JUDGMENT Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. Sanction was accorded on 11th August 1981 by the Vice Chancellor, for the provisional affiliation to the Calicut University, of a new Junior College at Chungathara, to be started by Dr. Alexander Marthoma, Metropolitan Marthoma Church, Tiruvalla, the petitioner herein. Within ten days of sanction, the petitioner appointed Dr. C. J. John as the Principal of the College, effective from 20th August 1981 and sought the approval of the University as contemplated under the Calicut University Act and the statutes. The University declined approval on three grounds; (a) The appointment was not made by a selection committee constituted as per statutes; (b) The appointee did not have the qualifications prescribed by the statutes and (c) that he was overaged. 2. This order, Ext P-4, dated 30th September 1982 is challenged in this writ petition. By an interim order, this court directed the University to provisionally approve the appointment subject to the result of the writ petition and Dr. John has been continuing since then on a provisional basis on the strength of the orders of this Court. 3. The petitioner contends that the college is a minority institution entitled to the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution and therefore was competent, even without any selection process to appoint any person of its choice as the Principal of the College, that it appointed Dr. John on the basis of selection conducted by a committee constituted by the management for the purpose, that Dr. John's qualifications and experience were more than sufficient for holding the post of Principal and that the disapproval of the appointment by the University was contrary to the Calicut University Act (the Act, for short), and the Statues and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. 4. The University contends that there was no advertisement for the post as insisted by the Act, that there was no committee constituted as per the statutes for making the selection, that Dr. John who, as Principal, was expected also to teach the students did not have the basic degree in the subject to be taught in the College, for the year 1981-82, when the appointment was made and thus the appointment was made in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. John who, as Principal, was expected also to teach the students did not have the basic degree in the subject to be taught in the College, for the year 1981-82, when the appointment was made and thus the appointment was made in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. It is also contended that the provisions in the Act and the Statutes prescribing the mode of selection for appointment to the post of Principal of a College are only regulatory in nature, made in the best interests to maintain educational standards and efficiency and there is no violation of Article 30. 5. We shall refer to the relevant statutory provisions before considering the points raised. 6. The Senate, the supreme authority of the University makes, amends or repeals statutes and the statutes may provide for the terms and conditions and the procedure to be followed for affiliation of colleges. [Section 34(h) and Section 56 (2)]. Chapter 21 of the First Statutes provides the procedure to be adopted in granting affiliation of new college and in new courses. No new college can be permitted to be started unless all the conditions prescribed by the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances are fulfilled before the commencement of the academic year and the Educational Agency has to give an undertaking to the University that they would faithfully carry out the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations and the directions issued by the University from time to time. It is again provided in Statute 19 of that Chapter that every college affiliated to the University shall comply with and duly observe the provisions in the laws of the University in so far as they are applicable to the college. When affiliation is sought, the College has to satisfy the Syndicate, ˜the character, qualifications and adequacy of the teaching staff and the conditions of their service [Statute 26 (iii) Chapter 21]. 7. In every College, the Principal shall be the head of the College and shall be responsible for the internal management and administration of the college. No person shall be appointed as Principal who does not possess the qualifications and experience prescribed by the Regulations. (Statute 21 Chapter 21). 7. In every College, the Principal shall be the head of the College and shall be responsible for the internal management and administration of the college. No person shall be appointed as Principal who does not possess the qualifications and experience prescribed by the Regulations. (Statute 21 Chapter 21). Chapter XIII of the Ordinances providing for the work load and pattern of teaching staff in Arts and Science colleges mentions in clause 1 (a) that the number of hours of teaching work shall not exceed five per week and in no case it shall be less than three hours. 8. Appointment of Principal is provided in Section 57 (2), (5) and (9) as follows: "(2) Appointment of principals shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, or by direct recruitment." "(5) For making appointment under this section by direct recruitment the post shall be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes." "(9) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. 9. Chapter 2 of the First Statutes relating to conditions of service of teachers in private colleges provides for appointment of teachers by direct recruitment and constitution of selection committee in Statutes 3 and 4 thus: "3. Appointment of teachers by direct recruitment.” For making appointments to the posts of teachers by direct recruitment, the posts shall be advertised in two English and two Malayalam daily news­papers approved by the University giving a minimum period of thirty days for the aspirants to apply. 4. Constitution of Selection Committee for appointment .