JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J. :---The petitioner who are teachers of Shri Sanatan Dharm High School and Junior College, G.T.B. Nagar, Sion-Koliwada, Mumbai, are seeking a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the order dated 10th October, 1991 passed by the State of Maharashtra according to the status of a minority educational institution to the said school. They are also seeking a writ of mandamus to prohibit the respondent No. 5 from functioning as Headmaster of the school and to direct the management of the school to prepare a seniority list of teaching staff as well as non-teaching staff in the school in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules. 1981 ("Rules" for short) and to fill up the vacancies in posts of Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster and Supervisors in accordance with the seniority list of the teachers. 2.The facts of the case are simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioners are working as Assistant teachers in Shri Sanatan Dharm High School and Junior College, Sion-Koliwada, Mumbai. The said school is a fully aided school and receives 100% grants from the State Government. The school is administered by the respondent No. 4 Koliwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education "Society which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. There are 62 teachers working in the school and the total strength of the students is about 2500/-. It seems that the Society had applied to the State Government seeking status of minority educational institution for their school. By an order dated 10th October, 1991, the State Government has accorded minority status to the said school. 3.The respondent No. 5 is presently working as the Headmaster of the school. It is an admitted position that he had reached the age of superannuation as prescribed under Rule 17 of the Rules on 30th April, 1995. It seems that by its letter dated 2nd May, 1995, the Society requested the Educational Inspector, Greater Mumbai to permit the institution to continue the respondent No. 5 as Headmaster even after his retirement on reaching the age of superannuation. It seems that by its letter dated 2nd May, 1995, the Society requested the Educational Inspector, Greater Mumbai to permit the institution to continue the respondent No. 5 as Headmaster even after his retirement on reaching the age of superannuation. The Educational Inspector appears to have referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education, Greater Mumbai who replied by his letter dated 26th May, 1995 that even though the institution is a minority educational institution, there has being no provision of law for granting extension, the request made by the institution cannot be granted. The Deputy Director observed in his letter that the retirement of the Headmaster is due on 30th April, 1995 and this being at the end of the academic year 1994-95, immediately being followed by the summer vacation, it is possible for the institution to appoint any other eligible teacher from the school as the Headmaster or to make any alternate arrangement. 4.The institution challenged the decision of the Deputy Director by filing Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1995. The writ petition was dismissed by Vyas, J., by order dated 11th July, 1995 which reads as follows :- "The petitioner's contention is that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 were not applicable. Yet they applied and got an order of refusal. The petitioners now cannot be heard to say that the Deputy Director of Education's order is bad because these Rules did not apply. Petition rejected." 5.Despite the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent No. 5 is continuing to act as the Headmaster of the school. It seems that vacancies to the posts of Assistant Headmaster and Supervisors are also not filled in for a considerably long time. The teachers have, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6.The petitioners or respondents have raised basically three contentions. Firstly, the petitioners contend that the Society does not fall within the ambit of the minority institution as envisaged under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. They point out that the management of the school till the year 1991 at no point of time claimed minority status in respect of the school. In fact, the Memorandum of Association of the Society shows that the Society is not a minority institution. They point out that the management of the school till the year 1991 at no point of time claimed minority status in respect of the school. In fact, the Memorandum of Association of the Society shows that the Society is not a minority institution. Therefore, they argue that the decision of the State Government to accord minority status to the school has been taken mechanically and without application of mind to the well established principles governing the minority institutions under Article 30(1). Secondly, the petitioners contend that the management has no right to continue the respondent No. 5 after he has reached the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years as prescribed under the rules. The petitioners say that even assuming that the school is a minority school, the rule relating to the superannuation is clearly applicable as the rule has been framed as a regulatory measure in the interest of the efficient administration of the school. Under the rules there is no provision for continuing a teacher after the age of superannuation. On the other hand, the relevant Rule i.e. rule 17 clearly provides that no teacher can be continued after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners also point out that the writ petition of the management challenging the refusal of the authorities to grant extension to the respondent No. 5 has been dismissed by this Court summarily. The petitioners say that thus the management is duty bound to appoint a new Headmaster in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The third contention of the petitioners relates to filling up of vacancies in the posts of Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster and three Supervisors. The petitioners say that the management is under legal obligation to prepare a seniority list of the teachers in accordance with the rules and fill up the vacancies. 