JUDGMENT SATYABRATA SINHA, J. 1. These two appeals being inter-related were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed or by common judgment. 2. The appellant in M.A.T. No. 902 of 1997 is the Governing Body of the Founder Body (Diocese of Barrackpore) charge of North India. An advertisement for the post of Headmaster was published in the year 1989 and interview was taken wherein one Chandan Kumar Sinha, the appellant in the other appeal, the respondent no. 7, Kalyan Biswas and the respondent no. 8, Ashish Mukherjee participated. The Governing Body appointed Sri Chandan Kumar Sinha. At that point of time Ashish Mukherjee did not oppose the appointment. Governing Body issued appointment letter on 14.5.91 and he joined as Headmaster on 25.5.91. On 26.5.91 all the papers relating to the said appointment were sent to the District Inspector of Schools by the Governing Body. Ashish Mukherjee, however, filed a writ application after four months on 16.9.91 questioning his appointment and direction was issued to file affidavits and in the meantime, Status Quo was directed to be maintained. An appeal was preferred therefrom by Ashish Mukherjee, wherein the appeal court directed the District Inspector of Schools to release salaries of Chandan Kumar Sinha which was complied with. Conditional approval was also accorded by the District Inspector of Schools. On 5.4.95, Kalyan Biswas moved a writ application which was marked as C.O. 5832 (W) of 1995 alleging that the Governing Body did not consider his application for the post of Assistant Headmaster. The said writ application was disposed of with a direction upon the Governing Body of the Founder Body to pass an order in accordance with law. The said application of Kalyan Biswas was rejected by the Governing Body. Kalyan Biswas moved a fresh writ application on 21.8.95, which was marked C.O. No. 14352 (W) of 1995 alleging therein that he had filed an application for cancellation of the appellant's appointment as Headmaster and appointing him as Headmaster. A learned Judge of this Court disposed of the said application by directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the said application and take a decision thereupon in accordance with law, whereafter the respondent nos. 7 and 8, the appellant as also the School authorities were heard. A learned Judge of this Court disposed of the said application by directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the said application and take a decision thereupon in accordance with law, whereafter the respondent nos. 7 and 8, the appellant as also the School authorities were heard. On 28.12.95, the District Inspector of Schools issued an order withdrawing the order dated 8.12.93, whereby and whereunder the appellant's appointment was approved conditionally. Another writ application was filed by Chandan Kumar Sinha and by an order dated 27.5.95, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ application, where against the aforementioned Kalyan Biswas filed an appeal and application. The said order was set aside on the ground that no reason has been assigned in the said order. On 28.11.96, C.O. No. 1306 (W) of 1991 filed by Ashish Mukherjee was dismissed for non-prosecution. On 7.1.97, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order declaring the petitioner's appointment as void and asking the authority to appoint from the fresh panel. The appellant thereafter filed a writ application being W.P. 807 (W) of 1997. On 31.1.97, the District Inspector of Schools asked the school authority to appoint a teacher-in-charge and further directed the appellant to make over charge to him. On 31.1.97, the District Inspector of Schools issued a memo dated 3.1.97 and the Secretary of the School was requested to direct the respondent no. 10 to make over the charge as Assistant Teacher, if not already done. On 17.2.97, after service of demand for justice, a writ application was filed by the Governing Body, wherein the impugned order dated 18.3.97 was passed by S.R. Misra, J., directing the parties to maintain Status Quo. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the school in question although an aided school is admittedly a minority institution within the meaning of Articles 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India and as such, the District Inspector of Schools or for that matter no authority for the State of West Bengal can have any say in the matter. The learned counsel, in this connection has relied upon a latest unreported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14903 of 1996 (Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training vs. Joint Director of Public Instructions, Sagar & other) disposed of on 22nd November, 1996. The learned counsel, in this connection has relied upon a latest unreported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14903 of 1996 (Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training vs. Joint Director of Public Instructions, Sagar & other) disposed of on 22nd November, 1996. The Apex Court in that case has clearly held that appointment and dismissal of Headmaster or the Principal of the School is within exclusive domain of the school authority and the State cannot interfere therewith. 4. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kalyan Biswas and Mr. Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 9, on the other hand submitted that although the school in question is a minority institution, the same being an aided institution it is within the regulatory power of the State. The learned counsel in this connection, has relied upon the decisions of Unni Krishnan J.P. & other vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & other, AIR 1993 SC 2178 ; Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & another vs. State of Gujarat & another, AIR 1974 SC 1389 ; Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, Patna vs. Managing Committee of Madrasa Handia Arbic College, Jamalia & other, AIR 1990 SC 695 ; Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 311 and an unreported decision of this court in National High School & other vs. Broj @ Brij Bhusan Misra dated 19.4.1995 5. The existence of legislations as regards governance of the school and the minority institution is not in dispute. The State of West Bengal enacted the West Bengal Secondary Education Act in order to establish a Board of Secondary Education in the State of West Bengal and to diversify the powers and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the provisions contained in section 45 of the said Act, the State Government framed Rules known as Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969. Rule 33 of the said Rules reads thus:- "33. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the provisions contained in section 45 of the said Act, the State Government framed Rules known as Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969. Rule 33 of the said Rules reads thus:- "33. Power of the State Government to frame further rules for certain Institutions –Nothing in these rules shall affect the power of the State Government to frame, on the application of any Institution or class of Institutions to which the provisions of Article 26 or Article 30 of the Constitution of India may apply, further or other rules for the composition, powers, functions of the Managing Committee or Committees of such Institution or class of Institutions." In terms of the said Rules, Government of West Bengal – Education Department, had issued notification dated 3rd May, 1974 known as Special Rules for the management of Secondary School established and run by a Christian Church/Missionary Society (Board)/ Religious Society/Subsidiary trust or their successors-in-law, in the State of West Bengal. Rule 2(a) of the said Special Rules defines Founder Body to mean the particular Christian Church/Missionary Society (Board)/Religious Society/Subsidiary Trust, which has founded and manages the school concerned. The word, Employee has been defined as including a member of both the teaching and non-teaching staff of the respective schools. Governing Body has been defined in Rule 2(c) of the Special Rules to mean the body/organisation and its successor-in-law duly appointed by the Founder Body, which on behalf of the founder Body has complete and final authority for its educational institutions. It is not in dispute that the powers of the school committee are enumerated in Rule 7 of the Special Rules, which includes the question of appointment of employees (other than Headmaster or Headmistress and Assistant Headmaster or Assistant headmistress) and to prescribe scales of pay and allowances. Rule 10(1) of the Special Rules reads thus:- "10(1) The Headmaster or Headmistress and Assistant Headmaster or Assistant Headmistress shall be appointed by the Founder Body. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 refers to the power and the responsibility of the Headmaster. Rule 11 of the said special Rules provides for appointment, confirmation, dismissal, appeal and termination of services. Rule 10(1) of the Special Rules reads thus:- "10(1) The Headmaster or Headmistress and Assistant Headmaster or Assistant Headmistress shall be appointed by the Founder Body. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 refers to the power and the responsibility of the Headmaster. Rule 11 of the said special Rules provides for appointment, confirmation, dismissal, appeal and termination of services. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 reads thus:- 11(2) No permanent employee shall be dismissed except after giving him or her an opportunity to defend himself or herself and in such cases the employee concerned may appeal to the Governing Body or such body which the Governing Body may appoint, against the decision. The decision of the Governing Body or such body which the Governing Body may appoint, as the case may be, shall be operative. But the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal shall have the right to call for all relevant papers relating to an employee who is dismissed. If the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal is not satisfied with the decision of the Governing Body, he may then advise the Governing body for reconsideration of their decision. The final decision, however, shall lie with the governing body or such body which the Governing Body may appoint, as the case may be, except in the case of employees of institutions receiving aid from the State Government in any form, in which case the decision of the Director of Public Institution, West Bengal, shall be final." Rule 15 of the said Special Rules upon which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Pal, is as follows:- "15. General application of the Rules – In the matters not specified herein, the school committee shall exercise powers in conformity with the general direction of the Founder Body, and also in conformity with the provisions of the rules or orders issued by the State Government or any other authority competent to do so under provisions of any Act or Rules framed thereunder." 