ORDER 1. The Tribal Education, Agriculture and Medical Society - petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner Society") - is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973. It is mainly comprised of members of the tribal communities in District Surguja in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The aim of the Society is the educational and other development of the tribal society of the said district. It has established and is administering 21 educational institutions which includes 19 primary schools, one middle school and one high school in District Surguja. 2. The Madhya Pradesh Legislature has enacted the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) to make provision for regulating payment of salaries to teachers and other employees of non-government schools receiving grant from the State Government and non-government educational institutions for higher education receiving grant from Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and other matters relating thereto. In Section 6 of the Adhiniyam provision is made with regard to appointments of staff in the institution governed by the Adhiniyam. In sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 6 it has been provided : "(a) on and from the appointed date, - (i) no post of a teacher or other employee shall be created except in such scale of pay as the State Government may, from time to time, determine and no teacher or other employee shall be recruited without following the procedure prescribed in this behalf;" 3. Section 10 of the Adhiniyam confers on the State Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Adhiniyam and under clause (c) of sub-section (2) such rules can be made to provide for the procedure to be followed in recruitment of teachers or other employees under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 6. In exercise of the said power conferred by Section 10 of the Adhiniyam, the State Government has framed the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Bharti) Niyam, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Under Rule 3 of the Rules only Rules 4 and 5 have been made applicable to the institutions established and administered by minorities in pursuance of the provisions of clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 3 of the Rules only Rules 4 and 5 have been made applicable to the institutions established and administered by minorities in pursuance of the provisions of clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is not disputed that the institutions which are established and administered by the petitioner-Society are minority institutions. We are, therefore, only concerned with Rules 4 and 5 which read as under : "4. Recruitment to a post of a teacher or other employee of an institution shall be made by one of the following methods, namely : (a) absorption of teachers or other employees of other institutions whose services have been terminated; (b) direct recruitment; (c) promotion; or (d) deputation of persons either from Government or Ayog or from any other organisation approved by the Government for the purpose : Provided that the method of recruitment under clause (a) shall have priority over other methods of recruitment specified in clause (b), (c) and (d), as the case may be, if suitable retrenched persons who are otherwise qualified for the posts are available. 5. (1) Where the service of a teacher or an employee is terminated by an institution whether as a result of closure of the institution or abolition of post or for any other reason whatsoever, such institution shall send information in respect thereof to the Education Officer and Divisional Superintendent of Education concerned in case of schools and to the Education Officer and Ayog in case in colleges in Form 1. (2) The Education Officer, Divisional Superintendent of Education and the Ayog shall keep a record of the information received under sub-rule (1) in a register to be maintained in Form II." 4. In the writ petition the petitioner-Society has challenged the validity of the Rules but the notice issued by the Court is confined to the question of validity of Rule-4(a) which relates to recruitment by absorption of teachers or other employees of other institutions whose services have been terminated. 5. Dr J.P. Verghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society, has urged that clause (a) of Rule 4 when read with the proviso to Rule 4 means that the minority educational institutions are required to give preference to persons mentioned in clause (a) and that they have no choice in the matter of judging the suitability of such persons. 5. Dr J.P. Verghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society, has urged that clause (a) of Rule 4 when read with the proviso to Rule 4 means that the minority educational institutions are required to give preference to persons mentioned in clause (a) and that they have no choice in the matter of judging the suitability of such persons. In this connection Dr Verghese has referred to the expression "for any other reason whatsoever" in Rule 5 and has submitted that the teachers who are required to be absorbed under clause (a) of Rule 4 may be persons whose services have been terminated for a reason which may render them not suitable for appointment in the minority institution but still they may have to be appointed in view of Rule-4(a). 6. We are unable to construe the provisions of Rule 4(a) and the proviso thereto in this light. In this context, we may mention that sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam came up for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Siddhi Bala Bose Library Assn. v. State of M.P. [ 1979 MPLJ 379 , 394], wherein the validity of the said provision was assailed on the ground that it was violative of the right of minorities guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Rejecting the said contention the High Court has held : "So for as laying down the mode or procedure of recruitment of personnel is concerned, there can be no objection so long as there is no interference in the actual recruitment of personnel in the case of minority institutions. All that this sub-clause does is to enable the State Government to fix the scales of pay and lay down the general mode or procedure for recruitment of teachers and other employees and it does not enable any interference by the State Government in the choice of personnel selected by that mode, which continues to remain with the management of the institution. It has not been shown to us that scale of pay in any case has been fixed so high as to be unreasonable and an indirect interference with the running of any such educational institution. It has not been shown to us that scale of pay in any case has been fixed so high as to be unreasonable and an indirect interference with the running of any such educational institution. It has also not been shown that the mode or procedure of recruitment laid down is such as to amount to an undue interference with the right of management of any educational institution run by any minority." 7. We are in agreement with the said view of the High Court on the interpretation of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam. Rules 4 and 5 have been framed with a view to give effect to the provisions contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam. The ambit and scope of Rules 4 and 5 have, therefore, necessarily to be read in consonance with the ambit and scope of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 6 of the Adhiniyam as construed above. In other words, it would mean that the said Rules do not in any way interfere with the right of the minority institution in the matter of selection of personnel for recruitment in the Institution. The said rules do not, in our opinion, enable any interference by the authorities of the State Government in the choice of personnel to be recruited by that mode by a minority institution. If Rules 4 and 5 are thus construed it cannot be said that the said rules infringe the right conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 8. In these circumstances, we do not consider that a case is made out for holding that Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules are violative of the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, but with no order as to costs.