7.I have heard Mr. Dada for the petitioners, Ms. Desai learned A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Rao for respondents 4 and 5. At the outset, Mr. Dada made a statement at Bar that this Court need not decide the question relating to the minority status of the school as the teachers will apply to the State Government for revocation of the recognition granted to the school as a minority school. Mr. Dada prayed that the State Government may be directed to decide the application expeditiously. Mr. Dada made a statement at Bar that this Court need not decide the question relating to the minority status of the school as the teachers will apply to the State Government for revocation of the recognition granted to the school as a minority school. Mr. Dada prayed that the State Government may be directed to decide the application expeditiously. Mr. Dada also conceded that as far as the validity of the seniority list of the teachers is concerned, the teachers will have to approach the Educational Inspector. The Counsel also did not press prayer for directing the Society to fill in the vacant posts since Mr. Rao made a statement at the Bar that the management will fill up the vacancies in the posts of Assistant Head Master and Supervisors before the commencement of the next Academic year. Therefore, the only question that remains to be considered is whether the respondent No. 4 has got right to continue the respondent No. 5 as the Headmaster even after attaining the age of superannuation. Both the Counsel advanced extensive arguments in this behalf. 8.Mr. Dada strenuously urged that the Society cannot continue the respondent No. 5 after he has reached the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years as prescribed under the Rules. The Counsel urged that the conditions of service laid down under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (" Act for short) and the rules framed thereunder govern the minority institutions also. The provisions contained in Rule 17 fixing the age of superannuation are applicable to the minority schools since the rule has been framed for maintaining uniformity and excellence in educational institutions. The Counsel urged that the rule is couched in negative language clearly prohibiting from continuing a teacher after attaining the age of superannuation. He urged that no teacher can be continued after attaining the age of 58 years even if he is working in a minority school. Mr. Rao while replying to the arguments of Mr. Dada submitted that under section 3 of the Act the post of head of the institution is categorically excluded from the provisions of the Act and, therefore, application of Rule 17 does not arise as far as the post of head in a minority institution is concerned. In the alternative, Mr. Mr. Rao while replying to the arguments of Mr. Dada submitted that under section 3 of the Act the post of head of the institution is categorically excluded from the provisions of the Act and, therefore, application of Rule 17 does not arise as far as the post of head in a minority institution is concerned. In the alternative, Mr. Rao submitted that Rule 17 which prescribes the age of superannuation as 58 years is unconstitutional as it clearly amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the right of a minority institution to administer the school.. Mr. Rao argued that the Act has clearly recognised the right of minority institution to appoint a head of the school of their own choice. However, Rule 17 which stipulates the age of superannuation makes such a right completely illusory. Mr. Rao argued that Rule 17 cannot be said to be a regulatory measure. The rule virtually denies the right of the management to appoint a head of school of its choice. Such restriction according to Mr. Rao has no connection with the efficient administration of the institution or the educational standard of the school. Therefore, Mr. Rao submitted that rule 17 is violative of the fundamental right of the Society guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 9.The principal question which requires determination is whether the minority educational institution has got right to continue the head of the school after he attains the age of superannuation as prescribed under the rules. Mr. Rao's argument is two-fold. Firstly, he says that the provisions of the Act and the rules do not apply to the head of the minority school, In the alternative, he contends that Rule 17 which lays down the age of superannuation amounts to unreasonable restriction violative of Article 30(1). In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Rao it will be necessary to first examine the provisions of the Act and the rules. 10.Section 3(1) of the Act makes the provisions of the Act applicable to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra whether receiving any grant in aid from the State Government or not. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Rao it will be necessary to first examine the provisions of the Act and the rules. 10.Section 3(1) of the Act makes the provisions of the Act applicable to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra whether receiving any grant in aid from the State Government or not. Sub-section (2) of section 3 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the provisions of the Act shall not apply to the recruitment of the head of a minority school and any other persons (not excluding three) who are employed in such school and whose names are notified by the Management to the Deputy Director for this purpose. At this stage, it may be mentioned that sub-section (2) as it was originally enacted excluded not only recruitment of a head of a minority school but also conditions of service and conduct and discipline of head of the minority school. However in the wake of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Frank Anthony Public School Employee's Association v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 311, the words "conditions of service and conduct and discipline of head of a minority school" were deleted from sub-section (2) of section 3. Thus the net result is that even though the operation of the Act is excluded in the matter of recruitment of the head of a minority school and the other persons mentioned in the section, the provisions of the Act are clearly applicable as far as the conditions of service and other incidental matters are concerned. Section 4 of the Act lays down terms and conditions of service of employees of private schools. Section 5 stipulates obligations of management of private schools. Section 16 confers power on the State Government to frame rules for all or any of the matters appearing in the said section. 