‘EWS quota not applicable to schools existing before 1996’

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 21

In its significant judgment in the St Kabir School case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the condition of reserving 15 per cent seats for economically weaker section (EWS) students contained in 1996 scheme was not applicable to the schools that were existing before it.

Justice Sudhir Mittal observed the Allotment of Land to Educational Institutions (Schools), etc. on Leasehold basis in Chandigarh Scheme, 1996, was formulated for regulating allotment of land to private schools.

One of the conditions of allotment prescribed in it was that the school would reserve 15 per cent seats for students belonging to the economically weaker sections of the society. As such, it was clear that a school allotted land under the scheme was required to reserve 15 per cent seats as prescribed.

But in the case in hand, the school was allotted land in 1988. “The 1996 scheme nowhere states that the terms thereof would be applicable to existing schools also. Thus, a direction to the existing schools to comply with terms of the 1996 scheme was unlawful”.

Justice Mittal also made it clear that National Commission for Minority Educational Institutes (NCMEI) could grant minority educational institution status to a school. It had the jurisdiction to decide all questions regarding status of a minority educational institution.

The NCMEI had decided the school’s application vide order dated September 10, 2014, and declared it to be a minority educational institution. “The contention of the counsel for the petitioner, UT, that order dated September 10, 2014, passed by the NCMEI was without jurisdiction, cannot be accepted,” Justice Mittal added.

In his detailed judgment, the Bench added it was evident that a minority educational institution did not shed its minority character simply because it was imparting secular education or admitting students belonging to other communities.

Justice Mittal asserted: “Once it is established that within a particular state, a community is a religious/linguistic minority, it has the right to establish and administer an educational institution of its choice. Imparting of secular education and admission of students belonging to other communities does not denude it of its minority character. Further, an institution established by a minority can possess a secular character to start with and it can opt for a minority status subsequently.”

The entire controversy in the case before the High Court was revolving around the status of the school. If an educational institution was held to be minority, it possessed the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India to establish and administer educational institution of its choice. The right of Administration included the right of admission of students of its choice. As such, reservation could not be imposed on it. But if the school was held to be an unaided private secular institution, it was bound to abide by the reservation policy of the state.

Before parting with the order, Justice Mittal added the school possessed all parameters required for declaration of the minority status and the NCMEI was justified in granting the same even though the reasons given by it may not fully justified.