A as a High School. No restriction in terms was imposed for not admitting any girl students. If the successor school authorities wanted to depart from the self-imposed restriction, they could only be prevented from doing so on valid, legal and reasonable grounds and not otherwise. As is apparent from the impugned order dated 5-6-1973 of the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction as also from the B passage of the High Court judgment which we have extracted above the permission sought for by the appellant for admission of girls in the St. Vincent's School was refused not on the ground of any apprehehded deterioration of morality or discipline but mainly, or perhaps, wholly in the interest of the existing Muslim girls' school, respondent c No. 4, in the locality. The basis of the Rule, as remarked by the High Court, seems to be "that it will be better for the girls to get instructions in girls' schools as far as possible." If that be so, then clearly the Rule violates the freedom guaranteed to the minority to administer the school of its choice. But, as already stated, in our opinion this is not the dominant object of the rule. The Christian community in the D locality, for various reasons which are not necessary to be alluded to here, wanted the girls also to receive their education in this school and specially of their community. 1'hey did not think it in their interest to send them to the Muslim girls' school which is an educational institution run by the other minority community. In that view of the E matter the Rule in question in its wide amplitude sanctioning the withholding of permission for admission of girl students in the boy's minority school is violative of Article 30. If so widely interpreted it crosses the barrier of regulatory measures and comes in the region of interference with the administration of the institution, a right which is guaranteed to the minority under Article 30. · The Rule, therefore, F must be interpreted narrowly and is held to be inapplicable to a minority educational institution in a situation of the kind with which we are concerned in this case. We do not think it necessary or advisable to strike down the Ru'Je as a whole but do restrict its operation and make it inapplicable to a minority educational institution in a situation like the one which arose in this case. It follows, therefore, that the G impugned orders dated 5-6-1973 and 2-5-1974 passed by the Regional Deputy Director and the District Education Officer respectively are bad and invalid and must be quashed.
