Saikia, J. - Ubi aliquid conecditur, conceditur et Ld sine quo res ipsa esse non potest- when anything is granted, that also is granted without which the thing granted cannot exist. When the right to administer an educational institution of one's own choice is granted, that also is granted without which the right to administer cannot exist. What is the extent of the right given by Article 30 of the Constitution of India to minorities based on religion to administer educational institutions of their choice established by them I Can such minorities administer such an institution entirely in accordance with their religious rules and commitments even when those are in conflict with the rights which the employees of similar but non-minority edu­cational institutions would have earned I Would it make any defference when the employees are, and when they are not members of the religious body itself ? Are these bodies subject to the principles of natural justice while administering such an institution ? These are some of the precise questions that arise in this writ petition under the following facts and circumstances. 2. The St. Anthony's College, Shillong, hereinafter refer­red to as ' the College', was established by Salesian Don Bosco in 1934 to impart general education under the then curriculum of Calcutta University, to which the College was affiliated. Af­ter the establishment of Gauhati University the College was affiliated to Gauhati University. Since the establishment of the North Eastern Hill University in 1973 the College has been affi­liated to that University. 3. The College has since long been receiving Government grants-in-aid. Since the scheme of deficit grant-in-aid to colleges was introduced by the Government of Assam in 1959, the Co­llege had been receiving grants under the system. After creation of Meghalaya also it has been receiving grants-in-aid under the same system as adopted by the Government of Meghalaya. 4. While particulars about the system of appointments made in the College during the earlier period have not been furnished, it is stated that by Memo No. EDN. 75/74/280 dated 4th Nov. 1976 (Annexure 7 to the petition), the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department conveyed to the Director of Public Instruction, for short. 4. While particulars about the system of appointments made in the College during the earlier period have not been furnished, it is stated that by Memo No. EDN. 75/74/280 dated 4th Nov. 1976 (Annexure 7 to the petition), the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department conveyed to the Director of Public Instruction, for short. D. P. I., the sanction of the Governor of Meghalaya to the implementation of the U. G. C. Scales of pay, as indicated there under, for all the deficit Co­llege teachers in the State with effect from 1st April, 1975, The Principal, Professors and other staff of the College were given the U. G. C. scale. By Memo No. EDN. 75/74/51 dated 7th Dec. 1979 (Annexurs 8 to the petition) the Government of Meghalaya, Education & Sports Department intimated the D.P.I.. Meghalaya the Government's decision on the procedure of ap­pointment of Principal, Vice-Principal, Lecturers and other staff in religious minority college in the State with reference to Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 1 of this Memo reads : "1. In the matter of appointment of Principals and Vice-principals in the colleges belonging to the religious minorities, the Governing Body of the College concerned shall select a Principal and vice-principal from a penal of names submitted by the sponsoring Church Organi­sation concerned, subject to the conditions that the educational qualifications of the persons selected shall be in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Gov­ernment's letter No. EDN/75/74/280 dated 4.11.76. Other conditions in respect of age of superannuation etc. shall be as prescribed by the State Government from time to time." Thus, appointment of a qualified Principal was to be made by the Governing Body of the College from a panel of names su­bmitted by the Church organisation, and the age of superannuation shall be prescribed by the State Government from time to time. Superannuation of the incumbent in the College was the­refore envisaged in the Memo. 5. It is admitted that besides the aforesaid Memo in Annexure 8 hereinafter referred to as "Instructions" no special rules or regulations have been made by the Government of Meghalaya relating to colleges established and administered by religious mi­norities, hereinafter referred to as "minority colleges". 6. The petitioner, Rev. Fr. 5. It is admitted that besides the aforesaid Memo in Annexure 8 hereinafter referred to as "Instructions" no special rules or regulations have been made by the Government of Meghalaya relating to colleges established and administered by religious mi­norities, hereinafter referred to as "minority colleges". 6. The petitioner, Rev. Fr. Paul Petta SDB was appointed by the Salesian Provincial, vide his letter dated 16th April, 1982 (Annexure 'A' to the affidavit in opposition filed on be­half of respondents 3,4,5,10 and 11). The petitioner's appo­intment as Principal was "approved with affect from 1.5.82 as recommended by the Governing Body of the College vide Anne­xure 2 by the D. P. I. Meghalaya. The petitioner states that after taking over charge as Principal of the College he found serious mism­anagement and irregularities, illegal diversion and misappropriat­ion of college fund and he took appropriate steps to check financial mismanagement, to regularise provident fund contribution, appointment of Lecturers, and hostel affairs. He had differences wi­th the Church authorities, particularly respondents 3, 4 and 5, the president and members of the Governing Body, respectively, with regard to admission of students into the College. While the petitioner wanted to follow the admission policy strictly according to law, the local Church authorities insisted on the petitioner to give preference to the Catholic students. The petitioner also placed the audit report for the period from 1977-78 to 1983-84 before the Governing Body on 19.10.85. 