Judgment : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. W.P.Nos.26995-26996/2013 and W.P.Nos.29982-29983/2013 are filed by the students, allotted by the Government for being admitted to the first standard to the seventh respondent School, namely, St.Mira's English School being run by the sixth respondent Society. The grievance of the petitioning students is that they are not being admitted to the said School. 2. W.P.No.13670/2013 is filed by the Management of the School - Public Education Society questioning, inter alia, the show cause notice, dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure-E) issued by the Block Education Officer ('BEO' for short) as to why the criminal case should not be filed for not admitting the children in question (petitioners in W.P.Nos.26995-26996/2013 and W.P.Nos.29982- 29983/2013) to St. Mira's school. 3. Sri N.Devaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26995-26996/2013 and W.P.Nos.29982-29983/2013 submits that the petitioning children are lawfully allotted to the neighborhood schools and that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are not justified in refusing to comply with the BEO's order. 4. Sri M.P.Srikanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.13670/2013 submits that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('RCFCE Act' for short) has no application for the minority unaided institutions, as per the Apex Court's judgment in the case of SOCIETY FOR UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF RAJASTHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 6 SCC 1 . He read out paragraph No.65 of the said decision, which is as follows: "65. However, the said 2009 Act, and in particular Sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3) infringes the fundamental freedom guaranteed to unaided minority schools under Article 30(1) and, consequently, applying the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India principle of severability, the said 2009 Act shall not apply to such schools." 5. He submits that as per the Memorandum of Association, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-D in W.P.No.13670/2013, the Public Education Society is established to start the educational institutions for the benefit of religious minority (Muslims). He would rely on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of N. AMMAD v. MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 6 SCC 674 to advance the contention that a minority educational institution would continue to be so irrespective of whether the Government declares it as such or not; declaration by the Government is at best only a recognition of an existing fact. 6. 6. Sri Srikanth submits that St.Mira's English School is beyond the supervisory control of the State Government and its functionaries, because it is affiliated to and recognized by the Council of Indian School Certificate Examination ('Council of ICSE' for short) and because Section 1(3)(iiia) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ('the said Act' for short) makes the provisions of the said Act inapplicable to such educational institutions. 7. The learned counsel submits that the BEO's directions in the matter are without jurisdiction. According to him, under Section 8(2) of the said Act, the State Government has to appoint such number of officers as may be necessary, designated as Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or otherwise for each department or group of departments to assist the Director in performing the functions entrusted to him by or under the said Act. No jurisdiction is conferred on the BEO to act in the matter. 8. He submits that the petitioners do not reside in the vicinity of St.Mira's School. The question of accommodating them to St.Mira's School would not arise at all. 9. Sri G.R.Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.Nos.26995-26996/2013 and W.P.Nos.29982-29983/2013 has made the submissions akin to those of Sri M.P.Srikanth. 10. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, the learned Advocate General submits that the right to education is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21A is inserted by the Constitution 86th Amendment Act, 2002 providing for free and compulsory education to all the children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner, as the State may by law determine. Consequently, the RCFCE Act is enacted. 11. The learned Advocate General submits that Section 12 of RCFCE Act casts certain responsibilities on the schools in the matter of free and compulsory education. He submits that the terms 'child belonging to disadvantaged group' and 'to weaker section' is defined by Section 2(d) and 2(e) of the RCFCE Act. The factors for determining what constitutes the 'disadvantaged group' and 'weaker section' are to be specified by the appropriate Government, which in the instant case is the State Government. The State Government's directions to admit the petitioning children to St.Mira's School are in the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in RCFCE Act. 12. The factors for determining what constitutes the 'disadvantaged group' and 'weaker section' are to be specified by the appropriate Government, which in the instant case is the State Government. The State Government's directions to admit the petitioning children to St.Mira's School are in the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in RCFCE Act. 12. The learned Advocate General brings to my notice the meaning of the 'appropriate Government' as given in Section 2(a)(ii) of the RCFCE Act. The provisions are extracted hereinbelow: "2(a) "Appropriate Government" means – (i) in relation to a school established, owned or controlled by the Central Government, or the Administrator of the Union territory, having no Legislature, the Central Government; (ii) in relation to a school, other than the school referred to in sub-clause (i), established within the territory of - (A) a State, the State Government; (B) a Union territory having legislature, the Government of that Union territory." 13. As St.Mira's School is not established, owned or controlled by the Central Government or the administrator of the Union Territory and is not situated in any Union Territory, the Karnataka State Government is the appropriate Government vis- à-vis the St.Mira's School. 