JUDGMENT P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. All that has happened is that in exercise of his powers under rule 67 (7) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, the 1st respondent has stopped the petitioner-manager from suspending the 3rd respondent-headmaster pending inquiry into the changes against him. There is no averment in the petition as to the basis on which it is claimed that the institution in question is what I might call a minority institution, whether it is religion or language, but assuming that it is a minority institution I fail to see how Article 30 (1) of the Constitution is attracted. Disciplinary action stands on a different footing from appointment the decision in Rt. Rev. A. M. Patroni v. Kesavan I.L.R. 1964 (2) Kerala 478 (F.B) has therefore no bearing and I fail to see on what ground a minority institution can claim that its powers of punishment over employees thereof should not suffer that regulation which like powers of a majority institution do. The regulation over powers of punishment is a reasonable regulation, regulative of the educational character of the institution and calculated, as in the case of all such institutions whether minority or majority, to make the institution an effective vehicle of education. 2. The power of revision under rule 92 was exercised by the 2nd respondent after considering the representations of the petitioner and I do not think the rules of natural justice demand that the petitioner should have been given a personal hearing. I dismiss the petition.