Holding

Section 57(3) of the Kerala University Act, which mandates seniority‑cum‑fitness for appointment of principals, cannot be applied to aided minority educational institutions as it violates their Article 30(1) right to appoint a principal of their choice.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether an aided minority college could be bound by Section 57(3) of the Kerala University Act, which requires the principal to be appointed on a seniority‑cum‑fitness basis. The college, a minority institution, had appointed Rev. Daniel as principal, a decision challenged by senior lecturers who claimed the appointment violated the seniority rule. The High Court had upheld the seniority rule, holding that receipt of state aid removed the institution's protection under Article 30(1). The Supreme Court held that aid does not strip a minority institution of its constitutional right to choose its principal, and that Section 57(3) interferes with this right, rendering it inapplicable to such institutions. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment, dismissed the writ petitions against the college management, and allowed the petitions filed by the management and the selected principals. The decision reaffirmed that the right to appoint a principal is a vital facet of the right to administer under Article 30(1) and that state regulation may prescribe qualifications but cannot dictate the choice of candidate.

Issues considered

To what extent can the State regulate the administration of minority educational institutions that receive aid, particularly concerning appointment of principals?
Whether the right to choose a principal is part of the minority's right to administer under Article 30(1), and if so, does Section 57(3) of the Kerala University Act violate that right?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 30(1), s. Article 30(2)
Kerala University Act, 1974s. 57(3)

Subjects

Article 30minority educational institutionstate aidappointment of principalKerala University Actseniority-cum-fitnessconstitutional lawright to administeraided institutions

Judgment

A 1HE SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE
v.
T. JOSE AND ORS.

NOVEMBER27, 2006

B [H.K. SEMA AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950.

Article 30-Right of minorities to establish and administer educational
C institutions-Minority educational institutions receiving aid from State-
Effect-Held, receipt of aid from State or its agencies does not alter the
nature or character of minority educational institution receiving aid but
State can regulate such institutions-Extent of regulation by State-Held, .
State can impose regulations for administration of institutions and grant of
D aid without diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1)-Appointment
of Principal to aided minority educational institution-Whether right to
select Principal is part of right of minorities under Article 30(1)-Held,
ji·eedom to choose person to be appointed as Principal is vital facet of the
right to administer educational institution under Article 30(/)-Princ1pal is
responsible for maintaining the philosophy and objects of the institution and
E Management is entitled to appoint person who according to it is most suited
to implement its objects provided he possesses the qualification prescribed
therefore-Provision providing for selection of Principal on the basis of
seniority-cum-fitness-Whether such provision interferes with right of minority
institution under Article 30(1)-Held, such provision clearly interferes with
F the right of minority educational institutions to have persons of their choice
as head of institution and violates Article 30(1)-ln the facts held, section
57(3) cannot apply to minority run educational institutions even if they are
aided-Kera/a University Act, 1974-Section 57(3).

Mand G aided private minority institutions affiliated to Kerala University
G under the Kerala University Act, 1974. D was appointed as Principal in College
Mand P was appointed as Principal in College G. The appointments of D and
P as Principal were challenged separately before the Kerala University
Appellate Tribunal by other eligible lecturers in Colleges M and G. Tribunal
set aside appointment of D and P by separate orders holding that the
appointments violated Section 57(3) of the 1974 Act which required the post
H 644
SECRETARY,MALANKARASYRIANCATHOLICCOLLEGh T.JOSE 645

, of Principal, when filled by promotion, to be made on the basis of seniority- A
cum-fitness and directed fresh appointments. The orders of the Tribunal were
challenged by the institutions and also by the selected Principals, D and P, by
filing separate writ petitions on the ground that section 57(3) of the J974
Act was invalid and inapplicable in respect of minority institutions as it
interfered with the right of the minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of their own choice and thereby violated Article 30(1) B
of the Constitution oflndia. High Court by common order upheld the orders
of Tribunal on the ground that receipt of aid by a minority institution removes
protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and that Section 57(3) of
the 1974 Act providing that appointment of Principal should be on the basis
of seniority-cum-fitness is valid and binding on minority institutions. Hence C
· these appeals by the College Managements and the selected Principals, D.
andP.

Appellants contended that receipt of aid by minority institutions, does
not, in any way, fetter or abridge their constitutional right to administer
educational institutions, and therefore Section 57(3) of the l 974 Act D
requiring the appointment of only the senior-most of lecturers as Principal
is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution; that the right to appoint
Principal and teachers is the most important facet of minority's "right to
administer" under Article 30(J) of the Constitution; and that a minority
institution cannot ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same
community, senior to the person proposed to be selected, merely because the E
institution has the right to select a Principal of its choice.