7. The president of the Governing Body, Salesian Provin­cial, respondent No. 3, issued a letter dated 14.12.85 (Annexure 10 to the petition) stating : "After due consultation with the Provincial Council I am transferring you from the post of Pri­ncipal of St. Anthony's College, Shillong and am appointing Rev. Fr. J. Kenny as Acting Principal of the same college with effect from 21.12.85." The petitioner immediately wrote back (Annexure 11) stating that the respondent No. 3 had no authority to appoint or dismiss the Principal of the College that authority being vested in the Governing Body of the Col­lege. The petitioner also wrote letter dated 16.12.86 (Annexu­re.12) to the D. P. I., Meghalaya to inform the petitioner whe­ther the Government of Meghalaya had given any such power to the Sponsoring authority and the latter informed that she was not aware of any such power given to the Church autho­rity concerned (Annexure-13). The petitioner also wrote letter dated 16.12.86 (Annexu­re.12) to the D. P. I., Meghalaya to inform the petitioner whe­ther the Government of Meghalaya had given any such power to the Sponsoring authority and the latter informed that she was not aware of any such power given to the Church autho­rity concerned (Annexure-13). By letter 23.12.85 the Salesian Provincial intimated the D.P.I., Meghalaya about the appoin­tment of Fr. N. J. Kenny, Vice-principal, as the Acting Prin­cipal of the College and transfer of the petitioner and assured that the acting Principal would see to the normal running of the College till the appointment of the new Principal. The D. P. I. in reply stated that in filling up the post of the Pri­ncipal of the College the Government instruction (Annexure-8) may be kept in mind. A copy of the instruction was also en­closed. By resolution dated 9.1.1986 the Governing Body of the College noted the "Transfer orders" of the petitioner and approved the appointment of Fr. N. J. Kenny as Acting Prin­cipal (Honorary) with effect from 21st December,. 1985 and accord­ingly authorised the latter to exercise the normal powers of the Principal. By letter dated 7.3.86 (Annexure 17) addressed to the President of the College the Salesian Provincial proposed the name of Fr. Stephen Naively to be Principal of the Col­lege with effect from 10.3.86. The College Governing Body in its meeting held on 17.3.86 resolved that Fr. Stephen Navely be appointed Principal-cum-Secretary of the College with effect from 13.3.86 and authorised the Secretary to move for necessary formal approval of the appointment. 8. The Acting Principal was directed to hand over charge to Fr. Stephen Navely (respondent no, 11). In pursuance of the Government letter dated 9.3.84, the appointment of respo­ndent no. 11 as Principal of the College was approved by the D. P. I. Meghalaya with effect form 10th March, 1986 (Ann-exure-20). Meanwhile the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 1 (T) of 1986 in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commis­sioner with a prayer for temporary injunction. An interim or­der to maintain status quo was passed on 23.1.86. However, on 28.2.86 the Principal's office was opened and taken possess­ion of. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner applied for withdrawal of his suit and filed this writ petition on 10.4 86 and obtained Rule on 11.4.86. 9. An interim or­der to maintain status quo was passed on 23.1.86. However, on 28.2.86 the Principal's office was opened and taken possess­ion of. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner applied for withdrawal of his suit and filed this writ petition on 10.4 86 and obtained Rule on 11.4.86. 9. The petition is being resisted by respondents 3,4, 5, 10, and 11 filing a counter affidavit. Another counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent nos. 1, 8, 13 and 14, and petit­ioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposit-km filed by respondents 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11. 10. Mr. S. K. Horn Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, inter alia, that the petitioner having been appointed to the post of principal, under the provisions of the statutory Rules, by the statutory body, the Governing Body of the College and his appointment having been approved by the D. P. I. he can be dislodged/removed from the post of pri­ncipal only by the appointing authority with the approval of the Government/D. P. I. in accordance with law; that the tra­nsfer of a Principal from a deficit-grant-in-aid college is neither contemplated in th2 rules/instruction; nor is practicable since the Governing Body of each College is an autonomous statutory Body; that the petitioner's statutory right to hold the post of the Principal of the College can only be interfered with by the Govern­ing Body of the College with prior approval of the D. P. I. The respondent no. 3 of the Salesian of Don Bosco, Mr. Horn Choudhury argues, has absolutely no jurisdiction to interfere with the petitioner's right to hold the post of Principal of the College, far less to transfer the petitioner from the post of principal, simply because the petitioner happens to be a of the college, and that the so called order of transfer of the petitioner by respondent no. 3 is incompetent and non est in law. Besides, no resolution of the Governing Body with proper agenda having been passed purporting to dislodge/transfer the petitioner from the post of principal of the College and the impugned resolutions/orders purporting to appoint respondent no. 3 is incompetent and non est in law. Besides, no resolution of the Governing Body with proper agenda having been passed purporting to dislodge/transfer the petitioner from the post of principal of the College and the impugned resolutions/orders purporting to appoint respondent no. 11 as Principal of the College in place of the petitioner being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and void ab initio these are liable to be set aside and quashed; and further that the order of transfer is a penal measure and has been passed without giving the petitioner any opportunity whatsoever and" as such it is violative of the principles of natural justice, and hence void. 11. Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya, appearing for respondents 1, 8, 13 and 14, on the basis of their counter affidavit submits that the State has been giving grant to the College as a minority college and that the Government of Meghalaya always considers it as minority institution as contemplated under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. The 1979 Notification (Anncxure-8) is the charter governing the minority colleges so far as the Govern­ment of Meghalaya is concerned. In the counter affidavit it has been denied that the petitioner has acquired any statutory right to continue in the post of Principal till superannuation and that the Governing Body of the College was a statutory body. Mr. Sarma further submits that the appointment of res­pondent no. 11 was duly approved by the D. P. I. and the approval was not malafide; and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Mr. Sarma further submits that the appointment of res­pondent no. 11 was duly approved by the D. P. I. and the approval was not malafide; and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2,3,4,5,10 and 11, submits, inter alia that the petitioner, as would appear from his letter dated 30.4.85, has been well aware of the fact that the College is a minority institution; that from the Government instructions it would be clear that the Governing Body of the College was not a statu­tory body and the Assam Aided College Management Rules, as such, did not apply to the College; that the Salesian Provin­cial is the only competent authority to have appointed the petitioner and therefore to remove him; that the reservation of the Government's right of transfer would not take away the college administrator's right under Article 30 of the Constitu­tion of India; that if all the Aided College Management Rules are applied to the College, Article 30 would be rendered nuga­tory; and that the Salesian Organisation is very much repre­sented in the Governing Body inasmuch as out of ten, six members including the principal belong to that organisation. According to Mr. Goswami two considerations are vital in this case, namely, the right to administer the minority college under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and control of the Church order on its own members, including the petitioner. Counsel asserts that in this case the Government has not come to question the action of the Salesian Provincial as the arrange­ment given in Government instructions (Annexure 8) were agreed upon by both the sides, and this position was very much known to the petitioner himself. Mr. Goswami emphasises that the Government has accepted the College as a minority institution and that the Governing Body of the College is not a statutory body that choice of the personnel is a part of the management. This right has to be exercised in the interest of academic exc­ellence and maintenance of discipline. The right to administer a minority educational institution gives the right to its mana­gement and this right should not be narrowed down and impa­rting general education instead of religious education would be immaterial for this purpose. This right has to be exercised in the interest of academic exc­ellence and maintenance of discipline. The right to administer a minority educational institution gives the right to its mana­gement and this right should not be narrowed down and impa­rting general education instead of religious education would be immaterial for this purpose. If the Governing Body is not con­stituted according to Church organisation and the administrat­ion is not running in conformity with the ideals of the Chu­rch organisation there would be violation of Article 30 of the Constitution. The content of the right to administer inc­ludes selection of the Principal and teachers and in this re­spect the Government has not by any rules or regulation cur­tailed the right of the Church orgaisation. Mr. Goswami sub­mits that it is not that as between the members of the Church order there can be an employer employee relationship. Their vow of obedience is all what is granted by Article 30 of the Constitution and it remains unimpaired in so far as the Government has not come forward with any legislation to curtail it. About the Salesian order, Mr. Goswami submits that 18000 members in the world and 2000 members in India are bound by their vow of service as prescribed in constitution 125 of their Constitutions. The petitioner became a priest in 1969 and took the vow of obedience. It is the sense of service, which, according to Mr. Goswami is most important under the Salesian order and the maintenance of internal trasfer within the Chuch order is also granted by Art. 30 of the Constitution. Mr. Goswami cites certain instances of members of the Salesian Don Bosco being transferred to other posts. The Saleian Don Bosco Mr. Goswami states at the Bar has only three colleges in India, namely, one at Darjeeling, one at Tamilnadu, and the College in Shillong. Once the Principal of the College at Darjeeling was transferred as Headmaster of an M. E. School. 13. In reply, Mr. A. M. Mazumdar submits that the crux of the problem in this case is whether the petitioner acquired certain rights under the Assam Aided College Management Ru­les being appointed Principal of the College. For the security of service of such a minority institution, the Government is empowered to make regulations in their interest and security of service. In reply, Mr. A. M. Mazumdar submits that the crux of the problem in this case is whether the petitioner acquired certain rights under the Assam Aided College Management Ru­les being appointed Principal of the College. For the security of service of such a minority institution, the Government is empowered to make regulations in their interest and security of service. The Governing Body having never removed the petitioner his grievance is that he was not given an opportunity to ex­plain. He having been appointed Principal the petitioner had the right to continue there until superannuation unless he was removed there from in accordance with law and no such proced­ure has been followed in the instant case. The action, if at all was to be taken, it was to be taken by the Governing Bo­dy and that too after following the prescribed rules and the principle of natural justice. 14. We now proceed to examine the rival contentions. From what has been stated in the petition and the affidavits and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation in holding that the College is an educational insti­tution established and managed by a religious minority body, namely, Salesian Don Bosco Organisation. The petitioner having been appointed principal of the institution in accordance with the Government instructions (Annexure 8) issued by the Gove­rnment it is not open to him to deny that it is a minority institution. We are also of the view that the implementation of the U. G. C. scales of pay and the conditions attached thereto sh­all be applicable to the college subject to the Government ins­tructions in Memo dated 7.12.79 (Annexure 8). All the terms and conditions of the U. G. C. scale scheme shall be applicable to the extent they are not repugnant to the Government instructions. The college having received grants-in-aid under the deficit system, the conditions of grants-in-aid as stated in the Government of Assam, Education Department letter dated 17.4. 