-(1)In order to ensure that appointments of teachers by direct recruitment are on the basis of merit such appointments shall be made by the Educational Agency from a panel of three names for every vacancy recommended by a Selection Committee constituted by the Educational Agency and consisting of the following members namely: (a) two representatives of the Educational Agency nominated by it, one of whom shall be the Chairman of the Selection committee; (b) the Principal of the College; (c) the Head of Department in the subject concerned; and (d) one expert in the subject nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. (2) Three members including the member referred to in item (d) shall constitute the quorum for a meeting of the Selection Committee. (2) Three members including the member referred to in item (d) shall constitute the quorum for a meeting of the Selection Committee. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1), in the case of any Educational Agency which has voluntarily entered into a written agreement with the Government for the direct payment of salaries to the teachers and the non-teaching staff of its Arts, Science or Training colleges, appointments of teachers, whether provisional or permanent, shall be made only from a list of persons prepared by a selection committee constituted by the Educational Agency and consisting of the following members, namely: (a) two representatives of the Educational Agency nominated by it; (b) a person nominated by the Educational Agency from amongst the Principal, Heads of Departments and Professors of the College or whether the Educational Agency has two or more colleges from amongst the Principals, Heads of Departments, and Professors of all those Colleges: Provided that before making any such nomination, the educational agency shall obtain the concurrence of the University. (c) one member chosen by the Educational Agency from amongst the Secretaries to the Government and the District Collectors. Provided that in the case of Oriental Title Colleges, the member chosen by the Educational Agency shall be from amongst the category of Principals and officers of the Collegiate Education Department not below the rank of Professors proficient in the concerned language: Provided further that if for any reason the Government consider that the officers chosen by the Educational Agency cannot be deputed to the Selection Committee, the Educational Agency shall choose another officer from amongst the said categories; (d) one expert chosen by the Educational Agency from a subject- wise list of experts prepared by the University containing not less than five members and made available to the Educational Agency on its request at the beginning of each academic year: Provided that if the Educational Agency considers that the list is insufficient, it may request for more names to be included in the list and the University, shall, as far as possible, comply with such request. (4) A representative of the Educational Agency referred to in item (a) of clause (3) or the member referred to in item (b) of that clause, as may be decided by the Educational Agency, shall be the Chairman and the convener of the Selection Committee constituted under the said clause. (4) A representative of the Educational Agency referred to in item (a) of clause (3) or the member referred to in item (b) of that clause, as may be decided by the Educational Agency, shall be the Chairman and the convener of the Selection Committee constituted under the said clause. (5) The Selection Committee constituted under clause, (1) or clause (3) shall meet as often as is necessary." 10. The Act defines "Teacher" as meaning Principal, Professor etc. [Section 2 (27)]. 11. Under the University Act, appointments of Principal can be made (a) by promotion from among the teachers of the College or of all the colleges under the same management and (b) by direct recruitment. In the present case, a Principal had to be appointed for a new college started under a new Management and therefore direct recruitment alone was possible. Direct recruitment could be made only after the post is advertised in two English and two Malayalam newspapers, giving a minimum period of thirty days for the aspirants to apply as seen from Section 57 (2) and Statute 3 in Chapter 2 of the First Statutes. It is admitted before us that there was no advertisement complying with these formalities. Moreover, when the affiliation to the College itself was given only on 11th August 1981 and the appointment of the Principal was made on 20th August 1981, it is clear that the thirty days notice for the aspirants to apply, was not given. The appointment of Dr. John was therefore, in clear violation of the above statutory provisions. Advertisement for direct recruitment to the post of a Principal attracts the best talent for the post and gives reasonable opportunity to all aspirants to compete for selection. In such cases, appointments are not made stealthly and through the back door, prejudices and partiality are to a large extent diminished or eliminated and deserving and meritorious candidates are selected ensuring efficiency and excellence in educational institutions. This salutary principle recognised in the University provisions has been clearly disregarded in the appointment made by the Management in the present case. The appointment was therefore rightly disapproved by the University on this score. 12. The appointment is bad on yet another ground. Psychology and Philosophy were not subjects prescribed for studies in this College for 1981-82. Dr. This salutary principle recognised in the University provisions has been clearly disregarded in the appointment made by the Management in the present case. The appointment was therefore rightly disapproved by the University on this score. 12. The appointment is bad on yet another ground. Psychology and Philosophy were not subjects prescribed for studies in this College for 1981-82. Dr. C. J. John was holder of a Second class Master's Degree in Philosophy, a Diploma holder in Psychology (D.C.P.) of the University of Birmingham, and a Ph.D. in Psychology of the Karnataka University. Philosophy and Psychology were not subjects to be taught in the College for 1981-82. When the Principal of a College should have at least three hours of teaching work, Dr. C.J. John could have none, for the subjects allowed to be taught during the academic year 1981-82 were:” Group I Maths, Physics and Chemistry.. One batch of 80 students each Group II Physics, Chemistry and Biology .. - Group IV Commerce, Commercial .. Correspondence, Commercial Geography, Book Keeping and Accountancy and Basic Mathematics - Part II Second Language Malayalam/Hindi.'' Dr. John did not have the qualifications for being appointed as the Principal in 1981. 