Respondents contended that minorities do not have an unfettered right
under Article 30(1) to administer and manage its education institutions; tliat
the State and its agencies can regulate certain facets of administration of
F
private educational institutions by minorities, in particular by prescribing
the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions bearing on merit
for being appointed as a teacher or Principal; that if such institution is aided
by the State, the State can make regulations governing the service conditions
for teaching and other staff, which includes the post of Principal; and that
Section 57(3) of the 1974 Act providing for the manner of filling the post of G
Principal by promotion, is therefore binding upon minority institutions
receiving aid from the State.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Article 30(1) gives minorities the right to establish and H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A administer educationalinstitutions of their choice. 17. In TMA Pai.Foundation
v. State of Karnataka [20021 8 SCC 481, this Court made it clear that a
minority institution does not cease to be so, merely on receipt of aid from the
State or its agencies. In other words, receipt of aid does not alter the nature
or character of the minority educational institution receiving aid. Article 30(1)
clearly implies that any grant that is given by the State to the minority
B institution cannot have such conditions attached to it which will in any way
dilute or abridge the rights of the minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions. But all conditions that have relevance to the proper
utilization of the aid by an educational institution can be imposed. The High
Court, however, wrongly construed TMA Pai and concluded that acceptance
C of aid by a minority institution takes away its right to claim immunity from
interference and therefore the State can lay down any regulation governing
the conditions of service of employees of aided minority institutions ignoring
the constitutional guarantee under Article 30(1). For this purpose, the High
Court relied on the observations in Paras 72 and 73 of TMA Pai. But the
observations in Paras 72 and 73 were not made with reference to aided
D minority educational institutions. The position of minority educational
institutions securing aid from the State or its agencies was considered in
Para 80 to 155, wherein it was clearly held that receipt of State-aid does not
annihilate the right guaranteed to minorities to establish .and administer
educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1 ).
E. [654-C; 656-G-H; 657-A-B; 658-C-D)

1.2. The general principles relating to establishment and administration
of education, institution by minorities may be summarized thus:

. (i) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational
F institutions of their choice comprises the following rights:
(a) To choose its governing body in whom the founders of the institution
have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution;

(b) To appoint teaching staff (Teachers/Lecturers and Head-masters/
G Principals) as also non-teaching staff; and to take action ifthere is dereliction
of duty on the part of any of its employees;

(c) To admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable
fee structure;

H (d) To use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution;
SECRETARY,MALANKARASYRIANCATHOLICCOLLEGE•·. T.JOSE 647

(ii) The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to A
ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the minorities in
a more advantageous position vis-a-vis the majority. There is no reverse
discrimination in favour of minorities. The general laws of the land relating
to national interest, national security, social welfare, public order, morality,
health, sanitation, taxation etc. applicable to all, will equally apply to minority
institutions also. B
(iii) The right to establish and administer educational institutions is
not absolute. Nor does it include the right to maladminister. There can be
regulatory measures for ensuring educatiohal character and standards and
maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as C
are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as
to serve the academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State
concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying
down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also condition
of service of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to
prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing D
syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations
do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1).

(iv) Subject to the eligibility conditions/qualifications prescribed by the
State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions will have the
freedom to appoint teacher I Lecturers by adopting any rational procedure of E
selection.

(v) Extention of aid by the State, does not alter the nature and character
of the minority educational institution. Conditions can be imposed by the State
to ensure proper utilization of the aid, without however diluting or abridging
the right under Article 30(1). (660-D-H; 661-A-El F
1.3. Aided institutions give instruction either in secular education or
professional education. Religious education is barred in educational
institutions maintained out of State fund. These aided educational minority
institutions providing secular education or professional education should G
necessarily have standards comparable with non-minority educational
institutions. Such standards can be attained and maintained only by having
well qualified professional teachers. An institution can have the services of
good qualified professional teachers only if the condition of service ensures
security, contentment and decent living standards. That is why State can
regulate the service conditions of the minority educational institutions to H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A ensure quality of education. Consequently, any law intended to regulate the
service conditions of employees of educational institutions will apply to
minority institutions also, provided that such law does not interfere with the
overall administrative control of the managements over the staff. The extent
of regulation by the State, permissible in respect of employees of minority
educational institutions receiving aid from the State, as clarified and
B crystalised in TMA Pai may be recapitulated. The State can prescribe : (i)
the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit,
for making appointments, (ii) the service conditions of employees without
interfering with the overall administrative control by the Management over
the staff, (iii) a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the employees,
C (iv) the condition for the proper utilization of the aid by the educational
institutions, without abridging or diluting the right to establish and administer
educational institutions. In other words, all laws made by the State to regulate
the administration of educational institutions, and grant of aid, will apply to
minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere
with the overall administrative control by the Management over the staff, or
D abridges /dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer
educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable
to minority institutions. (661-F-H; 662-A-El

TM A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (20021 8 SCC 481 and
P.A. lnamdar v. State of Maharashtra, [20051 6 SCC 537, followed.
E
State of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, (1970] 2 SCC 417, The
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, (19741 1 SCC
717 and Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of
India, (1986) 4 SCC 707, referred to.
F In re. Kera/a Education Bill, (1957) AIR 1958 SC 95, Rev. Sidhajbhai
v. State ofBombay, (1963) 3 SCR 837; D.A.V College v. State ofPunjab, (1971]
2 SCC 269, All Saints High School v. Government ofA.P., (1980) 2 SCC 478;
St. Stephen's College v. University a/Delhi, (199211 SCC 558, N. Ammad v.
Manager, Emjay High School, [19981 6 SCC 674 and Board of Secondary
G Education & Teaching Training v. Joint Director of Public Instructions, Sagar,
[199818sec555, cited.

2.1. The Principal or Headmaster of an educational institution is
responsible for the functional efficiency of the institution, as also the quality
of education and discipline in the institution. He is also responsible for
H maintaining the philosophy and objects of the institution. The importance of
SECRETARY. MALAN KARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE r. T. JOSE 649

the right to appointment of Principals/Head-masters and teachers of their A
choice by Minorities is an important part of their fundamental rights under
Article 30. It is thus clear that the freedom to choose the person to be appointed
as Principal has always been recognized as a vital facet of the right to
administer the educational institution. This has not been, in any way, diluted
or altered TMA Pai. Having regard to the key role played by the Principal in
the management and administration of the educational institution, there can B
be no doubt that the right to choose the Principal is an important part of the
right of administration and even if the institution is aided, there can be no
interference with the said right The fact that the post of the Principal/
Headmaster is also covered by State aid, will make no difference.
[662-F-G; 664-C; 666-F-G] C

TM A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, [2002) 8 SCC 481; State
of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1970) 2 SCC 417; The Ahmedabad
St. Xavier's College Society v: State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717; N.Ammad
v. Manager, Emjay High School, [1998) 6 SCC 67 and Board of Secondary
Education and Teaching Training v. Joint Director of Public Instructions, D
Sagar, (1998) 8 SCC 555, relied on.

