REV. FATHER W. PROOST AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 13-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

# 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
REV. FATHER W. PROOST AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF BffiAR & ORS. 
September 13, 1968 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, Articles 29(1) and 30(1)-Whether minority 
can only claim protection under Art. 30( 1) in furtherance of 
rights 
under Art. 29(1). 
The St. Xavier's College was established by the Jesuits of Ranchi and 
was affiliated to Patna University in 1944. 
The management of the 
College was in the bands of a governing body consisting of 11 members. 
The terms of service of the religious staff of the College, were determined 
by the Jesuit Mission authorities an.cl those of the lay staff, 
including 
their appointment, were determined by the governing body of the College. 
The object of founding the college inter alia was "to give Catholic youth 
.a full course of moral and liberal education, by imparting a thorough re-
ligious instruction and by maintaining a Catholic atmosphere in tho Insti-
tution". However, the college was open to non-Catholics and 
all non-
catholic students received a course of moral science. 
The petitioners in thei present petition under Article 32 contended that 
the college was founded by a Christian minority and claimed the right to 
administer it as a constitutional right guaranteed to minorities by Art. 30. 
The petitioner's complaint was that the Bihar Legislature, by introducing 
s. 48-A in the Bihar Universities Act with effect from March 1, 1962, 
deprived them of the right under Art. 30 in that its provisions required, 
inter alia : that appointments, disil)issals, reduction in rank, etc., of staff 
must be made by the Governing body on the recommendation of the 
University Service Commission for affiliated colleges; in no case could 
the Governing body appoint a person not recommended by the Com-
mission; the Commission had to be consulteQ in all disciplinary matters 
and any punishment imposed on a teacher only in atjcordance with the 
findings of the Commission, etc. 
Subsequent to the introduction of 
s. 48-A, in view of differences arising between the University and the 
college, the University withdrew the affiliation of the college on Septem-
ber 26, 1967 for violating the provisions of the Act and the statute of 
the University. 
While the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution was 
pending s. 48-B was inserred into the Bihar Universities Act whereby it 
was provided that the Governing body of affiliated colleges established 
by a minority based on religion or language which the minority bad a 
right to administer, would be entitled to make appointments, dismissals, 
termination of service or reduction in rank of teachers or take other 
disciplinary measures subject only to the approval of the Commission 
and the Syndicare of the University. The petitioners therefore 
also 
claimed the protection of s. 48-B. 
On behalf of the respondents it was conceded that the Jesuits answer-
H 
ed the description of a minority based on religion; but it was conten.ded 
that as the protection to minorities in Art. 29 ( 1) is only a right to con-
serve a distinct language, script or culture of its own, the college did not 
qualify for the protection of Art. 30(1) because (i) it was n.ot founded 
2 Sup. Cl/69-6 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1969] 2 S.C.R. 
to conserve them and (ii) it was open to all sections of the people. The 
A 
question therefore was whether the college could only claim protection of 
.., 
s. 48-B of the Act read with Art. 30( 1) of the Constitution if it proved 
that it was furthering the rights mentioned in Art. 29 (I) . 
HELD : The protection claimed by the petitioners clearly flowed from 
the words of Article 30( 1). 
The width of Art. 30(1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it 
considerations on which A'rt. 29 (I) is based. The latter article 
is 
a 
general protection which is given to mioorities to conserve their language, 
script or culture. The former is a special right to minorities to establish 
educational 
institutions of their choice. This choice is not limited to 
institutions seeking to conserve language, script or culture and the choice 
is not taken away if the minority community having established an edu-
cational iostitution of its choice also admits members of other commu-
nities. This is a circumstance irrelevant for the application of Art. 30(1) 
sioce no such limitation is expressed and none 
can 
be implied. The 
two artic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.