6. Admittedly, the District Inspector of Schools passed the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that Rules for Recruitment of teachers purported to have been framed by the Director of School Education in exercise of its power conferred by sub-section (1) and in particular by Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Board of West Bengal Secondary Education Act, 1963 had not been followed. It was further alleged that the Chairman of the Selection Committee did not sign the panel. 7. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal, inter alia, is whether the power of the State Government to regulate the condition of service of Headmaster and teachers of a minority institution established under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and whether the recruitment Rules framed by the Director in exercise of its power conferred by Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule 1 of Clause (i) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 28 of the Rules of Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, for appointment of Headmaster in minority institution. It is now beyond any cavil of doubt that only because minority institution is an aided one, the same does not mean that the State shall have an unfettered right to interfere in the internal management of the school. .It is equally true that Article 29 or Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India do not grant unfettered right if the Governing Body of the minority institution mismanages the school. In other words, the Governing Body of the institution in the name of managing the school cannot mismanage the same. It is further beyond any shadow of doubt that for the purpose of regulating the function etc. the State has the right to issue direction or frame regulations which would be applicable in relation to the minority institution also. In the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, the matter relating to appointment of a Headmaster is regulated by 1974 Special Rules. Rule 15 of the said Special Rules to which Mr. Pal relied upon, in our opinion, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever inasmuch as the said Rule shall apply only in a case where other rules do not hold• the field. As sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 provides the manner as regards appointment of a Headmaster or Headmistress, the question of purported circular letters issued by the State Government being applicable in relation thereto does not arise. Generalise specialibus non-derogant which means that special statute shall prevail over general statute is a well-known maxim. As sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 provides the manner as regards appointment of a Headmaster or Headmistress, the question of purported circular letters issued by the State Government being applicable in relation thereto does not arise. Generalise specialibus non-derogant which means that special statute shall prevail over general statute is a well-known maxim. As the State Government in exercise of its legislative power conferred upon it under Rule 28 of the 1969 Management Rules has every power to make special constitution for minority institution and such power having been exercised by the State, in our opinion, the recruitment rules framed by the Director of School Education in exercise of its other powers as referred to hereinbefore, could not apply in a case of appointment of any employee and in particular, Headmaster of an institution which is governed by 1974 Special Rules. 8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner and supporting respondent in Unni Krishnan J.P. & other vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & other, AIR 1993 SC 2178 , is misplaced. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not at all concerned with a question of right of minority institution protected under Article 29 and Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 162 of the said report upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Pal as also Mr. Dutt, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever because therein the Apex Court was considering the matter of admission of student vis-a-vis provision of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand decision in Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & another vs. State of Gujarat & another, AIR 1974 SC 1389 , upon which reliance has also been placed by Mr. Pal and Mr. Dutt, goes against their contentions. In that decision it has clearly been held that the State cannot have any say as regard disciplinary matter of teaching or non-teaching staff by a minority institution. The said principle has not been deviated from by the Apex Court in the decision in Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, Patna vs. Managing Committee of Madrasa Handia Arbic College, Jamalia & other, AIR 1990 SC 695 and Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 311 . The said principle has not been deviated from by the Apex Court in the decision in Bihar State Madrasa Education Board, Patna vs. Managing Committee of Madrasa Handia Arbic College, Jamalia & other, AIR 1990 SC 695 and Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 311 . In fact a Division Bench of this court in Association of Teachers in Anglo Indian School vs. Association of Aids of Anglo Indian School in India & other, 1995 (1) CLJ 351 , had taken into consideration all the aforementioned decisions and had held that proviso to Clause 24(f) of the Anglo India Code provided for an arbitration committee as an appellate forum against order of any disciplinary action taken by the managing committee of the minority school is applicable in case of minority institution governed by Articles 29 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In that judgment this court has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Madrasa Education Board vs. Anjuman Able Madee & another, 1994 BBCJ 15 (SC). 