2.2. The right of the minority to select a Principal of its choice is with
reference to the assessment of the person's outlook and philosophy and ability
to implement its object~. The management is entitled to appoint the person,
who according to them is most suited, to head the institution, provided he E
possesses the qualifications prescribed for the posts. The carrier advancement
prospects of the teaching staff, even those belonging to the same community,
should have to yield to the right of the management under Article 30(1) to
establish and administer educational institutions. (667-A-B)
F
2.3. Section 57(3) of the Act provides that the post of Principal when
filled by promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Section
57(3) trammels the right of the management to take note of merit to the
candidate, of the outlook and philosophy of the candidate, which will determine
whether he is supportive of the objects of the institution. Such a provision
clearly interferes with the right of the minority management to have a person G
of their choice as head of the institution and thus violates Article 30(1).
Section 57(3) of the Act cannot therefore apply to minority run educational
institutions even if they are aided. [667-C-DJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8599 of2003.
H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 5.6.2003 of the High Court ofKerala ·
at Ernakulam in O.P. 3742/2001 (U).

With

CA Nos. 8600/2003 and 8576 and 8576/2003.
B
R.F. Nariman, Vijay Hansaria, Uday U. Lalit, L. Nageswara Rao, Mathai
M. Paikeday, T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Amit Sibal, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
Madhavam Hema! K. Sheth (for Mis. Lawyer's Knit & Co.), P.l. Jose, Anupam
Mishra, Sneha Kalita, Ritu Bhardwaj, Deepti, B.V. Deepak (for T.T.K. Deepak
& Co.) Amit Dhingra, E.M.S. Anam, Fazli Anam, Koshy Jacob, Adolf Mathew,
c Sanjay Jain, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Ramesh Babu
M.R. and R.P. Wadhwani for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. These appeals by special leave arise from the
judgment dated 5.6.2003 of the High Court ofKerala in O.P. No. I 011112000 and
connected cases. As these appeals involve questions which are analogous,
they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. As the ranks of
the parties vary, they will be referred to by their abbreviated names.

E Facts in CA Nos. 8599 and 8600 of 20~3:

2. The Malankara Syrian Catholic College Association ofArchidiocese
at Trivandrum is a Society registered unqer the Kerala Literacy, Scientific and
Charitable.Socieities Registration Act, 1955. It is a minority organisation and
an Educational Agency (for short 'the Society'). It has established and runs
F several private colleges in Kerala. The colleges are managed by a 'Managing
Council' (for short 'the management') appointed by the Educational Agency.
The Society has appointed a Manager for the colleges under its management,
who implements the decisions of the management. Mar lvanios College
('college' for short) is one of the colleges run by the said Educational
G Agency. The said college is an aided private minority institution affiliated to
Kerala University under the Kerala University Act, 1974 ('Act" for short).
Educational instruction is provided in the college, in accordance with the
provisions of the statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made under the Act.
Each of the colleges run by the Society is headed by a Principal, who is
responsible for the functional efficiency, quality of education and discipline.
H
SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE 1·. T. JOSE [R.V. RA VEENDRAN,J.] 651

3. The post of Principal of the college fell vacant on 31.3.2000. The A
" · Manager issued an order dated 27 .3 .2000 giving charge of the post of Principal
and Drawing & Disbursing Officer ('ODO' for short) to Rev. Daniel
Kuzhithaakthil, a lecturer in the college. The said order was approved by
the Vice-Chancellor of the University by order dated 15.4.2000. The order
dated 27.03.2000 was challenged by one of the Lecturers - Dr. Varghese M.
Mathunny in O.P. No.10111/2000, wherein an interim order was passed B
restraining Rev. Daniel from taking charge as Principal. Another Senior
Lecturer of the college, Dr. P.V. Thomas also challenged the order dated
27.03.2000 by filing O.P. No. 14337/2000. An interim order was issued in that
case on 24.5.2000, restraining Rev. Daniel from functioning as the Principal or
DDO.
c
4. In view of the interim stay preventing Rev. Daniel from acting as the
Principal and DDO, the Management made an interim arrangement by
appointing T. Jose, a senior lecturer in the College, to discharge the duties
of Principal, pending regular appointment to the post. On 5.6.2000, the High
Court modified the interim order and gave liberty to the Mlinagement to make D
appointment to the post of Principal on regular basis. In pursuance of it, on
6.6.2000, the Management appointed Rev. Daniel as the Principal on regular
basis.

