Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
We have heard Sri Sanjiv Singh for the appellant. Learned standing counsel appears for State respondents.
The Principal, St. Anthony Girls Intermediate College, Allahabad is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.9.2006 in writ petition No. 40997 of 2006, by which the court allowed the prayers made by Km. Hena Farheen, minor daughter of Sri Mohd Irfan to choose Physics, Chemistry and Biology as subjects in Class XI for intermediate examination. The School had denied her choice of subjects by the appellant College, on the ground that she did not have Mathematics in High School.
Learned Single Judge held that there is no restriction made by the Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education, U.P. to admit the students in science stream with Physics, Chemistry and Biology in intermediate, if they did not study Mathematics as a subject in High School. The School could not have restricted her choice to opt for science stream, on the ground that she did not have Mathematics as a subject in High School.
Learned Single Judge further held that fundamental rights of the minority to establish and administer educational institutions, are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institutions as the vehicle of education, consistent with national interest.
Learned Single Judge has relied upon judgment in T.M.A Foundation reported in (2002) 8 SCC p. 481, and in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society Vs. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717.
Sri Sanjiv Singh, relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in M.I. Hussain Vs. N. Singh & Others [AIR 2006 Delhi 86], in which it was held that in order to maintain standards and reputation, a School can insist upon minimum cut off marks for admission to a stream, and the court should be slow to interfere in such a decision, taken by the School. In that case, the School had offered commerce stream instead of science stream in Class XI admission to students, having less than 70 % marks in High School. The Delhi High Court held that it was not necessary that there must be a statutory sanction for imposing of such cut-off marks. The School was free to take such policy decision, as it deems fit, for maintaining its standards and reputation.
In the present case, the appellant School is recognized by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate, and is subject to regulations framed by it, from to time, for the purpose of choice of subject and the examination. It is the Board, which lays down the policy in the manner of choice of subject to be opted by the students. The School is affiliated to the Board, it is bound by the regulations framed by it, relating to examination.
In the present case, there are no such restrictions placed upon the students for the choice of the subjects in the Science stream, on the ground that the student did not have Mathematics as subject in Science stream. The freedom given by the Board to the students to choose those subjects of their choice in the Intermediate Examination, cannot be restricted by the School, on the ground of its experience or a policy decision purportedly in the interest of students. If we allow the contention of the appellant, then each School recognized by the Board may come forward, with their own policy, which may be conflicting with the policy adopted by the Board.
It is always open to the School to represent to the Board their experience to amend the policy for choice of subject and for examination to be applied uniformly, to all the Schools recognized by the Board. The School cannot place restrictions on the choice of subject and examination, contrary to the policy of the Board. Our opinion is in consonance with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in M.I. Hussain's case, in which it was held that the Court should be slow to interfere with policy decision taken by the educational bodies.
We may further observe that the the regulations framed by the Board in the matter of choice of subject and examination do not violate any fundamental right guaranteed to the minority school under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. Such conditions do not take away, in any manner, the right to establish and administer the educational institutions by minorities.
The Special Appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2011 nethra