13. Faced with these unanswerable aspects vitally affecting the appointment the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chacko George, contended that the institution had entered into an agreement with the Government for direct payment of salaries and the Government themselves have clarified that the principles of selection provided in the agreement for the appointment of a Principal were not applicable to such institutions. So far as his information goes, a Principal was never appointed by direct recruitment by any selection process and there was no reason to insist a selection for the petitioner's College alone. Alternatively it was submitted that the institution is a minority institution having a wider latitude in the appointment of a Principal and to insist that the Principal could be appointed only after selection, is to violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. Before proceeding to consider these submissions, it has to be pointed out that except stating in the petition that the institution is a minority institution and the order disapproving the appointment violates Article 30 (1), there are only vague averments which have scant support for the submissions made at the time of hearing. Before proceeding to consider these submissions, it has to be pointed out that except stating in the petition that the institution is a minority institution and the order disapproving the appointment violates Article 30 (1), there are only vague averments which have scant support for the submissions made at the time of hearing. No statutory provision is challenged and no relief is claimed on that basis. We are also not too sure whether the general submission by the learned counsel that no selection is made when a Principal of a College is appointed by direct recruitment is correct or not. No such averment was made in the petition and Sri Sudhakara Prasad, learned counsel for the University was, therefore, not able to assert or refute. We shall, however, consider the contention advanced before us with reference to the materials available before us. 14. The Government have undertaken to pay the salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff of the colleges in this State in cases where the educational agency voluntarily enters into a written agreement. The petitioner as the Manager of the College also entered into an agreement which came into force from 11th August, 1987, the date of the provisional affiliation. Clause 18 (1) of the agreement provided that: "All future appointments to the teaching staff of the institution whether provisional or permanent, shall be made by the Educational Agency only from a list of persons prepared by the Committee for selection of Teaching staff;" and the composition of the Committee was also mentioned in Clause 18 (ii). Clause 22 stated that:” The members of the Committee for selection of Teaching Staff shall hold office for a period of one academic year commencing from 1st June and ending on 31st May." 15. Regarding selection, Clause 23 of the agreement stated: "The Educational Agency shall have the option to have all the members of the teaching staff selected on merit from candidates of all communities or to reserve every alternate vacancy or fifty per cent of the vacancies for being filled on the basis of merit from among candidates of the Marthoma Syrian Community." 16. Breach of the conditions of the agreement was taken care of in Clause 42 thus:” "In case the Educational Agency commits breach of all or any of the terms and conditions herein contained, the Government shall have the power and authority to stop, discontinue or withhold all or any of the payments of the Educational Agency or to the staff under these presents and also to recover from the Educational Agency the amounts found due to the Government under this Agreement." 17. This seems to be in line with the model agreement executed by the Government in all similar cases. In 1973, some doubts arose regarding the scope of the Committees for selection of staff in private Arts and Science Colleges and the Government informed the Registrars of Kerala and Calicut Universities by communication, dated 29th September 1973 that it was clarified that the appointment of Principals do not come within the scope of this Committee but all other direct recruitment of staff come under its scope. It is relying on this communication that the contention is advanced that the petitioner was not bound to constitute a selection committee for appointment of the Principal. It has, however, to be noted that the University is not insisting on the constitution of a selection committee on the basis of the terms of the voluntary agreement entered into by the parties but on the strength of the statutory provisions contained in Statute 4 (3) in Chapter 2 of the First Statutes. In fact, the provisions in the agreement regarding the constitution of committee are practically bodily lifted and entrenched in the statute. It is, therefore, necessary only to advert to the statutory provision for our purpose. 18. Statute 4 relates to the constitution of selection committee for appointments and it specifically states that in order to ensure that appointments of teachers by direct recruitment are on the basis of merit, such appointments shall be made by the educational agency from a panel of names recommended by a selection committee. 