5. The appointment of Rev. Daniel as Principal on 6.6.2000 on regular
basis was challenged by T. Jose, (claiming to be the senior most among the E
eligible and fit lecturers) in Appeal No.5/2000 before the Kera!a University
Appellate Tribunal, raising two contentions : (i) that Rev. Daniel was ineligible
to be appointed as Principal as he did not process the requisite qualifications
for the post; and (ii) that the appointment was violative of Section 57(3) of
the Act, which required the post of Principal, when filled by promotion, to be
made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The Tribunal, by an order dated
F
20.12.2000, held that Rev. Daniel fulfilled the eligibility criteria, but allowed the
appeal holding that the appointment of Rev. Daniel as Principal violated
Section 57(3) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the Manager to make a fresh
appointment in accordance with law. The said order of the Tribunal was
challenged by Rev. Daniel and the Society in O.P. No.3015/2001 and O.P. No. G
3742/2001 contending that Section 57(3) of the Act was invalid and inapplicable
in respect of minority institutions, as it interfered with the right of a minorities
to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and
thereby violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. T. Jose , the
appellant before the Tribunal, also challenged the order of the Tribunal· in
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 0.P. No.10721/2001, as he was aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that
Rev. Daniel possessed the qualifications for appointment to -the post of
Principal.

6. The said five writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by
a common judgment dated 5.6.2003. The High Court rejected the contention
B of the Educational Agency and Rev. Daniel that section 57(3) of the Act was
violative of Article 30(1). The High Court held thatthe said Section applied
to minority institutions also having regard to that Section, the seniormost
from among the eligible and fit lecturers had to be appointed as the Principal.
It held that Rev. Daniel was not the senior-most among the eligible and fit
lecturers of the college and therefore his appointment could not be sustained.
C Consequently, the High Court rejected O.P. Nos.3015/2001and3742/2001 filed
by Rev. Daniel and the Society O.P. No.10111/2000 filed by Dr. Varghese M.
Mathunny was dismissed as having become infructuous as he had retired on
31.5.2001 and as he had not challenged the order dated 6.6.2000 appointing
Rev. Daniel as Principal. O.P. No. I 072 J/200 I filed by T.Jose was allowed. Even
D though T.Jose had also retired in the meanwhile on 31.3 .200 I, the High Court
directed that his claim for promotion as Principal shall be considered with
effect from the date (6.6.2000) when Rev. Daniel was promoted, with all
consequential financial benefits. Similarly, O.P. No.14337/2000 filed by Dr. P V
Thomas was also allowed with a direction that his claim for appointment as
Principal shall be considered with effect from 1.4.200 I with consequential
E benefits.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 5.6.2003, the Society
and Rev. Daniel have filed· C.A. No.8599/2003 and C.A.No.8600/2003
·respectively challenging the dismissal of their writ petitions OP No.3742/2001
F and OP No.3015/200 I.

Re : Facts in CA 857612003 :

8. St. Gregorious College, another aided minority educational institution,
appointed P.G. Thomas Pannicker as Principal by order dated 25.9.2002. The
G said appointment was challenged by Thomas Lukose before the Kerala
University Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 15/2002. The Tribunal allowed
the said appeal by order dated 30.1.2003 and set aside the appointment of
P.G. Thomas Pannicker as Principal and directed fresh selection. That was
challenged by the Manager of St. Gregorious College and P.L. Thomas
Pannicker, in O.P. No.6621/2003. The said petition was disposed of by the
H
SECRETARY,MALANKARASYRIANCA1HOL!CCOLLEGE1·. T.JOSE(R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J.) 653
High Court along with the five petitions relating to Rev. Daniel (O.P. No.10111/ A
2000 and connected cases) by its common Judgment dated 5.6.2003, upholding
the order of the Tribunal and directing the college Management to make a
fresh selection in accordance with section 57(3) of the Act. The order rejecting
O.P. No.6621/2003 is challenged by the Manager of St. Gregorious College and
Thomas Pannicker in CA No.8576/2003.
B
The Issue

9. The High Court relying on the decision of the Eleven-Judge Bench
of this Court in TM A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, [2002] 8 SCC
481 has held that receipt of aid by a minority institution removes the
protection under Article 30(1), by taking away its right to claim immunity from C
interference and therefore all regulations made by the State, governing the
manner of making appointments and removal, as also the conditions of service
of Principals and Lecturers, will be binding on such aided institution. The
High Court held that aid carries the 'price' of surrender of a part of its freedom
and independence in matters of administration. As a consequence, it held D
that Section 57(3) of the Act providing that appointments of Principal should
be on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, is valid and binding on minority
institutions.

10. The appellants contend that the right to appoint Principal and
teachers is the most important facet of minority's "right to administer" under E
Article 30( l) of the Constitution. They submit that receipt of aid by minority
institutions, does not, in any way, fetter or abridge their constitutional right
to administer educational institutions, and therefore Section 57(3) of the Act
requiring the appointment of only the senior-most of lecturers as Principal
is violative of Article 30(1) ofthe·Constitution.
F
11. On the other hand, the respondents contend that minorities do not
have an unfettered right under Article 30( l) to administer and manage its
education institutions; that the State and its agencies can regulate certain
facets of administration of private educational institutions by minorities, in
particular by prescribing the minimum qualification, experience and other G
conditions bearing on merit for being appointed as a teacher or Principal; that
if such institution is aided by the State, the State can make regulations
governing the service conditions for teaching and other staff, which includes
the. post of Principal; and that Section 57(3) of the Act providing for the
manner of filling the post of Principal by promotion, is therefore binding upon
H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A minority institutions receiving aid from the State.

12. The rival contentions give rise to the following questions:

(i) To what extent, the State can regulate the right of the minorities
to administer their educational institutions, when such institutions
receive aid from the State.
B
(ii) Whether the right to choose a Principal is part of the right of
minorities under Article 30(1) to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. Ifso, Section 57(3) of the
Act would violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

C Re: Question (i)

13. Article 30(1) gives minorities the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. In State ofKera/av. Very Rev. Mother
Provincial, [I 970] 2 SCC 417, a Constitution Bench of this Court explained
'right to administer' thus:
D
"Administration means 'management of the affairs' of the institution.
This management must be free of control so that the founders or their
nominees can mould the institution as they think fit, and in accord<µice
with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and
the institution in particular will be best served. No part of this
E management can be taken away and vested in another body without
an encroachment upon the guaranteed right."