9. Keeping in view the fact that all the decisions cited by the learned counsel had been taken into consideration in the aforementioned Division Bench decision of this court, it is not necessary for this court to reiterate the same over again. Suffice it to say that the District Inspector of Schools prima facie could not have passed the impugned order on the ground that recruitment rules had not been followed. The appellants, therefore, had made out a strong prima facie case in their favour. Furthermore, Sri Biswas could not have filed a writ application after a period of five years. As indicated hereinbefore, the appellant Chandan Kumar Singh had been working in the said school and had been getting his salary. There was absolutely no necessity for the District Inspector of Schools to pass the impugned order, as a result whereof, his services stood terminated and Sri Biswas was appointed as a teacher-in-charge. It is further difficult to accept the contention of Sri Biswas inasmuch as whereas on the other hand in his writ application and his representation, he had questioned the very decision making process, he simultaneously prayed that he be appointed as Headmaster of the said school. A person as is well-known, cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. A person as is well-known, cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The authority of the District Inspector of Schools and/or any other authority was, therefore, to see as to whether appointment of Chandan Kumar Singh @ Sinha was made in violation of Rule 10 of the Special Rules or not. If that had not been done, he could not have interfered in the matter. Apart from the fact that a strong prima facie case has been made out in the writ application, in our considered opinion, the question of balance of convenience as also question of irreparable injury must be answered in favour of the appellants. The appellant, Chandan Kumar Singh had been working in the said school for a long time. He had also been getting his salary. His appointment was also provisionally approved. The writ application raises a substantial question of law including interpretation of different rules in the light of the constitutional provision. In such a state of affairs, it is unjust to throw the incumbent of the institution out of his office and in his place appoint some person who was not appointed by the Governing Body or the Founder Body. Such an interference in the management of the school by the District Inspector of Schools prima facie appears to be wholly without jurisdiction. In any event, the matter at issue appears to be completely set at rest by the Apex Court in the decision in Board of Secondary Education & Teachers Training vs. Joint Director of Public Instruction Sagar & other (supra), wherein it has been held, inter alia- "The decisions of this court make it clear that in the matter of appointment of the principal the Management of a Minority Educational Institution has a choice. It has been held that one of the incidents of the right to administer a Minority Educational Institution is the selection of the Principal. Any rules which take away this right of the management has been held to be interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by the management and the third respondent are qualified and eligible for appointment as Principal according to rules. The question is whether the management is not entitled to select a person of their choice. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by the management and the third respondent are qualified and eligible for appointment as Principal according to rules. The question is whether the management is not entitled to select a person of their choice. The decision of this court including the decision in State of Kerala vs. Rev. Mother Provincial, AIR 1970 SC 2079 and Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & another vs. State of Gujarat & another, 1974 (1) SCC 717 , make it clear that this right of the Minority Educational Institution cannot be taken away by any rules or regulations or by any enactment made by the State. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in holding otherwise. The State has undoubtedly the power to regulate the affairs of the Minority Educational Institution also in the interest of discipline and excellence. But in that process, the aforesaid right of the management cannot be taken away, even if the Government is giving hundred percent grant. We need not go into any other question in this appeal." 10. For the reasons aforementioned, we in substitution of the impugned order dated 18.3.97, stay the operation of the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 6.7.97, 31.1.97 and 3.2.97 which are contained in annexure H, I and K to the writ application. This order shall not, however, prevent in passing of an appropriate order in any other pending application. 11. Both these appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent. There will be no order as to costs. I agree. Appeals allowed.