18. Statute 4 relates to the constitution of selection committee for appointments and it specifically states that in order to ensure that appointments of teachers by direct recruitment are on the basis of merit, such appointments shall be made by the educational agency from a panel of names recommended by a selection committee. Statute 4 (3) is a special provision applicable to an educational agency "which has voluntarily entered into a written agreement with the Government for direct payment of salaries to teachers etc." This provisions insists that the appointment of teachers shall be made only from a list of persons prepared by a selection committee constituted by the Educational Agency and consisting of members as specified therein. When therefore, admittedly, the petitioner has entered into a voluntary agreement. Statute 4 (3) automatically applies and it is no longer necessary to rely con the terms of the agreement or the clarification issued by the Government to decide whether the Management was bound to constitute a Committee for selection and appointment of a Principal of a college is a statutory mandate binding on all educational agencies. The contention, therefore, that the petitioner was not bound to constitute a Committee under Statute 4 (3) for appointment of the Principal cannot be accepted. 19. Assuming that Statute 4 (3) applies to all educational agencies which have voluntarily entered into written agreements for the direct payment of salaries by Government, the . contention is that this provision cannot apply to minority institutions as it infringes Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. It is said that selection by a Committee constituted under the Act deprives the minority institution of its right to administer the educational institutions of their choice. We shall now proceed to consider this aspect. 20. The advisory opinion of the Supreme Court in In re Kerala Education Bill, 1957 A.I.R. 1958 S. C. 956 the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavies College Society v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1389= 1974(1) S.C.C. 717 in State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2079 in All Saints High School v. Government of A. P. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1042 in Frank Anthony, P. S. E. Assocn. v. Union of India 1969 K.L.T. 749 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mother Provincial v. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 311 are instructive for the purpose. 21. v. Union of India 1969 K.L.T. 749 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mother Provincial v. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 311 are instructive for the purpose. 21. Article 30 (1) reads:” "All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice�. 22. As we understand the content of this fundamental right”both the religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It is a right to administer and not to maladminister. It is a right not absolute but tolerant to regulation. The right is thus subject to permissible regulations. Such regulations have to be reasonable and they are permissible when they subserve the purpose of recognition and affiliation, when they achieve to maintain the excellence of the institution as a vehicle for general education". Thus measures to regulate the courses of study, the qualifications for recruitment and appointment of teachers, the conditions of employment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students, facilities for Libraries and Laboratories, fixing the syllabus for examinations, are regulations binding on minority institutions without encroaching on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 (1). The minority institutions cannot refuse to follow the general pattern of studies, nor fall below the "standards of excellence expected of educational institutions". These principles are borne out by the decisions referred to above and we shall usefully extract only some of them for the purpose of our case. 23. In State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2079 it was observed thus:” "The next part of the right relates to the administration of such institutions. 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 accordance 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 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 advancement of the country and its people. 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 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 teach, and to a certain extent the State may also regulate the conditions of employment of teachers and the health and hygiene of students. 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 cannot 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 general pattern. While the management must be left to them, they may be compelled to keep in step with others. 24. In Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1389= 1974 (1) S.C.C. 717 Chief Justice Ray on behalf of himself and Palekar, J. said thus:” . When a minority institution applies for affiliation, it agrees to follow the uniform courses of study. Affiliation is regulating the educational character and content of the minority institutions. These regulations are not only reasonable in the interest of general secular education but also conduce to the improvement in the statute and strength of the minority institutions. All institutions of general secular education whether established by the minorities or the non-minorities must impart to the students education not only for their intellectual attainment but also for pursuit of careers. Affiliation of minority institutions is intended to ensure the growth and excellence of their children and other students in the academic field. Affiliation mainly pertains to the academic and educational character of the institution. Therefore, measures which will regulate the courses of study, the qualifications and appointment of teachers, the conditions of employment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students, facilities for libraries and laboratories are all comprised in matters germane to affiliation of minority institutions. Affiliation mainly pertains to the academic and educational character of the institution. Therefore, measures which will regulate the courses of study, the qualifications and appointment of teachers, the conditions of employment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students, facilities for libraries and laboratories are all comprised in matters germane to affiliation of minority institutions. These regulatory measures for affiliation are for uniformity, efficiency and excellence in educational courses and do not violate any fundamental right of the minority institutions under Article 30." "The