"There is, however, an exception to this and it is that the standards
of education are not a part of management as such. These standards
concern the body politic and are .dictated by considerations of the
F advancement of the country and its people. Therefore, if universities
establish the syllabi for examinations they must be followed, subject -
however to special subjects which the institutions may seek to reach,
and to a certain extent the State may also regulate the conditions
of employment of teachers and the health and hygiene of students.
G Such regulations do not bear directly upon management as such
although they may indirectly affect it. Yet the right of the State to
regulate education, educational standards and allied matters cannot be
denied. The minority institutions c.annot be allowed to fall below the
standards of excellence expected of educational institutions, or under
the guise of exclusive right of management, to decline to follow the
H
SECRETARY,MALANKARASYRIANCATHOLICCOLLEGE1•. T.JOSE[R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J.) 655

general pattern. While the management must be left to them, they may A
be compelled to keep in step with others."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. ln The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat,
(1974] 1 SCC 717, a nine Judge Bench of this Court considered the scope B
and ambit of minority's right to administer educational institutions established
by them. The majority were of the view that prescription of conditions of
service would attract better and competent teachers and would not jeopardize
the right of the management of minority institutions to appoint teachers of
their choice. It was also observed:
c
"Autonomy in administration means right to administer effectively
and to manage and conduct the affairs of the institutions. The
distinction is between a restriction on the right of administration and
a regulation prescribing the manner of administration. The right of
administration is day to day administration. The choice in the personnel D
of management is a part of the administration. The univP.rsity will
always have a right to see that there is no mat-administration. If there
is mal-administration, the university will take steps to cure the same.
There may be control and check on administration in order to find out
whether the minority institutions are engaged in activities which are
not conducive to the interest of the minority or to the requirements E
of the teachers and the students."

"The ultimate goal of a minority institution too imparting general
secular education is advancement of learning. This Court has
consistently held that it is not only pennissible but also desirable to
regulate everything in educational and academic matters for achieving F
excellence and uniformity in standards of education.

In the field of administration it is not reasonable to claim that minority
institutions will have complete autonomy. Checks on the administration
may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient
and sound and will serve the academic needs of the institution. The G
right of a minority to administer its educational institution involves,
as part of it, a correlative duty of good administration."

15. In FRANK ANTHONY Public School Employees' Association v.
Union of India, (1986] 4 SCC 707, this Court observed :
H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A "The excellence of the instruction provided by an institution would
depend directly on the excellence of the teaching staff, and in turn,
that would depend on the quality and the contentment of the teachers.
Conditions of service pertaining to minimum qualifications of teachers,
their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service which ensure
security, contentment and decent living standards to teachers and
B which will consequently enable them to render better servi,ce to the
institution and the pupils cannot surely be said to be violative of the
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The management of a minority Educational Institution cannot be
permitted under the guise of the fundamental right guaranteed by
c Article 30(1) of the Constitution, to oppress or exploit its employees
any more than any other private employee. Oppression or exploitation
of the teaching staff of an educational institution is bound to lead,
inevitably, to discontent and deterioration of the standard of instruction
imparted in the institution affecting adversely the object of making the
institution an effective vehide of education for the minority community
D or other persons who resort to it. The management of minority
institution cannot complain of invasion of the fundamental right to
administer the institution when it denies the members of its staff the
opportunity to achieve the very object of Article 30(1) which is to
make the institution an effective vehicle of education."
E 16. The scope of Article 30(1 ), with reference to the scope of the right
to administer educational institutions, was also considered by this court in
In re. Kera/a Education Bill, (1957) AIR (1958) SC 956, Rev.Sidhajbhai v.
State ofBombay, [1963] 3 SCR 837, D.A. V. College v. State ofPunjab, [1971]
2 SCC 269, All Saints High School v. Government ofA.P., [1980] 2 SCC 478,
F St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, [1992] 1 SCC 558, N. Ammad v.
Manager, Emjay High School, [1998] 6) SCC 674, Board of Secondary
Education & Teaching Training v. Joint Director of Public Instructions,
Sagar, [I ?98] 8 SCC 555.

17. In TMA Pai (supra), this Court made it clear that a minority institution
G does not cease to be so, merely on receipt of aid from the State or its
agencies. In other words, receipt of aid does not alter the nature or character
of the minority educational institution receiving aid. Article 30(1) clearly
implies that any grant that is given by the State to the minority institution
cannot have such conditions attached to it which will in any way dilute or
H abridge the rights of the minorities to establish and administer educational
SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE 1·. T. JOSE (R.V. RA VEENDRAN, J.] 65 7

institutions. But all conditions that have relevance to the proper utilization of A
the aid by an educational institution can be imposed. The High Court,
however, wrongly construed TMA Pai and concluded that acceptance of aid
by a minority institution takes away its right to claim immunity from interference
and therefore the State can lay down any regulation governing the conditions
of service of employees of aided minority institutions ignoring the
constitutional guarantee under Article 30(1 ). For this purpose, the High Court B
relied on the observations in Paras 72 and 73 of TMA Pai (supra). The said
paragraphs are extracted below:

"72. Once aid is granted to a private professional educational institution,
the Government or the State agency, as a condition of the grant of aid,
can put fetters on the freedom in the matter of administration and C
management of the institution. The State, which gives aid to an
educational institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary
for the prop~r maintenance of the high standards of education as the
financial burden is shared by the State. The State would also be under
an obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching D
staff. In many States, there are various statutory provisions to regulate
the functioning of such educational institutions where the States
give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of the revenue
expenditure including salary, pay and allowances of teaching and non-
teaching staff. It would be its responsibility to ensure that the teachers
working in those institutions are governed by proper service E
conditions. The State, in the case Of such aided institutions, has
ample power to regulate the method of selection and appointment of
teachers after prescribing requisite qualifications for the same. Ever
since In Re, Kera/a Education Bill, (1957) AIR (1958) SC 956 this
Court has upheld, in the case of aided institutions, those regulations F
that served the interests of students and teachers. Checks on the
administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the
administration is efficient and sound and will serve the academic
needs of the institutions. In other words, rules and regulations that
promote good administration and prevent maladministration can be
fonnulated so as to promote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and G
fairness in admiriistration and to. preserve harmony among affiliated
institutions."

· 73. There are a large number of educational institutions, like schools
and non-professional colleges, which cannot operate without the
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A support of aid from the State, Although these institutions may have
been established by phiianthropists or other public-spirited persons,
it becomes necessary, in order to provide inexpensive education to the
students, to seek aid from the State. In such cases, as those of the
professional aided institutions referred to hereinabove, the Government
would be entitled to make regulations relating to the terms and
B conditions of employment of the teaching and non-teaching staff
whenever the aid for the posts is given by the State as well as
admission procedures. Such rules and regulations can also provide for
the reasons and the manner in which a teacher or an)' other member
of the staff can be removed. In other words, the autonomy of a private
c aided institution would be less than that of an unaided institution."

But the aforesaid observations in Paras 72 and 73 were not made with
reference to aided minority educational institutions. J'he observations in para
72 were intended for aided non-minority private professional institutions. The
observation in para 73 in the context of aided non-minority non-professional
D private institutions. The position of minority educational institutions securing
aid from the State or its agencies was considered in Para 80 to 155, wherein
it was clearly held that receipt of State-aid does not annihilate the right
guaranteed to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
of their choice under Article 30( I).

E 18. The observations of the Eleven-Judge Bench in TMA Pai (supra) in
respect of the extent to which the right of administration of aided minority
educational institutions could be regulated, are extracted below :

" .... the state cannot, when it chooses to grant aid to educational
institutions, deny aid to a religious or linguistic minority institution
F only on the ground that the management of that institution is with the
minority. We would, however, like to clarify that ifan abject surrender
of the right to management is made a condition of aid, the denial of
aid would be violative of Article 30(2). However, conditions of aid
that do not involve a surrender of the substantial right ofmanagement
G would not be inconsistent with constitutional guarantees, even if
they indirectly impinge upon some facet of administration.

It cannot be argued that no conditions can be imposed while giving
aid to a minority institution. Whether it is an institution run by the
majority or the minority, all conditions that have relevance to the
H proper utilization of the grant·in-aid by an educational institution can
SECRETARY,MALANKARASYRIANCATHOLICCOLLEGEr. T.JOSE[R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J.) 659

be imposed ...... The conditions for grant or non-grant of aid to A
educational institutions have to be uniformly applied, whether it is a
majority-run institution or a minority-run institution. As in the case of
a majority run institution, the moment a minority institution obtains a
grant of aid, Article 28 of the Constitution comes into play. When an
educational institution is maintained out of State funds, no religious
instruction can be provided therein." B
(Emphasis supplied)

Among the questions formulated and answered by the majority while
summarising conclusions, Question 5(c) and answer thereto has a bearing on
the issue on hand: Question 5 (c) is extracted below : C
"Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of
administration like control over educational agencies, control over
governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/
withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, employees, teachers and
principals including their service conditions and regulation of fees, D
etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities ?

The first part of the answer to Question 5 (c) related to unaided minority
institutions. With reference to statutory provisions regulating the facets of
administration, this court expressed the view that in case of an unaided E
minority educational institutions, the regulatory measure of control should be
minimal; and in the matter of day-to-day management, like the appointment
of staff (both teaching and non-teaching) and administrative control over
them, the management should have the freedom and there should not be any
external controlling agency. But such institutions should have to comply
with the conditions of recognition and conditions of affiliation to a University F
or Board; and a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for
taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself. This
Court also held that fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be
regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee.

The second part of the answer to Question 5( c ) applicable to aided G
minority institutions, is extracted below:-

"For redressing the grievances of employees of aided and unaided
institutions who are subjected to punishment or tennination from
service, a mechanism will have to be evolved, and in our opinion, H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A appropriate tribunals could be constituted, and till then, such tribunals
could be presided over by a judicial officer of the rank of District
Judge.

The State or other controlling authorities, however, can always
prescribe the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions
B bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher
or a principal of any educational institution. .

Regulations can be framed governing service conditions for teaching
and other staff for whom aid is provided by the State, without
interfering with the overall administrative control of the management
C over the staff "

(Emphasis supplied)

The position enunciated in TMA Pai is reiterated in P.A. Jnamdar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005] 6 SCC 537.
D
19. The general principles relating to establishment and administration
of educational institution by minorities may be summarized thus:

(i) '
The right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice comprises the following rights :
E (a) To choose its governing body in whom the founders of the
institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the
affairs of the institution;

(b) To appoint teaching staff (Teachers/Lecturers and Head-
masters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff; and to take action
F if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees;

(c) To admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a
reasonable fee structure;
(d) To use its properties and assets for the benefit of the
institution;
G
(ii) The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to
ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the
minorities in a more advantageous position vis-a-vis the majority.
There is no reverse discrimination in favour of minorities. The
general laws of the land relating to national interest, national
H
SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE'" T. JOSE [R. V. RA VEENDRAN, J.] 661

security, social welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, A
taxation etc. applicable to all, will equally apply to minority
institutions also.

