chemistry and biology. In my considered view, any policy decision which is not supported by any valid reason cannot be held to be sustainable. The petitioner college is a recognized Institution by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate and is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and cannot work arbitrarily. It brooks no dispute that there is no restriction in admitting students in science stream with physics, chemistry and Biology in intermediate who opted for science i.e. P.C.B group in High School without having math as a subject and in the circumstances, there is no plausible justification for the college to have formulated a new policy which is quite incongruous with the policy being adopted and enforced in obedience in other colleges. 10. The learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties placed reliance on a stream of decisions which include decisions reported in AIR 1992 Allahabad 338, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1397 and AIR 1992 SC 917 . In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. The Dean B.J. Medical College and others, AIR 1992 SC 917 , the Apex Court held that the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. The ratio flowing from this decision is not intended for application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as it was rendered in different context. This case involved a controversy relating to revaluation of answer papers in which after the revaluation a glaring difference was indicated in the marks. The ratio flowing from this decision is not intended for application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as it was rendered in different context. This case involved a controversy relating to revaluation of answer papers in which after the revaluation a glaring difference was indicated in the marks. The executive council of the University on the report of the committee appointed for making the enquiry cancelled the revaluation results and ordered for a second revaluation. It was in this perspective that the order of Executive Council for second revaluation was challenged. The ratio of this decision cannot be imported for application to the facts of the present case. 11. The second decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for Opp. Party to prop up his case are (2002) 1 UPLBEC 690 , (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1397 and AIR 1992 Allahabad 338. The decisions aforesaid rendered by Single Judge which I have gone through with the assistance of the Counsel, are also not attracted for application to the present case. 12. At this stage, learned Counsel re-emphasised his submission that since the college is run by Christians and is recognized as minority Institution and regard being had to the ratio flowing from T.M.A. Pai Foundation case reported in (2002)8 SCC p. 481, the Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by the college though there is no specific pleading in the counter affidavit. In T.M.A. Pai case, it has been rightly held that even minority institution cannot act arbitrarily and they are also bound to abide by Article 14 of the Constitution Of India. In the aforesaid case, in paragraph 114, the Apex Court quoted with approval paragraph 12 of the decision rendered in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717 . The said paragraph may also be quoted here for edification. “12. The real reason embodied in Article 30 (1) of the Constitution is the conscience of the nation that the minorities, religious as well as linguistic, are not prohibited from establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice for the purpose of giving their children the best general education to make them complete men and women of the country. The minorities are given this protection under Article 30 in order to preserve and strengthen the integrity and unity of the country. The minorities are given this protection under Article 30 in order to preserve and strengthen the integrity and unity of the country. The sphere of general secular education is intended to develop the commonness of boys and girls of our country. This is in the true spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity through the medium of education.. If religious or linguistic minorities are not given protection under Article 30 to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, they will feel isolated and separate. General secular education will open doors of perception and act as the natural light of mind for our countrymen to live in the whole.” Likewise in para 120 of the T.M.A. Pai’s case, paragraph 77 of Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society has also been quoted with approval which is excerpted below. “77. The idea of giving some special rights to the minorities is not to have a kind of a privileged or pampered section of the population but to give to the minorities a sense of secur8ity and a feeling of confidence. The great leaders of India since time immemorial had preached the doctrine of tolerance and catholicity of outlook. Those noble ideas were enshrined in the Constitution. Special rights for minorities were designed not to create inequality. Their real effect was to bring about equality by ensuring the preservation of the minority institutions and by guaranteeing to the minorities autonomy in the matter of the administration of those institutions. The differential treatment for the minorities by giving them special rights is intended to bring, about an equilibrium so that the ideal of equality may not be reduced to a mere abstract idea but should become a living reality and result in true, genuine equality, an equality not merely in theory but also in fact.” 13. In para 135 of the T.M.A. Pai’s case, the Apex Court observed that “we find it difficult to accept that in the establishment and administration of educational institutions by the religious and linguistic minorities, no law of the land, even the Constitution, is to apply to them”. In para 136, the Apex Court observed “decisions of this Court have held that the right to administer does not include the right to mal-administer. In para 136, the Apex Court observed “decisions of this Court have held that the right to administer does not include the right to mal-administer. It has also been held that the right to administer is not absolute, but must be subject to reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institutions as the vehicle of education, consistent with national interest. In para 138, the Apex Court held that “any law or rule or regulation that would put the educational institutions run by the minorities at a disadvantage when compared to the institutions run by the others will have to be struck down.” It was further held that “In other words, the essence of Article 30 (1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. No one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for that matter, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions. The minority institutions must be allowed to do what the non-minority institutions are permitted to do.” 14. It would thus transpire that it has been clearly expounded in the afore-cited case that Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions. The minority institutions must be allowed to do what the non-minority institutions are permitted to do. The necessary corollary of the aforesaid decision is that the minority institution too is governed by Constitution and it is bound to abide by article 14 of the constitution of India and it cannot work arbitrarily in the guise of minority institution. The policy of the School cited by the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party as contained in counter affidavit as Annexure No. l, is not sanctified by any restriction imposed by the U.P. Intermediate Education or the Calendar of the Board and therefore, it is highly arbitrarily particularly regard being had to the decision of the Board of High School and Intermediate dated 17.8.2006 referred to in the counter affidavit and also the letter of the District Inspector of Schools communicated the decision of the Board of High School and Intermediate dated 18.8.2006. In case a student has studied science in the High School with physics, chemistry and biology, there is no restriction imposed by any statute that any such student would not be admitted to science stream with bio-group on the premises that he/she had not taken Mathematics as a subject in the High School. The college in justification of its policy cannot take shelter behind the plea that the college is a recognized minority institution regard being had to the decision of the Apex Court aforesaid the crux of which is that no one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for that matter, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions. The minority institutions must be allowed to do what the non-minority institutions are permitted to do. The Apex Court further observed that the essence of Article 30 (1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. In view of the above, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party that the college is competent to take a policy decision independent of rules being followed by other colleges governed by the Intermediate Education Act merely on the ground that it is a recognized minority Institution cannot be sustained. However, I would not forbear from expressing that any observation made in the body of this judgment should not be construed as authoritative decision relating to admission on merit. This decision has to be construed to be one deciding the eligibility of the petitioner for admission to science stream with Physics, chemistry and biology in Intermediate class she having passed High School with science as a subject which included, physics, chemistry and biology. 15. As a result of foregoing discussion, I would not hesitate to hold that the policy decision heavily relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties is held to be highly arbitrary being one not having genesis in the restriction imposed by the Intermediate Education Act or any regulation framed by the Board under the Act and therefore, it cannot be sustained. 16. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2006 is quashed and the Opp. Parties is held to be highly arbitrary being one not having genesis in the restriction imposed by the Intermediate Education Act or any regulation framed by the Board under the Act and therefore, it cannot be sustained. 16. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.7.2006 is quashed and the Opp. Party No. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner for admission accordingly in class 11 in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———