14. Securing the admission for the children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker sections is the power coupled with duty of the officers of the State Government, so submits the learned Advocate General. 15. The Advocate General submits that India is a land of diversities and not of uniformities. To have unity in diversity, every classroom has to be a miniature India. If any classroom consists only of the students from a particular class or background, it would only promote sectarianism, which is not in the interest of bringing about the national integration. 16. The learned Advocate General submits that the State Government would pay the admission fee, etc. of the students sent by it to St.Mira's School. He submits that the State Government has come forward to bear such a burden in respect of the unaided institutions, notwithstanding that such schools may have been indirectly benefited by the Government in the form of land grants, paying the electricity and water charges at concessional rates, etc. of the students sent by it to St.Mira's School. He submits that the State Government has come forward to bear such a burden in respect of the unaided institutions, notwithstanding that such schools may have been indirectly benefited by the Government in the form of land grants, paying the electricity and water charges at concessional rates, etc. He brings to my notice the second proviso to Section 12(2) of the RCFCE Act, which is as follows: "Provided further that where such school is already under obligation to provide free education to a specified number of children on account of it having received any land, building, equipment or other facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of such obligation." 17. When the State Government is ready to bear the expenditure, notwithstanding that it is strictly not obliged to do as per the proviso extracted hereinabove, St.Mira's School is not being put to any prejudice. Infact, St.Mira's School is being enabled to educate the students from the impoverished backgrounds at the cost of the State Government by honouring the Government's acts of allotting the petitioning students for being admitting to St.Mira's School, 18. At this juncture Sri G.R.Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for St.Mira's School submits that the Management of the said School has not availed of any benefit from the Government. It has not got any land grants; it is paying the electricity and water charges at the usual rates and not at the concessional rates. He submits that the said School Management is not availing of any exemption from the payment of property tax to the local body. 19. The learned Advocate General would vehemently contend that the disinclination of some of the private unaided institutions to admit the poor children even in the wake of the Government's readiness and willingness to bear their educational expenditure, would only go to show that they are onto profiteering. He would pray for upholding the State Government's resolve to give effect to the salutary provisions contained in Article 21A of the Constitution of India. 20. Sri R.Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate seeks leave of the Court to make the submissions, particularly on the factual aspects of the matter. He submits that 34 applications, invoking RCFCE Act, were filed seeking admission to St.Mira's English School. 20. Sri R.Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate seeks leave of the Court to make the submissions, particularly on the factual aspects of the matter. He submits that 34 applications, invoking RCFCE Act, were filed seeking admission to St.Mira's English School. Out of them, 19 children were selected by a Committee consisting of 3 persons - (i) Principal of St.Mira's English School (ii) Educational Coordinator (iii) Cluster resource persons. 21. The list of selected 19 applicants -children were sent to the BEO. He forwarded the same to St. Mira's School on 7.3.2013. On St.Mira's School refusing to admit the 19 children, a notice was issued on 11.3.2013. As St.Mira's School did not respond to the notice also, a police complaint was lodged on 15.3.2013. The same is registered as Crime No.0062/2013 by the Magadi Road Police Station. 22. Sri R.Omkumar submits that the list of students, (a copy of which is produced as Annexure-R3 to W.P.No.13670/2013) admitted to St.Mira's School shows that only 6 out of 292 students belong to the Muslim community. The students belonging to the minority community, for whose benefit the School is stated to have been established, do not constitute even 5% of the students studying therein. 23. Sri Omkumar submits that though St.Mira's English School is being run for nearly three decades, it had not sought the minority status till recently. St.Mira's School's Management - Public Education Society sought the minority status only to wiggle out of the purview of the RCFCE Act. 24. Sri G.R.Mohan, in the course of his rejoinder submissions, contends that the Society and the School in question are started by the persons belonging to the minority and for the benefit of the minority. Only because some admitted students belong to the general category, the minority status of an entity cannot be diluted or disputed. 25. After making the submissions in W.P.No.13670/2013 filed by the Management, its learned counsel Sri M.P.Srikanth has filed the memo as follows: "The Advocate for petitioner on instructions from the petitioner management submits that the above petition may be disposed of with liberty to urge all the grounds available in the order W.P.No.26995-96/13 (EDN) pending before this Hon'ble Court. Wherefore, it is submitted that the above writ petition may be disposed of in the ends of justice." 26. The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration. 27. Wherefore, it is submitted that the above writ petition may be disposed of in the ends of justice." 26. The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration. 27. W.P.Nos.26995-26996/2013 and W.P.Nos.29982-29983/2013 and the resistance of the Management to the same are required to be examined by me. 28. The crux of the Management's resistance to admit the petitioning students to their School is that the RCFE Act has no application for the minority institutions, as declared by the Apex Court in the case of Society For Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra). That issue is no more res integra. 