(iii) The right to establish and administer educational institutions is
not absolute. Nor does it include the right to maladminister.
There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational B
character and standards and maintaining academic excellence.
There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure
that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the
academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State
concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers,
regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for C
appointment, as also conditions of service of employees (both
teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation
or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus
·and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations
do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1). D
(iv) Subject to the eligibility conditions/qualifications prescribed by
the State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions
will have the freedom to appoint teachers/Lecturers by adopting
any rational procedure of selection.

(v) Extention of aid by the State, does not alter the nature and E
character of the minority educational institution. Conditions can
be imposed by the State to ensure proper utilization of the aid,
without however diluting or abridging the right under Article
30(1).

20. Aided institutions give instruction either in secular education or F
professional education. Religious education is barred in educational
institutions maintained out of State fund. These aided educational minority
institutions providing secular education or professional education should
necessarily have standards comparable with non-minority educational
institutions. Such standards can be attained and maintained only by having
well qualified professional teachers. An institution can have the services of G
,.
good qualified professional teachers only if the condition of service ensures
security, contentment and decent living standards. That is why State can
regu\ate the service conditions of the employees of the minority educational
institutions to ensure quality of education. Consequently, any law intended
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A to regulate the service conditions of employees of educational institutions
will apply to minority institutions also, provided that such law does not
interfere with the overall administrative control of the managements over the
staff.

21. We may also recapitulate the extent of regulation by the State,
B permissible in respect of employees of minority educational institutions
receiving aid from the State, as clarified and crystalised in TMA Pai. The
State can prescribe :

(i) the minimum qualifications, experience anll other criteria bearing
on merit, for making appointments,
c (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the
overall administrative control by the Management over the staff.
(iii) a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the employees.

(iv) the conditions for the proper utilisation of the aid by the
D educational institutions, without abridging or diluting the right to
establish and administer educational institutions.

In other words, all laws made by the State to regulate the administration of
educational institutions, and grant of aid, will apply to minority educational
institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall
E administrative control by the Manage_ment over the staff, ·or abridges/dilutes,
in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational
institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority
institutions.

Re: Question (ii) :
F
22. The Principal or Headmaster of an educational institution is
responsible for the functional efficiency of the institution, as also the quality
of education and discipline in the institution. He is also responsible for
maintaining the philosophy and objects of the institution.

G 23. In State of Kera/av. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1970] 2 SCC 417,
this Court upheld the decisions of the Kerala High Court declaring sub-
sections (I) (2) (3) of section 53 of the Kerala University Act, 1969 relating
to appointment of Principals were ultra vires Article 30(1) in respect of
minority institutiOns. This Court affirmed the following findings of the High

H
SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGE 1•. T. JOSE (R.V. RA VEENDRAN, J.] 663

Court (reported in 1969 Kera/a Law Times 749) without independently A
considering the same :-

"The principal of a college is, as S.2(12) recognizes, the head of the
college, and, the post of the principal is of pivotal importance in the
life of a college; around him wheels the tone and temper of the
institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the B
maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching; and the
right to choose the principal is perhaps the most important facet of
the right to administer a college. The imposition of any trammel
thereon except to the extent ofprescribing the requisite qualifications
and experience or otherwise fostering the interests of the institution
itself cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed C
by article 30(/) of the Constitution, and, for the reasons we have
already given, by article 19(l)(f) as well. To hold otherwise would be
to make the rights "a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality". Provision
may, of course, be made to ensure that only proper persons are
appointed to the post of principal; the qualifications necessary may D
be prescribed, and the mode of selection for the purpose of securing
the best men may be laid down. But to go beyond that and place any
further fetter on the choice would be an unreasonable interference
with the right of management. Therefore, so far as the post ofprincipal
is concerned, we think it should be left to the management to secure
the services of the best person available. This, it seems to us, is of E
paramount importance, and the prospects of advancement of the staff
must yield to it. The management must have as wide a field of choice
as possible; yet sub-section (2) of Section 53 restricts the choice to
the teachers of the colleges or of all the colleges, as the case may bej
and enables the appointment of an outsider only if there is no suitable F
person in.such college or colleges. That might well have the result of
condemning the post to a level of dull mediocrity. A provision by
which an outsider is to be appointed, or a junior member of the staff
preferred to a senior member, only if he is of superior merit, the
assessment of which must largely be left to the management, is
understandable; but a provision which compels the management to G·
appoint only a teacher of the college (or colleges) unless it pronounces
all the teachers unsuitable, is clearly in derogation of the powers of
the management, and not calculated to further the interest of the
institution .... But we might say that there can be no objection to the
. appointment of the principal as of any other member of the staff being HI
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A subject to the approval of some authority of the University so long
as disapproval can be only on the ground that the person appointed
has not the requisite qualifications. Also that if disapproval is not to
be only on some such stated ground, but is left entirely to the will
and pleasure of the appointing authority, that would be to deprive the
educational agency of its power of appointment and would be bad for
B offending article 19(l)(f) and article 30(1)."