58 regarding the revised principles and conditions of grant-in aid to the aided C3lleges (Annexure-5) shall also be appli­cable to the College. 15. Are the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 and the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 applicable to the college ? 58 regarding the revised principles and conditions of grant-in aid to the aided C3lleges (Annexure-5) shall also be appli­cable to the College. 15. Are the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 and the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 applicable to the college ? The Assam Aided College Management Rules, shortly, 'the Management Rules', are stated to have been statu­tory rules in view of the fact that those have been framed in consultation with the Gauhati University under Section 21 (g) of the Gauhati University Act. We have, however, not been shown whether the same, when adopted to Meghalaya, can also be regarded as statutory rules, without showing that there has been a similar provision like 21 (g) of the Gauhati University Act in the North Eastern Hill Uni­versity Act. The Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 were undoubtedly applicable to the Colleges in 1960 and those continued to apply till the autonomous State of Maghalaya was created in 1969. Similarly, the Assam Aided College Manage­ment Rules, 1965 undoubtedly applied to those Colleges which are now in Meghalaya, till Meghalaya was created. The Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 provided for the forma­tion within the State of Assam of an autonomous State to be known as Meghalaya. Section 66 of the said Act provided for continuance of the existing laws and their adaptations. Under sub-section (1) thereof all laws in force immediately before the appointed day in the autonomous State were to continue to be in force therein until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority. Under sub-section (2) for the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the autonomous State of any law made before the appointed day, the appropriate Government might, within two years from that day, by order, make such adaptations or modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amen­dment, as might be necessary or expedient and thereupon every such law should have affect subject to the adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amen­dment, as might be necessary or expedient and thereupon every such law should have effect subject to the adaptations and modi­fications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority. Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act defined "law" to mean and include "any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument, having immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the autonomous State". Thus, by virtue of the above provisions if the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 and the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 were in force in whole of Assam or any part of Assam, those were laws and continued to be in force after the autonomous State of Meghalaya came into being. Section 5 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 provided for the formation of the State of Meghalaya comprising the territories which imme­diately before that day were comprised in the autonomous State of Meghalaya formed under Section 3 of the Assam Reorganisa­tion (Meghalaya) Act, 1969; and so much of the territories comprised within the cantonment and municipally of Shillong as did not form part of that autonomaus State, and thereupon the said territories ceased to form part of the existing State of Assam. Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act provided that the provisions of Part II should not be deemed to have effec­ted any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extended or applied, and the territorial references in any such law to the existing State of Assam or the autonomous State of Meghalaya or the Union territory of Manipur or the Union territory of Tripura or the North-East Frontier Agency should, until otherwise provided by a competent legislature or other competent authority, be cons­trued as meaning the territories within that State or autono­mous State or Union territory or Agency immediately before the appointed day. Section 79 of the Reorganisation Act gave power to adapt laws. The appropriate Government under that provision might, before the expiration of two years from the appointed day, by order, make such adaptations and modificat­ions of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as might be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such in should have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications as made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent le­gislature or other competent authority. Section 80 conferred po­wer to construe laws. Section 80 conferred po­wer to construe laws. Under sub-section (1) thereof, notwiths­tanding that no provision or insufficient provision had been made under Section 79 for the adaptation of a law made before the appointed day, any court, tribunal or authority required or em­powered to enforce such law might, for the purpose of facili­tating its application in relation to the State of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya construe the law in such manner, without affect­ing the substance, as might be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court, tribunal or authority. Thus the above two sets of rules, namely, the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 and the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 ought, therefore, to be applicable to the College subject of course, to the instructions in Annexure 8 and the rights of administration vested in the minority body as confer­red by Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 16. Next comes the question as to the orbit of the right of administration vested in the Salesian Don Bosco Organisat­ion. When