right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right. This right is not free from regulation. Just as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character and content of minority institutions similarly regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. Das, C. J., in the Kerala Education Bill case (supra) summed up in' one sentence the true meaning of the right to admimster by saying that the right to administer is not the right to mal administer." Mathew, J. on behalf of himself and Chandrachud, J, stated thus "Recognition or affiliation is granted on the basis of the excellence of an educational institution, namely, that it has reached the educational standard set up by the university. Recognition or affiliation is sought for the purpose of enabling the students in an educational institution to sit for an examination to be conducted by the .university and to obtain a degree conferred by the university. For that purpose, the students should have to be coached in such a manner so as to attain the standard of education prescribed by the university. Recognition or affiliation creates an interest in the university to ensure that the educational institution is maintained for the purpose intended and any regulation which will subserve or advance that purpose will be reasonable and no educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority can claim recognition or affiliation without submitting to those regulations. That is the price of recognition or affiliation: but this does not mean that it should submit to a regulation stipulating for surrender of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, which is unrelated to the purpose of recognition or affiliation. That is the price of recognition or affiliation: but this does not mean that it should submit to a regulation stipulating for surrender of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, which is unrelated to the purpose of recognition or affiliation. In other words, recognition or affiliation is a facility which the university grants to an educational institution, for the purpose of enabling the students there to sit for an examination to be conducted by the university in the prescribed subjects and to obtain the degree conferred by the university, and therefore, it stands to reason to hold that no regulation which is unrelated to the purpose can be imposed. If, besides recognition or affiliation on educational institution conducted by a religious minority is granted aid, further regulations for ensuring that the aid is utilized for the purpose for which it is granted will be permissible. The heart of the matter is that no educational institution established by a religious or linguistic minority can claim total immunity from regulations by the legislature or the university if it wants affiliation or recognition; but the character of the permissible regulations must depend upon their purpose. As we said, such regulations will be permissible if they are relevant to the purpose of securing or promoting the object of recognition or affiliation. There will be border line cases where it is difficult to decide whether a regulation really subserves the purpose of recognition or affiliation. But that does not affect the question of principle. In every case, when the reasonableness of a regulation comes up for consideration before the Court, the question to be asked and answered is whether the regulation is calculated to subserve or will in effect subserve the purpose of recognition, or affiliation, namely, the excellence of the institution as a vehicle for general secular education to the minority community and to other persons who resort to it. The question whether a regulation is in the general interest of the public has no relevance, if it does not advance the excellence of the institution as a vehicle for general secular education as, ex-hypothesi, the only permissible regulations are those which secure the, effectiveness of the purpose of the facility, namely, the excellence of the educational institutions in standards. The question whether a regulation is in the general interest of the public has no relevance, if it does not advance the excellence of the institution as a vehicle for general secular education as, ex-hypothesi, the only permissible regulations are those which secure the, effectiveness of the purpose of the facility, namely, the excellence of the educational institutions in standards. This is the reason why this Court has time and again said that the question whether a particular regulation is calculated to advance the general public interest is of no consequence if it is not conducive to the interest of the minority community and those persons who resort to it." 25. Regulations can thus prescribe the manner and method of recruitment of teachers. If the regulations insist that appointment of teachers by direct recruitment should be on merit and a selection to choose the best to the post is obligatory, those provisions are advisedly inserted intending to enrich and enhance the quality of education imparted in these institutions. It is difficult to accede to the contention that regulations cannot prescribe reasonable norms of selection of teachers to a minority institution. When insistence on a selection process is a permissible and reasonable regulation, which does not encroach on the fundamental right under Article 30(1), the post of Principal cannot also be excluded from the purview of selection. Adapting the classic sentence of Chief Justice M. S. Menon in Rt. Rev. A. M. Patroni v. Kesavan 1964 K.L.T. 791, describing the role of Headmaster in a High School, it admits of no doubt that the post of principal "is of pivotal importance in the life of the college. 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 Principal is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a College". A provision for selection for the appointment of a Principal of a College is thus constitutionally permissible and is a relevant reasonable measure of regulation applicable to minority institutions also. 26. Even then, a question may arise whether the process of selection required under the regulations amounts to an annulment of the minority rights. In other words does the educational agency administering a minority institution surrender its fundamental rights when a selection processes insisted? 