(Emphasis supplied)

24. The importance of the right to appointment of Principals/Head-
masters and teachers of their choice by minorities, as an important part of
C their fundamental rights under Article 30 was highlighted in St. Xavier (supra)
thus :

"It is upon the principal and teachers of a college that the tone and
temper of an educational institution depend. On them would depend
its reputation, the maintenance of discipline and its efficiency in
D teaching. The right to choose the principal and to have the teaching
conducted by teachers appointed by the management after an overall
assessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps the most
important facet ofthe right to administer an educational institytion.....
So long as the persons chosen have the qualifications prescribed by
E the University, the choice must be left to the management. That is part
of the fundamental right of the minorities to administer the educational
institution established by them."

[Emphasis supplied]

p 25. In N. Ainmad (supra) the appellant contended that he being the
senior-most graduate teacher of an aided minority school, he should be
appointed as the Headmaster and none else. He relied on Rule 44A of the
Kerala Education Rules which provided that appointment of Headmaster shall
ordinarily be according to seniority, from the seniority list prepared and
maintained under clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 34. This Court held:
G
"Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or Principal of
a college) are of prime importance in administration of that educational
institution. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the
school. He is the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set
around whom they rotate to generate result. A school is personified
H
SECRETARY,MALANKARASYRIANCATHOLICCOLLEGE1'. T.JOSE[R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J.] 665

through its Headmaster and he is the focal point on which outsiders A
look at the school. A bad Headmaster can spoil the entire institution,
an efficient and honest Headmaster can improve it by leaps and
bounds. The functio:ial efficacy of a school very much depends upon
the efficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine precept
remains unchanged despite many changes taking place in the structural
patterns of education over the years. B
How important is the post of Headmaster of a school has been pithily
stated by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Aldo Maria
Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan, AIR (1965) Ker 75. Chief Justice M.S. Menon
has, in a style which is inimitable, stated thus :
c
"The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a
school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on
him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of
discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the
headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer
a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon D
except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and
experience cannot but be considered as a violation of the right
guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. To hold otherwise will
be to make the right 'a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality'."

Thereafter, this Court concluded that the management of minority E
institution is free to find out a qualified person either from the staff of the
same institution or from outside, to fill up the vacancy; and that the
management's right to choose a qualified person as the Headmaster of the
school is well insulated by the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the
Constitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any legislative act or F
executive rule except for fixing up the qualifications and conditions of service
for the post; and that any such statutory or executive feat would be violative
of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 30(1) and would therefore be
void. This Court further observed that if the management of the school is not
given the wide freedom to choose the person for holding the key-post of
Principal subject, of course, to the restriction regarding qualifications to be G
prescribed by the State, the right to administer the School would get much
diminished.

26. In Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training (supra),
this Court held :
H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

'The decisions of this Court make it clear that in the matter of
A
appointment of the Principal, the management Of a minority educational
institution has a choice. It has been held that one of the incidents
of the right to administer a minority educational institution is the
selection of the Principal. Any rules which takes away this right of
the management have been held to be interfering with the right
B guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution. In this case, both Julius
Prasad selected by the management and the third respondent are
qualified and eligible for appointment as Principal according to rules.
The question is whether the management is not entitled to select a
person of their choice. The decisions of this court including the
decision in State of Kera/av. Very1 Rev. Mother Provincial [1970] 2
c SCC 417 and Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of
Gujarat, make it clear that this right of the minority educational
institution cannot be taken away by any rules or regulations or by any
enactment made by the State. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
the High Court was not right in holding otherwise. The State has
D undoubtedly the power to regulate the affairs of the minority
educational institutions also in the interest of discipline and
excellence. But in that process, the aforesaid right of the management
cannot be taken away, even if the Government is giving hundred per
cent grant. "

E (Emphasis supplied)

27. It is thus clear that the freedom to choose the person to be appointed
as Principal has always been recognized as a vital facet of the right to
administer tile educational institution. This has not been, in any way, diluted
or altered by TMA Pai. Having regard to the key role played by the Principal
F in the management and administration of the educational institution, there
. can be no doubt that the right to choose the Principal is an important part
of the right of administration and even if the institution is aided, there can
be no interference with the said right. The fact that the post of the Principal/
Headmaster is also covered by State aid; will make no difference.
G
28. The appellant contends that the protection extended by Article 30(1)
cannot be used against a member of the teaching staff who belongs to the
same minority community. It is contended that a minority institution cannot
ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same community,
senior to the person proposed to be selected, merely because the institution
H
SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIANCATIIOLICCOLLEGE ''· T. JOSE [R.V. RA VEENDllAN, J.) 667

has the right to select a Principal of its choice. But this contention ignores A
the position that the right of the minority to select a Principal of its choice
is with reference to the assessment of the person's outlook and philosophy
and ability to implement its objects. The management is entitled to appoint
the person, who according to them is most suited, to head the institution,
provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the posts. The career
advancement prospects of the teaching staff, even those belonging to the B
same community, should have to yield to the right of the management under
Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions.

29. Section 57(3) of the Act provides that the post of Principal when
filled by promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. C
Section 57(3) trammels the right of the management to take note of merit of
the candidate, or the outlook and philosophy of the candidate which will
determine whether he is supportive of the objects of the institution. Such
a provision clearly interferes with the right of the minority management to
have a person of their choice as head of the institution and thus violates
Article 30(1). Section 57(3) of the Act cannot therefore apply to minority run D
educational institutions even if they are aided.

30. In view of the above, we allow these appeals and, consequently, set
aside the judgment dated 5.6.2003 of the High Court. As a consequence, O.P.
Nos. 10111/2000, 10721/2001and14337/2000 stand dismissed. O.P.No.3015,
3742 and 6621/2003 filed by the College Managements/Selected Principals are
allowed.

A.KT. Appeals allowed.