29. But the question that arises for my consideration in the factual matrix of this case is whether the Management (Public Education Society) and its St. Mira's School can refuse to admit the petitioning students, when the petitioning students were selected for admission to St.Mira's School on a date on which St.Mira's School did not have the declaration of the minority status by any competent authority. It is not in dispute that the three persons Committee consisting of (i) Principal of St.Mira's School (ii) Educational Coordinator (iii) Cluster resource persons selected the petitioning students for admission to St.Mira's School in February 2013. The list of the selected candidates, which bears the signature of the Principal of St.Mira's English School, is produced as Annexure-R1 to the Government's counter in W.P.No.13670/2013. 30. Subsequently, on 8.5.2013 St.Miras's School is declared as a minority educational institution by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. Based on this subsequent development St.Mira's School and the Management are taking the stand that they are not obliged to admit the petitioning students. Such a stand is neither tenable nor reasonable. 31. The process of admission involves several stages starting from the date of calling for applications, submitting the applications, scrutiny of the applications, selection of the students for admission and finally the payment of fees along with the submission of the original documents. The rules or the instructions cannot be changed to the disadvantage of any party. The pre-existing right of admission cannot be permitted to extinguished by the subsequent development. 32. Admittedly, when the applications were received, scrutinized and selected, St.Mira's School did not have the declaration to the effect it is a minority educational institution. Further, the Principal of St.Mira's School is a party to their selection. The pre-existing right of admission cannot be permitted to extinguished by the subsequent development. 32. Admittedly, when the applications were received, scrutinized and selected, St.Mira's School did not have the declaration to the effect it is a minority educational institution. Further, the Principal of St.Mira's School is a party to their selection. He cannot now turn around and say that he would not honour the decision to which he is a party. Having taken part in the process for selecting the students for admission to St.Mira's School and that too without any protest at any stage, its Principal cannot turn back to state that the procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction. In saying so, I am fortified by the Apex Court's judgment in the case of VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 . 33. The other grounds like the allotment orders being without the jurisdiction, St.Mira's School not being the neighborhood school for the petitioning students are noticed but only to be rejected. This Court would have examined such grounds, if only St.Mira's School were not a party to the selection of the petitioning students. St.Mira's School and its Management are estopped from raising such objections at this juncture. Only on being satisfied that the petitioning children are in the St.Mira's School neighborhood and acquiescing to the role of the Government officers in allotting the students for admission to the schools, the St.Mira's School and its Management cannot now be permitted to turn around. 34. Further, even if this case is examined from the angle of equity or reasonableness, what can be said is that the parents of the petitioning students, on being assured that their wards would be admitted to St.Mira's School, cannot be left high and dry. This Court takes judicial notice of the commencement of the process of applying for admission 8 to 10 months prior to the commencement of the academic year. In May, June they cannot be confronted with a situation in which St.Mira's School denies the admission to them and they cannot get admission to other schools on account of the expiry of the last date for submitting the application for admission. 35. Keeping the petitioning students out of the School would violate not only the right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India but also their human right. 35. Keeping the petitioning students out of the School would violate not only the right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India but also their human right. The Management of St.Mira's School would also not suffer any loss or prejudice, as the State Government has fairly come forward to reimburse the educational expenses of the petitioning children. Viewed from any angle, I do not see any good reason for the Principal of St.Mira's School to resile from the promise made to the petitioning students. The privilege accrued to the petitioning students at the time of their selection for admission to St.Mira's School cannot be erased, just because St.Mira's School is subsequently given the declaration of the minority status. Such a declaration cannot be used to extinguish the precious educational rights of the petitioning students. The rigors of transition from the non-minority status into the minority status institution has to be softened. 36. I.A.No.1/2013 for initiating the suo motu contempt proceedings against the BEO is dismissed. It is the power coupled with the responsibility of the BEO to secure admission for the concerned students to the School in question. He has neither disobeyed any court order nor obstructed the course of justice in any way. 37. In the result, I allow W.P.Nos.26995-26996/2013 and W.P.Nos.29982-29983/2013. The provisional admissions of the petitioning students to St.Mira's School pursuant to this Court's interim order are made absolute. St.Mira's School and its Management (Public Education Society) are directed to permit the petitioning children to complete their Course at St.Mira's School. The State Government and its officers are directed not to apply the provisions of the RCFE Act to the Mira's School from the next academic year (2014-15) in view of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Society For Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) and Mira's School obtaining the minority status declaration on 8.5.2013, unless there is a change in the law or in its interpretation or the withdrawal of minority status declaration. 38. W.P.No.13670/2013 is dismissed as not pressed. 39. No order as to costs.