the right to administer educational institutions esta­blished by them has been granted to the religious minority bo­dies under Article 31 of the Constitution of India, that should also be granted without which the right to administer cannot exist. The rules and regulations framed by the Government, if any, must not be such as to curtail that right to administer the college of its own. In St. Xavier's College v. State of Gu­jarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389 , it has been held that the right to administer may be said to consist of the following rights, na­mely, to choose its managing or governing body, to choose its teachers, not to be compelled to refuse admission to students, to use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institut­ion. In D. A. K College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737 , it has been held that right to administer also includes the right to select its own medium of instruction; hence a legislat­ion which would penalise by disaffiliation from the University any institution which uses a language as the medium of inst­ruction other than one prescribed by it, offends against Art. 3) (1). Though Article 30 itself does not lay down any limitat­ions upon the right of a minority to administer its educational institutions, this right is not absolute, but must be subject to reasonable regulations for the institution as the vehicle of edu­cation for the minority community concerned, consistent with the national interest, such as, to maintain the educational character and standard of such institution, e.g. to lay down qualifications or conditions of service to secure appointment of good teachers, to ensure interests of students; to maintain a fair standard of teaching; to ensure orderly, efficient and sound administration and to prevent maladministration, and to secure its proper functioning as an educational institution; to ensure that its funds are spent for the betterment of education and not for extraneous purposes; to prevent anti-national activity; to enforce the general laws of the land, applicable to all pe­rsons, e. g., taxation, sanitation, social welfare, economic regu­lations, public order, morality. Such regulations may be made either by legislation or by executive order as was held in Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, (1953) 3 SCR 837 (850). Since the right to 'administer' confers upon the minority insti­tutions the right to manage the institution, and the right con­ferred by cl. (1) is absolute, no restriction can be imposed by the State on the right of the minority community to manage the institution. (Mark Netto v. Govt. of Kerala AIR 1979 SC 85). On the other hand, the right to administer cannot include the right to maladminister. Hence, under the guise of exclusive ri­ght of management, a minority institution cannot be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions or to resist regulations which are conducive to ma­intain the standard; such regulations do not bear directly upon the management though they may indirectly affect it. It will cease to be a regulation where the condition imposed is not re­lated to any of the legitimate interests for which the State may intervene, such as efficiency, health, morality -or the like. Such regulations are, however, permissible only in so far as they do not restrict the right of administration of the minority commu­nity but facilitate and ensure better and more effective exercise of that right for the benefit of the institution. They must al­low the institution to retain its minority character. Such regulations are, however, permissible only in so far as they do not restrict the right of administration of the minority commu­nity but facilitate and ensure better and more effective exercise of that right for the benefit of the institution. They must al­low the institution to retain its minority character. No such resolution would be valid if it has the effect of displacing the minority administration or to completely take away its autono­my, e. g. enabling the Government to take over the management of the institution; and providing that appointments and dismi­ssals by the Governing body were to be subject to absolute veto or prior approval of the State or the University, while the Go­vernment or the University may frame rules and regulations relating to the conditions of service and tenure of teachers un­der the employ of minority institutions to ensure that they are not arbitrarily treated, e. g,, to insist that they must be given an opportunity to be heard before being punished, such regul­ation becomes a restriction and therefore violative of the right of the minority to administer the institution, if the power given to the State or University authority to interfere is un-canalized or unlimited and takes away the right of the minority to administer the institution, as a minority institution even though such restriction may be in the interests of the general public; enabling the State to constitute a Managing Committee according to its order, or to interfere with the minority's choice of a governing body : ena­bling the State to place the management in a body corporate which is not answerable to the Founders of the institution; enabling the State to require the institutions to reserve seats under orders of the Government; imposing any language (not even the official language) as the compulsory medium of instru­ction in a minority institution; compelling the institution to refer to a Government nominated arbitrator all disputes between the governing body and its staff; requiring that all teaching in under-graduate classes of such institution must be within the University area and only by University teachers. In short, the order to be consonant with Article 30 (1) a regulation imposed by the State upon a minority institution must be reasonable and must also be regulative of educational character of the in­stitution and conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other per­sons who resort to it. The right conferred by cl. (1) of Art. 3O is also subject to the condition imposed by cl. (2) of that article, in case the minority institution received aid from the State. 17. The centre and orbit of the minorities' right to adminis­ter have been outlined in a catena of decisions of the Sup­reme Court, to mention few, in Re. Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 ; Sidhrajbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1963) SCR 837; Rev. Fatkar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465 ; State of Kerala vs. Mother Provincial, AIR 1970 SC 2079 ; D.A.V. College vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737 ; St. Xavier's College vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389 ; G.F. College vs. Univer­sity of Agra, AIR 1975 SC 1821 ; Mark Netto vs. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 85; All Saints High School vs. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1980 SC 1042 ; and The Managing Board of the Milli Talini Mission vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1757 . The law was summarised in para 65 in All Saints High School's case (supra). In V.C. Millutia University vs. Dayanand Jha, AIR 1986 SC. 1200 it was held that although the two posts of Principal and Reader are carried on the same scale of pay, the post of Principal undoubtedly has highar duties and respon­sibilities. The post of Reader cannot therefore be regarded as an equivalent post as that of the Principal in the legal sense. The transfer by the Vice Chancellor under S. 10 (4) of the Principal of a College to the post of Reader in another College maintained by the University was, therefore, illegal. 18. Turning to the facts of the instant case both Mr. Mazumdar and Mr. Goswami have agreed that the case laws cited so far relate to actions of the State affecting a minority institution. But in the instant case there is no such action on the part of the State. 18. Turning to the facts of the instant case both Mr. Mazumdar and Mr. Goswami have agreed that the case laws cited so far relate to actions of the State affecting a minority institution. But in the instant case there is no such action on the part of the State. On the other hand the State has fairly stated that the Government instructions (Annexure-8) are its charter in relation to the College and the Government of Meghalaya has not made any special regulation regarding administration of the College. The State has gone to the extent of saying that the Governing Body of the College is not a statutory body inasmuch as it has been constituted under the Government instructions. The stand of the Government in this regard appears to be reasonable, However, a minority institution need not be a lawless islet. The rules relating to the tenure and security of service, which are applicable to similar non-Government Colleges, may be applicable to minority college in so far as, and to the extent, they do not infringe the right conferred under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Government instructions also envisage an age of superannuation and the Government reserves the right to fix the age of superan­nuation. There is, therefore, room for argument that appoint­ment made in a minority college also envisages an age of retire-merit. This has to be so because the Principal and the Professors and Lecturers may not necessarily belong to the religious minority body. It is here that the dispute has arisen. While the petitioner was appointed as Principal, there is no mention that his appointment was subject to the rules of the minority body and not subject to the rules applicable to the teachers or Principals of similar Government aided colleges. Under these circumstances can it not be reasonably held that the petitioner had the expectation of continuing as Principal till his age of superannuation until and unless he was removed there from in accordance with law ? True, he is also a member of the minority body, himself being a priest. But by virtue of his appoint­ment as Principal of the College has he not earned some right over and above what he already had as priest, and has he not subjected himself to certain additional duties and obliga­tions ? True, he is also a member of the minority body, himself being a priest. But by virtue of his appoint­ment as Principal of the College has he not earned some right over and above what he already had as priest, and has he not subjected himself to certain additional duties and obliga­tions ? It is also true that his appointment was approved by the D.P.I. on recommendation of the Governing Body in accor­dance with the Government instructions. But from these facts can it be held that his rights and obligations as Principal were thus governed by the rules of his organisation only and by nothing more ? If the petitioner earned certain rights over and above those he had as a priest after his appointment as Prin­cipal of the College, can he be allowed to be deprived of all or some of those rights without allowing him to reader any explanation ? There are materials to show that there was dissa­tisfaction on the admission policy followed by the petitioner, which some considered to be at tangent. This is also the peti­tioner's case that there were certain financial irregularities for which certain members of the Governing Body happened to be displeased with the petitioner. Can it not, therefore, be said that the petitioner has been deprived of whatever rights he earned being appointed as Principal of the College without giving him any opportunity of explaining his case; and if that be so, would it not be violative of the principles of natural justice ? To our mind, there is violation of the principles of natural justice in dislodging the petitioner from his post of Principal with­out hearing him. This leads to the question whether these minority institutions are also bound by the principle of natural justice ? 19. Denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case has resulted in injustice to him. His main conten­tion is that there is no provision for his tray for to a School. The Government instructions (Annexure-8) do not contain any provision for transfer. The appointment letter has not stated that the petitioner was subject to transfer. The petitioner having been himself a priest and bound by the vows taken in the Salesian order, we do not express any opinion as to whether the minority body has the right of transfer. The Government instructions (Annexure-8) do not contain any provision for transfer. The appointment letter has not stated that the petitioner was subject to transfer. The petitioner having been himself a priest and bound by the vows taken in the Salesian order, we do not express any opinion as to whether the minority body has the right of transfer. When a mino­rity body owns a cluster of equivalent educational institutions the possibility of transfers from one institution to another may not altogether be ruled out. The question whether such trans­fer would be penal or not would not always be relevant in the context of the right to administer given to such minority bodies. If by virtue of the petitioner's appointment as Princi­pal of the College he has acquired any right over and above those already acquired before he was appointed, natural justice would demand that he should have been heard before he is deprived of those rights and privileges. Again, as his appoint­ment was to be made by the Governing Body and that was subject to the approval of the D.P.I., his removal from that post must also similarly be made by the Governing body and also subject to the approval of the D.P.I. No such approval of the order has been shown to us. 