Supreme Court Upholds Minority Rights in Education: Legal Victory for Appellant

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and directed the respondent state to sanction Higher Secondary courses in the appellant's institution from the next academic session, subject to following statutory procedures for teacher appointments. The appellant, a religious minority, had a fundamental right under Article 30 to establish educational institutions. The Court criticized the High Court for not considering the impact of the government policy and emphasized the broad scope of the writ of Mandamus to compel specific duties. The appeal was allowed, and each party bore its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Policy decision to abolish Pre-degree Courses.
2. Non-sanctioning of Higher Secondary courses to the appellant.
3. Government's right to change its policy.
4. Alleged discrimination against the appellant.
5. Fundamental rights of minority institutions under Article 30.
6. Issuance of writ of Mandamus.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Policy Decision to Abolish Pre-degree Courses:
The Respondents took a policy decision to abolish Pre-degree Courses conducted in colleges and enacted the Pre-degree Courses (Abolition) Act, 1997. This policy was upheld by the High Court in W.A.No.2716/2000. The implementation of this policy led to a series of litigations, including the appellant's grievance.

2. Non-sanctioning of Higher Secondary Courses to the Appellant:
The appellant, a registered society, had been applying for Higher Secondary courses since 1996. However, its applications were not considered due to the policy that only applicants with existing High Schools were allowed to start Higher Secondary courses. Despite repeated representations, the appellant was denied the sanction to open aided High Schools until a special decision was taken in 2003. However, the implementation of this decision was halted by a High Court order in W.P.(C). No. 29124/03.

3. Government's Right to Change Its Policy:
The High Court upheld the government's right to change its policy, stating that "the Government cannot be tied down to a policy permanently." The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, holding that the previous orders were replaced by the new policy G.O.(P) No.107/07/G.Edn dated 13.6.2007. The High Court shared the concern that ordering the government to sanction a Higher Secondary School to the appellant might impinge upon the budgetary allotment of government funds.

4. Alleged Discrimination Against the Appellant:
The appellant contended that while other managements were being granted High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools simultaneously or immediately, it was not sanctioned Higher Secondary School after the sanction of the High School. The appellant alleged discrimination and sought the implementation of the order dated 08.10.03, which granted Higher Secondary courses to the appellant.

5. Fundamental Rights of Minority Institutions Under Article 30:
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant, being a religious minority, has a fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice under Article 30. The Court observed that the government's decisions dated 08.10.03 and 13.10.05 to sanction Higher Secondary courses to the appellant could not be implemented due to the High Court's order. The revised policy indicated no need to sanction or upgrade government or aided schools in the normal course.

6. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for taking a mechanical approach and not examining the impact of the government policy on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized the broad scope of the writ of Mandamus, which is meant to prevent failure of justice and compel the performance of a specific duty. The Court held that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to get the permission to hold Higher Secondary classes and that the High Court failed to appreciate the ratio in Umed Ram Sharma's case correctly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment in W.P. No.11167 of 2006 and directed the respondent state to sanction Higher Secondary courses in the appellant's institution from the next academic session, subject to the appellant following the extant statutory procedures for the appointment of teachers in the Higher Secondary section. The appeal was allowed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.

---