- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 13-3-1995, Annexure 9 to the writ petition, passed by the State Government has been challenged primarily on the ground that the secular nature of the management is sought to be usurped and upturned by the imposition or introduction of minority status to an education institution, in spite of the fact that it was never intended to be established as minority institution under the bye-laws and Memorandum of Association by which it is governed. This controversy has cropped up in the following circumstances. There is a registered society with the name of National Association having its own bye-laws. It established a Junior High School in Bara, District, Ghazipur, in the year 1948, which came to be upgraded as Higher Secondary School in the year 1966 and in course of time, as an Intermediate College in the year 1972. It is now known as Bara Inter College, Bara, District, Ghazipur. When the said institution came to be governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the year 1966, the Deputy Director of Education (for short 'dde') approved a scheme of administration for the High School. The said scheme administration was also amended in the year 1985 and the amended scheme of administration was enforced through letter dated 15-2-1985, a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that neither the present society, namely, National Association, nor the college was either established by the minority community or was exclusively administered by it. It is further alleged that a perusal of the aims and objects, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, as well as in the scheme of administration, would indicate that the said society established the college to impart education in general without any particular benefit to either a linguistic or religious minority and that it was never intended, either initially or even when the scheme of administration came to be enforced, to confer a minority status on the institution. According to the petitioners, the State Government took upon itself, with an avowed and sole object of appearing a particular community, at the behest of certain political persons, including the then Education Minister, U. P. , to bestow, without understanding the implications thereof the status of minority institution by issuing the impugned order dated 13th March, 1995 on the Schools and Colleges, including Bara Inter College Bara, District, Ghazipur. The said order, it is urged has been passed by non-application of mind; without recording the finding as to whether the institution was established and is being administered by a minority community and as to whether the institution has its aims and objects for the purpose of providing benefit to a particular community either religious or linguistic, as contemplated under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, the declaration of minority status has been obtained with a view to do away with the various restrictions imposed by the Act and the Regulation framed thereunder obviously to the serious detriment to the rights of the teaching and non-teaching staff. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 13-3-1995 be quashed and the respondents be restrained from treating Bara Inter College, Bara, District, Ghazipur as a minority institution.
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1-Yogendra Nath Singh is life member of the National Association, a registered society, which manages and runs the institution, while petitioner No. 2, Damodar Singh is an Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in the Bara Inter College and according to both of them, if the minority status of the institution is allowed to continue, the service conditions of the teachers and other employees shall stand drastically changed and the committee of management shall act in its own way under the garb of the minority status of the institution. It is alleged that since the petitioners are directly affected by passing of the impugned order, they are entitled to maintain the present petition. The writ petition was originally dismissed as not maintainable at the instance of the petitioners on 18- 11-1996 by a learned single Judge. The petitioners filed a Special Appeal No. 855 of 1996 which was allowed on 26-2-1997 with the direction that this writ petition shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law. This is how the present writ petition has come up for hearing before this Court again. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. R. G. Padia for the contesting respondents Nos. 5 and 7, as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
(3.) THROUGH the counter-affidavit, filed by Imtiyaz Ahmad, a lecturer of the college under the authority of Sri Abdul Hasan Khan, Manager of the society/institution as the latter was said to be laid up on account of stroke of paralysis, it has been asserted that the petitioners have no right to maintain the present writ petition, which is the outcome of the grudge against the society as well as committee of management nurtured by the petitioner 1. It is maintained that since the society was formed and established in the year 1948, i. e. prior to the advent of the Constitution of India, different yard stick is to be applied for the purpose of considering case for grant of recognition as a minority institution. It is alleged that the State Government has issued a notification, a copy of which is Annexure C. A. 1 to the counter-affidavit, fixing standards and norms for the purpose of declaring an institution as minority institution and in pursuance thereof, the society/institution submitted a pro forma, a copy of which is Annexure C. A. 2 to the counter-affidavit, for getting itself declared as a minority institution. After making available the various details called for by the District Inspector of Schools (for short 'dios') as well as other authorities, it is stated the college was declared as minority institution. According to the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the college was established as a minority institution and it has throughout been administered as a minority institution, that aims/objects of the society/institution do not, in any manner, militate against the minority status conferred by the State Government, and that the declaration of a pre-existing fact that the institution is a minority institution is not going to curtail the legal rights of any person, including the petitioners. This writ petition was summarily dismissed at the initial stage on 18-11-1996 as being not maintainability at the instance of two petitioners, one of whom is life member and the other one is Assistant Teacher of the college concerned Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the contesting respondents Nos. 5 and 6 pointed out that by the impugned order dated 13-3-1995, where by minority status has been granted to the respondent-institution, the existing legal rights of the petitioners are not violated in any manner and that with a view to feed fat the grudge nourished by the petitioners, they have filed the present petition with an oblique motive. It would not be out of place to mention that after summary dismissal of the notification on 18-11-1996, the petitioners filed Special Appeal No. 855 of 1996 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26-2-1997 by making the following observations:- ". . . . . . . . . It cannot be said that a teacher of the institution has no locus standi to question the order declaring the institution as minority institution. The apprehension that the change of status of the institution to a minority institution is likely to affect his service conditions cannot be said to be without any basis. It cannot also be said that a member of the society is not entitled to challenge the order which changes the status of the society. In our considered view, the writ petition should have been considered on merit. " In view of the decision of the Division Bench aforesaid, it would only be a superannuation to tread the same territory. Nevertheless, since the question of seminal significance affecting the adjectival law is of such compelling futuristic impact that further examination in the matter is necessary, particularly keeping in view the emphatic assertion by Dr. R. G. Padia that the question of locus standi is entirely distinct and separate from plea of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, Dr. Padia placed reliance on the decision of Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, reported in AIR 1981 SC 344: (1980 Lab IC 1367), Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Registered) Sindri v. Union of India in which it was observed that the maintainability of a writ petition which is co-related to the existence and violative of a fundamental right is not always to be confused with the locus to bring a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. These two matters often mingle and coalesce with the result that it becomes difficult to consider them in water-tight compartments. The Apex Court further ruled that the question whether a person has the locus to file a proceeding depends mostly and often on whether he possesses a legal right and that right is violated. But, in an appropriate case it may become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to take a broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceedings under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. In paragraph 39 of the report, it was made clear that lest there should be misapprehension, a clear distinction is to be kept between fundamental right to enforce fundamental rights and the interest sufficient to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and even under other jurisdictions. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with the question of maintainability of public interest litigation and in that context it was held that the workers who clearly have an interest in the industry may bring an action regarding an alleged wrong doing by the Board of Management. As a matter of fact, a close scrutiny of the various observations made by the Apex Court would lead one to the conclusion that it goes against the contesting respondents Nos. 5 and 6 of the present case. A very wide and broad interpretation has been given by the Apex Court with regard to locus as well as the maintainability of the petition. The present petitioners have clearly an interest in the status of the institution. If a minority status is conferred on an institution, which is not established or administered by a minority community in that event certain special privileges are enjoyed by such grant. These privileges obviously are to the serious detriment of the members of the society and the teaching as well as non-teaching staff.;