'Nihil tarn coivenlens est naturali acquitati quam unirnquodqu dissolvi coligamine quo legtttum est'-Nothing is so consonant to natural equity as that a thing should be dissolved by the same means by which it was bound. The petitioner was appointed by the Governing Body and that was subject to the approval of the D.P.I. There is no reason as to why his removal from the post of the Principal should not have been made by the Governing Body and subject to the approval of the D.P.I, However, the College Governing Body has got no control over the School whereto the petitioner has been transferred. 20. So long the members of the Salesian body obeyed the rules and regulation of the body and accepted transfers in good spirit this Court would have nothing to do. But if the peti­tioner having been appointed as Principal feels aggrieved that his transfer is not in accordance with the rules of the College and comes to the Court, this Court has to look into and listen to him. But if the peti­tioner having been appointed as Principal feels aggrieved that his transfer is not in accordance with the rules of the College and comes to the Court, this Court has to look into and listen to him. By appointing the petitioner as Principal of the College, the organisation has exposed the petitioner to the judicial gaze of the Court and if the petitioner makes grievances, it is for the Court to redress it. 21. While developing the principles of natural justice, the courts have devised codes of fair administrative procedure. Proce­dural fairness and regularity are as important as the substan­tive fairness and regularity. Substantive laws are to be fairly and impartially applied. Procedural fairness cannot be regarded as an obstacle to efficiency. No doubt, the rules of natural justice restrict the freedom of administrative action but they lead to ultimate satisfaction of all concerned. One fundamental notion comprised in the legal concept of natural justice is that a man before he is condemned must always be fairly heard. This rule is applicable' to administrative actions. Rules of natural justice are supposed to be implied in legal provisions, unless the contrary appears from the provisions themselves. 22. In most cases the violation of natural justice makes the decision void. To Menaka Gaifii, AIR 1978 SC 591, it was accepted that an order in violation of natural justice would be void. Though the law is now well-settled that all or­ders passivity is sufficient authority to hold that the order would be at least voidable and can be avoided by the party prejudiced by it. Failure to give a fair hearing goes to jurisdiction. Since Ridge vs Baldwin, (1964) A. C. 40 right to a fair hearing is well es­tablished. This principle of natural justice has consistently been applied to educational institutions. The right to a fair hearing has been invoked in a series of cases involving educational in­stitutions and questions of academic discipline. The courts have, in general, held that the academic disciplinary proceedings re­quired the observation of the principle of natural justice but they have refused to apply unduly strict standards, provided the proceedings are substantially fair and often the Courts would disclaim jurisdiction on the ground that internal disputes are matters to be determined by the institutions themselves. The courts have, in general, held that the academic disciplinary proceedings re­quired the observation of the principle of natural justice but they have refused to apply unduly strict standards, provided the proceedings are substantially fair and often the Courts would disclaim jurisdiction on the ground that internal disputes are matters to be determined by the institutions themselves. This occurred in Ceylon University vs. Fernanda,(1960) 1 W. L. R. 223 where the Privy Council held that it was a case of merely master and servant, even though the university had power to dismiss and rescind. This decision was, however, criticised by Lord Wilberforce in Nalloch vs. Aberdeen Corporation, (1971) 1 W. L. R. 1578 at 1596. It may at least be possible to say that the academic staff of the same grade may be in law mere servants and more probably holders to established posts and would be regarded as office holders and so entitled the benefit of natural justice. 23. In Dr. Bool Cliani vs. Chancellor, Kunikshetra Univer­sity, AIR 1958 SC 292, it was ruled that power to appoint implied power to terminate. In Jagdish Pandey vs. The Chan­cellor, University of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 353 , it was held that Section 4 of the Bihar University Act made no provision of hearing before passing an order there under and it must be read as requiring that the Commission must act according to the principles of natural justice and must hear the concerned before making its recommendation. In The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. vs. Kunari Chittra Srivastava, AIR 1970 SC 1039 , an order passed in violation of the in caplet of natural justice was set aside. In Executive Committee of U. P. State Warehousing Corpn., Lucknow vs. Chandra Kiran Tjtogi, AIR 1970 SC 1244 , it has been held that normally a contract of personal service will not be enforced by an order for specific performance nor will it be open for a servant to accept the repudiation of a contract of service by his mas­ter and say that the contract has never been terminated. The remedy of the employee is a claim for damages for wrong­ful dismissal or for breach of contract. The remedy of the employee is a claim for damages for wrong­ful dismissal or for breach of contract. But when a statutory status is given to an employee and there