Article 30 of the Constitution of India and by virtue of the law laid down in S.Azeez Basha and anr. vs. The Union of India and ors. AIR 1968 SC 662 it was necessary for an institution to be established and administered by persons from minority community or language. It was submitted that the institution was not established by any person belonging to the linguistic minority but it was only being administered by a linguistic minority. Since the Management did not satisfy the requirements of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, it was not entitled to rely upon the provisions of Section 3(2) of the said Act to bypass the claim of the appellant. Though this specific plea was raised by the appellant in paragraph 2 of the appeal memo, the same has not been duly considered. This caused prejudice to the case of the appellant. It was then submitted that even if it was assumed that the Management was a linguistic minority, the provisions of Section 3(2) of the said Act had not been followed. The said provision required notification of names of the ‘Head” and three other persons to whom the provisions of the said Act would not apply in the matter of recruitment. The communication dated 25.04.1988 referred to notifying the post of ‘Head” and three other posts, but did not notify any name. Since the provisions of Section 3(2) were clear, the communication dated 25.04.1988 could not be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 3(2) of the said Act. In that regard, reference was made to the decisions in Gunvantlal Kantilal Khamar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1993 I CLR 295 and St. Theresa’s High School and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra through the Dy. Director of Education and Ors. 1997(2) Mh. L. J. 713. On these counts, it was submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was liable to be set aside and the judgment of the School Tribunal ought to be restored.