26. Even then, a question may arise whether the process of selection required under the regulations amounts to an annulment of the minority rights. In other words does the educational agency administering a minority institution surrender its fundamental rights when a selection processes insisted? The answer would depend on the provisions regarding selection. There may be cases where a selection is made by an outside agency, unconnected with the minority institution or it may be that the minority institution and outsiders join to make a selection. There may also be cases where the minority institution itself chooses the selection committee. It remains to consider how far the constitution of the selection committee can encroach on Article 30(1). Some of these aspects have been highlighted and considered by the Supreme Court and this Court. 27. In In re Kerala Education Bill, 1957, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956 clause 11 of the Kerala Education Bill came up for consideration before the Supreme Court when its advisory opinion was sought by the President. 28. Clause 11(1) and (2) read thus:” "11. Appointment of teachers in Government and aided schools." (1) The Public Service Commission shall, as empowered by this Act, select candidates for appointment as teachers in Government and aided schools. Before the 31st May of each year, the Public Service Commission shall select candidates with due regard to the probable number of vacancies of teachers that may arise in the course of the year. The candidates shall be selected for each district separately and the list of candidates so selected shall be published in the Gazette. Teachers of aided schools shall be appointed by the manager only from the candidates so selected for the district in which the school is located, provided that the manager may, for sufficient reason, with the permission of the Public Service Commission, appoint teachers selected for any other district. Appointment of teachers in Government schools shall also be made from the list of candidates so published. (2) In selecting candidates under sub-section (1), the Public Service Commission shall have regard to the provisions made by the Government under clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution". The Supreme Court held thus:” "Some of these provisions, e. g., 7, 10, 11(1), 12(1) (2) (3) and (5) may easily be regarded as reasonable regulations or conditions for the grant of aid. The Supreme Court held thus:” "Some of these provisions, e. g., 7, 10, 11(1), 12(1) (2) (3) and (5) may easily be regarded as reasonable regulations or conditions for the grant of aid. Clauses 9, 11(2) and 12(4) are, however, objected to as going much beyond the permissible limit. It is said that by taking over the collections of fees etc., and by undertaking to pay the salaries of the teachers and other staff the Government is in reality confiscating the school fund and taking away the prestige of the school, for none will case for the school authority. Likewise Clause 11 takes away an obvious item of management, for the manager cannot appoint any teacher at all except out of the panel to be prepared by the Public Service Commission, which, apart from the question of its power of taking up such duties, may not be qualified at all to select teachers who will be acceptable to religious denominations and in particular Sub-clause (2) of that clause as objectionable for it thrusts upon educational institutions of religious minorities teachers of Scheduled Castes who may have no knowledge of the tenets of their religion and may be otherwise weak educationally. Power of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or suspension is an index of the right to management and that is taken away by Clause 12(4). These are no doubt, serious inroads on the right of administration and appear perilously near violating that right. But considering that those previsions are applicable to all educational institutions and that the impugned parts of Clauses 9, 11, and 12 are designed to give protection and security to the ill paid teachers who are engaged in rendering service to the nation and protect the backward classes, we are prepared, as at present advised, to treat these clauses 9, 11(2) and 12(4) as permissible regulations which the state may impose on the minorities as a condition for granting aid to their educational institutions.... In our opinion, Clauses ...11..being merely regulatory do not offend Article 30(1)". 25. In Mother Provincial v. State of Kerala 1969 K.L.T. 749 (F.B.) this court was considering the validity of section 53(1), (2) and (3) of the Kerala University Act, 1969. These provisions read as follows:” "53, Appointment of teachers in private colleges”(1) Posts of Principals of private colleges shall be selection posts. 25. In Mother Provincial v. State of Kerala 1969 K.L.T. 749 (F.B.) this court was considering the validity of section 53(1), (2) and (3) of the Kerala University Act, 1969. These provisions read as follows:” "53, Appointment of teachers in private colleges”(1) Posts of Principals of private colleges shall be selection posts. (2) Appointment to the post of principal in a private college shall be made by the governing body or managing council, as the case may be, from among teachers of the college or of all the colleges as the case may be, or, if there is no suitable person in such college or colleges, from other persons. (3) An appointment under sub-section (2) shall be made having regard to seniority and merit and shall be subject to the approval of the Syndicate." This court held: "The same cannot, however, be said about sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 63 which provide for appointment to the post of the Principal of a College". "Therefore, so far as the post of principal 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 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 college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, and enables the appointment of an outsider only if there is no suitable 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 appoint or by 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. Once sub-section (2) is struck down, sub-sections (1) and (3) serve no purpose-indeed the three are inextricably mixed and must stand or fall together. Once sub-section (2) is struck down, sub-sections (1) and (3) serve no purpose-indeed the three are inextricably mixed and must stand or fall together. 