has been a violation of the probing; of the statute while terminating the services of such an employee, the latter will be eligible to get the relief of a declaration that the order is null and void and that he continues to be in service, as it will not then be a mere case of a master terminating the services of a servant. One of the exceptions to the normal rule that no declaration to enforce a contract of personal service will be granted, is tint of a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation, imposed by statute. In Naren Das vs. Gauhati University, 173 A. L. R. 49 the need for observing the basic principle of natural justice, was epilepsies by this Court. It 13 therefore, well settled that academic institutions are required to follow the principles of natural justice in passing orders affecting civil rights of their students and employees. There is no reason why the same rule should not be applicable to mi­nority institutions and for that matter to the College. 24. As in the instant case the impugned transfer order was assed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the order is at least voidable at the instance of the petitioner, if not altogether void. We accordingly keep the impugned or­der in abeyance forthwith and direct the Governing Body of the College to give the petitioner an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be transferred as stated in the impugned transfer order dated 14.12.85 (Annexure-10) and after hearing the petitioner on the cause shown, shall decide the matter of trans­fer within one month from receipt of this order, and act acc­ording to the decision so taken and in conformity with the Government instructions (Ainexure-8). If the impugned order is revoked, the petitioner shall automatically be reinstated in his just of Principal of the College, and shall be deemed to have continued in his post and he shill be given all the emoluments and benefits thereof. If the impugned order is revoked, the petitioner shall automatically be reinstated in his just of Principal of the College, and shall be deemed to have continued in his post and he shill be given all the emoluments and benefits thereof. The Rissole it No. 11 shall correspon­dingly cease to be the Principal of the College, but shall not i.e disentitled to the pay and allowances for the services al­ready rendered by him to the College prior to this date, in case the Governing Body decides to give effect to the impug­ned transfer order it shall revive and the petitioner shall be free to pursue his remedies under the law. In the interest of fair hearing and reasonable opportunity, we direct the Gover­ning Body to make available to the petitioner all the records which he may need for the purpose of his defence; the petitioner shall, not, however function as Bridal during the period of one month pending decision. The decision shall be taken within a month from to day. 24A. We are of the view that the giving of an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner is in the best interest of aca­demic excellence, academic discipline and security of service of the Principal arid professors of the College and it does not in­fringe the right of administration of the College vested in the minority religious body under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 25. In the result, this petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. We, however, mate no order as to costs. HANSARIA, J. :- 26. I have read with profit the exhaustive judgment of my learned Brother. I respectfully agree with him. The "transfer order" passed against the petitioner does require reconsideration by the Governing Body of the College after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Even if the order of transfer in the present case is not to be regarded as one of. removal of the petitioner looked at from the view point of the church or­ganisation, the order definitely reduced him in rank inasmuch as he was transferred from the post of Principal of the College to a school (Don Bosco, Maligaon, Gauhati). In such a case also hearing of the petitioner is deemed necessary. Even God had asked Adam and Eve whether they had taken the forbid­den fruit before punishing them. In such a case also hearing of the petitioner is deemed necessary. Even God had asked Adam and Eve whether they had taken the forbid­den fruit before punishing them. (See para 12 of Radheyshyam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 707 ). 27. May it be stated that in asking the Governing Body to reconsider the matter as aforesaid, we have in no way inf­ringed Article 30 of the Constitution inasmuch as 6 (six) out of 10 (ten) members of the Governing Body are from Salesian organi­sation. So, the view of the members of this organisation shall ultimately prevail in the deliberations of the Governing Body. As selection of a principal has to be made by the Governing Body as per the Rules governing the College, it is this body which can unseat a principal. Merely noting of an order of tra­nsfer (whose effect is removal or reduction in rank), as was done in the present case by the Governing Body (see Annexure-16), would not do in this regard. The church organisation can only propose the action, the ultimate decision has to be that of the Governing Body. This is on the analogy that while appointing somebody as principal, the church organisation can only sponsor some names-the selection has to be made by the Governing Body. 28. It was urged by Shri Goswami that interference with the Constitution and Regulations of the Salesian Society by an outside agency shall violate Article 33. We are quite con­scious about the need of strict discipline to be maintained in a Holy Order not to speak of the Society of St. Francis de Sales whose Article 63 of the Constitution requires to take a vow of obe­dient, and Article 24 mandates to 'live obedient, poor and chaste". Our order has not touched the sensitive area of the church discipline inasmuch as the petitioner a Salesian is bound, hand and foot, by all orders of the church superiors. If by refusing to obey the order of Father John Kalapura, 508, the petitioner violated any provision of the Constitutions and Regulations of the Salesian Society, he can definitely be awar­ded, as a member of that organisation, such punishment as is visualised by the rules and orders governing on 508 (Salesian Don Bosco). In this area, we have not allowed interference by any outside agency.