11.The State Government framed rules under section 16 which were brought into force on 16th July, 1981. Rule 3 of the rules lays down qualifications and appointment of head and procedure of appointment of head. Rule 4 provides for the responsibilities of a head of the school. Rule 17 which is of a particular importance reads as follows : "17. 11.The State Government framed rules under section 16 which were brought into force on 16th July, 1981. Rule 3 of the rules lays down qualifications and appointment of head and procedure of appointment of head. Rule 4 provides for the responsibilities of a head of the school. Rule 17 which is of a particular importance reads as follows : "17. Superannuation and re-employment (1) An employee other than Class IV employee, shall retire from service on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years and under no circumstance he shall be granted an extension in service beyond that age. The age of superannuation of a lower grade employee shall be 30 years. Provided that, a teacher or a Head of a recognised private secondary school in the Vidarbha region of the State who was permanent in service on the 31st December, 1985, irrespective whether he continues to serve in the same school or has joined some other school after 31st December, 1965, shall retire on the date on which he attains the age of 60 years. (2)...." 12.Now the first submission of Mr. Rao is that the provisions of Rule 17 are not applicable to minority educational institution. He argues that since section 3 excludes from the operation of the Act recruitment of the head of the minority school by necessary implication even terms and conditions of service of such head stand excluded from the provisions of the Act. I am afraid that the argument of Mr. Rao is completely misconceived. The word 'recruitment' merely connotes enlistment or selection to the post and not conditions of the post. The dictionary meaning of the word "recruitment" is "fresh supply of persons either as additional to the previous number or to make up for the decrease". Therefore, what is excluded from the operation of the Act as far as the minority institutions are concerned is enlistment or selection of the head of the school and not the conditions of service and other ancillary matters relating to the head of the school. Originally, section 3 excluded recruitment as well as the conditions of service of the head of the minority institution. Originally, section 3 excluded recruitment as well as the conditions of service of the head of the minority institution. However the words "conditions of service and conduct and discipline of head of a minority school" were deleted by the Amendment Act of 1977 which was introduced in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Frank Anthony's case. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Rao that section 3 excludes the operation of Rule 17 to a minority institution must be rejected. 13.The next question is whether the provisions contained in Rule 17 amount to unreasonable restriction on the management of a minority institution. Article 30(1) confers a right on all minorities whether they are based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The right conferred by the clause is in absolute terms and is not subject to restrictions, as in the case of rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution. The right of minorities to administer educational institutions does not, however, prevent the making of reasonable restrictions in respect of those institutions. The regulations have necessarily to be made in the interest of the institution as a minority educational institution. They have to be so designed as to make an effective vehicle for imparting education. The State can prescribe regulations to ensure the excellence of the institution. Prescription of standards for educational institutions does not militate against the right of the minority to administer the institutions. Regulations made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed. In the (Kerala Education Bill 1957)2, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956. Chief Justice Das observed :- "The right to administer cannot obviously include the right to maladminister. The minority cannot surely ask for aid of recognition for an educational institution run by them in unhealthy surroundings, without any competent teachers preserving any semblance of qualification, and which does not maintain even a fair standard of teaching or which teaches matters subversive of the welfare of the scholars. It stands to reason then that the constitutional right to administer an educational institution of their choice does not necessarily militate against the claim of the State to insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions to be aided." 14.(Ahmedabad St. It stands to reason then that the constitutional right to administer an educational institution of their choice does not necessarily militate against the claim of the State to insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions to be aided." 14.(Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat)3, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1389, was a decision of Nine Judge Constitution Bench. Ray, C.J., observed as follows:- "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 teacher's 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 institution under Article 30." Khanna, J., observed in his separate judgment as follows :- "Although disciplinary control over the teachers of a minority educational institution would be with the governing council, regulations, in my opinion, can be made, for ensuring proper conditions of service of the teachers and for securing a fair procedure in the matter of disciplinary action against the teachers. Such provisions which are calculated to safeguard the interest of teachers would result in security of tenure and thus inevitably attract competent persons for the posts of teachers. Such a provision would also eliminate a potential cause of frustration amongst the teachers. Regulations made for the purpose should be considered to be in the interest of minority educational institutions and as such they would not violate Article 30(1)." 