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 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 offending article 19(1) (f) and article 30(1). It is one thing to constitute an expert committee or other body to assist the management in selecting the best men as recommended in the several reports on university education to which we have referred [and as contemplated by clause 11(1) of the Kerala Education Bill which passed the test of article 30(1) in A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 956]; quite another to say that some outside authority can disapprove of an appointment made by the management for any or no reason." Sub-section (4) of section 53 says that appointment of the lowest grade of teacher in each department of a college shall be made by the managing body by direct recruitment on the basis of merit. No one can object to this, although, since no appointment is likely to be made from the non-teaching staff, it was hardly necessary to say that it shall be by direct recruitment. Merit must of course be the criterion; but as we have already indicated, beyond prescribing the requisite qualifications and the mode of (including the machinery for) selection so as to ensure that merit prevails, the assessment of merit must be left to the management and not to any outside authority." "Our conclusion is that sub-sections(1), (2), (3) and (9) of section 53 and ** ** ** are bad for offending article 19(1) (f) so far as the citizen petitioners are concerned; also for offending article 30(1) so far as minority institutions are concerned". This Court, therefore, recognised that the management could be assisted by an expert committee or other body as a mode of selection for appointment of Principal. 30. This Court, therefore, recognised that the management could be assisted by an expert committee or other body as a mode of selection for appointment of Principal. 30. This matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court in Alex Beets v. Urmese 1970 K.L.T. 630. The Supreme Court held thus:” "Section 53, sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) confer on the Syndicate of the University the power to veto even the action of the governing body or the managing council in the selection of the Principal. Similarly, sub-section (4) takes away from the educational agency or the corporate management the right to select the teachers. The insistence on merit in sub-section (4) or on seniority-cum-fitness in sub-section (7) does not save the situation. The power is exercised not by the educational agency or the corporate management but by a distinct and autonomous body under the control of the Syndicate of the University. Indeed sub-section (9) gives a right of appeal to the Syndicate to any person aggrieved by the action of governing, body or the managing council thus making, the Syndicate the final and absolute authority in these matters." "We also agree that the sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (9) of section 53, sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 55, section 58 (in so far as it removes disqualification which the founders may not like to agree to) and section 63 are ultra vires Article 30(1) in respect of the minority institutions." 31. Under the present Statute 4(3) which alone applies to the petitioner, the selection committee has to be constituted only by the educational agency. The petitioner himself has to constitute the committee. He himself has (a) to choose his two representatives; (b) to nominate a person from amongst Principals, Heads of Departments etc., with the concurrence of the University; (c) to choose one of the Secretaries to Government or a District Collector and (d) to choose an expert from a subject-wise list of experts prepared by the University. We do not think that these provisions trace any abdication of the minority rights under Article 30(1). It is the educational agency that constitutes the selection committee and eventually makes the choice. That agency is of course, assisted by experts from chosen fields of specialisation. The educational agency of the minority institution is the centre focus of the Selection process. We do not think that these provisions trace any abdication of the minority rights under Article 30(1). It is the educational agency that constitutes the selection committee and eventually makes the choice. That agency is of course, assisted by experts from chosen fields of specialisation. The educational agency of the minority institution is the centre focus of the Selection process. Statute 4(3) in Chapter 2 of the First Statutes does not violate Article 30(1). These provisions are binding on minority institutions just as they are applicable to other institutions. The two reasons given by the University to decline approval of the appointment are therefore sound. The contention that the appointee was overaged and was thus not qualified to be appointed, was not pursued or pressed by the University. The appointment was opposed to the procedure prescribed in section 57(2) of the Act as well. The University was thus justified in declining approval. The challenge made in this O. P. against the said order cannot stand. This Writ Petition has only to be dismissed. The Government was bound to pay the salary of teachers only if the appointments were approved by the University. Dr. John was thus not entitled to salary as his appointment was not approved. However, this Court by interim order directed that he be granted provisional approval subject to the result of the original Petition. As he continued, therefore, on the strength of the orders of this Court, the Government was right in disbursing the salary and allowances to him, for the period during which he worked as Principal. No steps shall be taken by the Government for refund of this salary and allowances from the petitioner. In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed but, in the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their costs.