15.This question was re-agitated in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (supra) Chinnappa Reddy, J., speaking for the Bench summed up the law as follows :- "Thus, there, now appears to be a general and broad consensus about the content and dimension of the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The right guaranteed to religious and linguistic authorities by Article 30(1) is two fold, to establish and to administer educational institutions of their choice. The right guaranteed to religious and linguistic authorities by Article 30(1) is two fold, to establish and to administer educational institutions of their choice. The key to the Article lies in the words "of their own choice". These words indicate that the extent of the right is to be determined not with reference to any concept of State necessity and general societal interest but with reference to the educational institutions themselves, that is, with reference to the goal of making the institutions "effective vehicles of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to them". It follows that regulatory measures which are designed towards the achievement of the goal of making the minority educational institutions effective instruments for imparting education cannot be considered to impinge upon the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The question in each case is whether the particular measure is, in the ultimate analysis, designed to achieve such goal without of course nullifying any part of the right of management in substantial measures. The excellence of the instruction provided by an institution would depend directly on the excellence of the teaching staff, and in turn, that would depend on the quality and the contentment of the teachers. Conditions of service pertaining to minimum qualifications of teachers, their salaries allowances and other conditions of service which ensure security, contentment and decent living standards to teachers and which will consequently enable them to render better service to the institution and the pupils cannot surely be said to be violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The management of a minority Educational Institution cannot be permitted under the guise of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution to oppress or exploit its employees any more than any other private employee. Oppression or exploitation of the teaching staff of an educational institution is bound to lead inevitably to discontent and deterioration of the standard of instruction imparted in the institution affecting adversely the object of making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. Oppression or exploitation of the teaching staff of an educational institution is bound to lead inevitably to discontent and deterioration of the standard of instruction imparted in the institution affecting adversely the object of making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. The management of minority institution cannot complain of invasion of the fundamental right to administer the institution when it denies the members of its staff the opportunity to achieve the very object of Article 30(1) which is to make the institution an effective vehicle of education." 16.It is thus well settled that the Government has power to fix the conditions of employment of teachers as a regulatory measure conducive to uniformity, efficiency and excellence in educational courses and did not violate the fundamental right of the minority institution under Article 30(1). 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. Once the right to lay down conditions of service which prescribe qualifications of the staff, their pay-scales, their entitlement to other benefits of service and laying down of safeguards which must be observed before their removal or dismissal is there, the only question to be examined is whether the condition relating to the age of superannuation can be said to be a condition designed to achieve the goal of efficient administration and education standards. It cannot be gainsaid that the age of superannuation is an important condition of service which undoubtedly has a nexus with the efficient administration and, therefore, the condition is invariably found in practically every sphere of employment in one form or the other. Therefore, a regulatory measure providing for age of retirement cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction on the right of the minority. Moreover such regulations are required to possess uniform character. In the absence of such uniformity, it is likely to give rise to dissatisfaction and discord amongst the members of the staff which eventually might affect the very efficiency of the institution. Therefore, the rule prescribing the age of retirement cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction on the right of the minority guaranteed under Article 30(1). In the absence of such uniformity, it is likely to give rise to dissatisfaction and discord amongst the members of the staff which eventually might affect the very efficiency of the institution. Therefore, the rule prescribing the age of retirement cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction on the right of the minority guaranteed under Article 30(1). The minority institution 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. 17.In the result, the petition succeeds partly. Respondent No. 4 Society is directed to appoint a new head of the school from the academic year commencing from June, 1997. The Society is allowed to continue the respondent No. 5 as the head of the school till that time in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The State Government is directed to decide the petitioner's application for revocation of minority status granted to the respondent No. 4 school expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of the receipt of such application. It seems that after filing of this petition, the Society has issued memos to the teachers for approaching this Court. Society is directed not to take any action against the teachers pursuant to such memos. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. Petition succeed partly.