ORDER 1. The petitioner Punaram Kulesh in W.P. No. 4465 of 1999 seeks a writ for quashing the order dated 26.4.1999 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 by which he has been transferred from Mandla to Seoni to another school of the respondent No. 1 and in his place one Vincent Khalco has been brought from Seoni to Mandla as Head Master. The petitioner also seeks a direction for payment of salary to him from the date of the said order or transfer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the transfer order having been passed without approval of the Deputy Director of Education as required, was cancelled by respondent No. 3 Deputy Director by order dated 21.6.1999 (Annexure P-5) with a direction to the school not to relieve the petitioner from the post, but still the petitioner has not been continued at Mandla nor paid any salary for the period subsequent to the date of his transfer by the impugned order Annexure P-1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the order dated 8.11.l999 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1, by which, pursuant to the order dated 14.10.1999 passed by the District Education Officer, the respondent itself had cancelled the order of Vincent' Kha1co who was transferred to Mandla in place of the petitioner and had directed him to resume his charge at Pipariya in District Seoni and to the order dated 9.12.1999 (Annexure P-10) of the respondent No.1, by which the request of the petitioner for continuing him at Mandla has been declined, in support of his contention that while in the case of a similady situated employee, the respondent No.1 has accepted the action of the Education Department without demur, the petitioner has been singled out for hostile discrimination and is not being allowed benefit of cancellation of the order of transfer. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that it is a fit case where the respondent No.1 deserves to be directed by a Mandamus to permit the petitioner to resume his charge on the post of Head Master in the school at Mandla and for payment of salary for the period after the transfer. 4. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that it is a fit case where the respondent No.1 deserves to be directed by a Mandamus to permit the petitioner to resume his charge on the post of Head Master in the school at Mandla and for payment of salary for the period after the transfer. 4. To unleash a counter attack, the respondent No. 1 has filed a petition W.P. No. 4869/99 to challenge the instructions of the Government (Annexure P-1) in regard to appointment of staff and regulation of service conditions in the educational institutions established by minority institutions. The grievance of the Institution is that it being a minority institution to which Art. 30 of the Constitution of India grants full autonomy to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice, the right granted to such religious and linguistic minorities cannot be restricted or abrogated by imposing a condition of approval of transfer of an employee of the institution from its one school to another and the circular dated 26.5.1979 (Annexure P-1), therefore, deserves to be quashed and consequently, the order passed by Deputy Director of Education cancelling transfer of the employee Punararn Kulesh also deserves to be quashed. 5. It is not disputed that the schools administered and managed by Jabalpur Diocesan Education Society, Lalipur, Mandla (petitioner in W.P. No. 4869/99 and respondent No. 1 in the connected petition) are institutions within the meaning of clause (e) of section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Ashakiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetanon Ka Sandays Adhiniyam, 1978, being in receipt of maintenance grant from the State Government for its dchools. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Punaram Kulesh is a teacher of the institution in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government. Section 6 of the Act contains prohibition on creation of posts and appointments of staff and termination of services except in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Punaram Kulesh is a teacher of the institution in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government. Section 6 of the Act contains prohibition on creation of posts and appointments of staff and termination of services except in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. Section 10 grants power to the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act to, inter alia, provide for the constitution of institutional fund under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, the procedure to be followed in recruitment of teachers and other employees, the qualifications and experience which teachers and eg1ployees shall have and the procedure as regards the manner of holding of an enquiry for removal of a teacher of their employees from service. Various rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of the above power to provide for qualifications and appointment of teachers, conditions of their employment and other incidental matters relating to staff of such non-government educational institutions. Apart from the above provision, grant-in-aid to the non-government educational institutions is regulated by the unified rules for grant-in-aid to non-government educational institutions which includes maintenance grant, building grant and equipment grant. 6. Learned counsel for the Institution has submitted that the right guaranteed to the religious and linguistic minorities under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice cannot be curtailed or abridged by a condition requiring approval of the Education Department to the transfer of an employee of such institution from one school to another, as contained in the circular Annexure P-1. The restriction, contends learned counsel, amounts to infringement of a fundamental right as no fetters can be attached to impinge the liberty of an employer to regulate employment of its employee and as the transfer is merely an incident of service and the employer is the best Judge as to how service of an employee should be utilized, any condition requiring approval for transfer has the effect of restricting the right to administer the institution and the condition, therefore, deserves to be struck down. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent State has, however, referred to the condition in Annexure P-1 to point out that it is merely for regulating grant-in-aid made available to the institutions that a provision for approval of transfer by the Department has been made as in the scheme of various enactments regulating service conditions of teachers and other employees of such educational institutions it is necessary to ensure that the grant is properly utilized for payment of salaries etc. to such employees in the manner laid down in the Act. Learned Government Advocate also contends that various factors are required to be taken into consideration to ensure that the object of the Act and conditions of grant are not defeated by transfer of an employee covered by such grant and such a regulatory measure does not curtail the right as the power of transfer of employees continues with the Management and the regulation is only in the nature of proper utilization of the grant and to prevent any harm to the actual recipient thereof, viz., teacher of employee concerned. 8. As observed by the Supreme Court in St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1974 SC 1389 ) the right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right and is not free from regulatory measures. The right to administer is not the right to mal-administer. Measures for regulating the course of study, the qualifications and appointment of teachers, the conditions of their employment, health and hygiene of students, facilities for libraries and laboratories and. the like are regulatory measures and do not violate any fundamental right of the minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewina ( AIR 1979 SC 52 ), it was observed that protection of the minorities is an article of faith in the Constitution of India and Article 30 is as regards management of affairs of the institution but the right is, however, subject to the regulatory power of the State. The State may regulate the exercise of the right of administration but it has no power to impose any restriction which is destructive of the right itself. The State may regulate the exercise of the right of administration but it has no power to impose any restriction which is destructive of the right itself. It is, therefore, clear that what is to be seen is as to whether imposing a condition of approval of transfer for examination of its viability in the context of the grant made available constitutes a restriction which is destructive of the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution of India or it is only a regulatory measure. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary first to refer to the condition under challenge, which reads as under : "Yadi aisi samsthaon dwara ek se adhik shalaen sanchalit ki jati hain, to unke andar ek shala se dusri shala ke liye sthanantaran ke aadesh kame ke purva sambandhit shiksha adhikari ki purva anumati leni hogi. Sambandhit adhikari anudan ke paripekshya me uska parikshan kar aise sthanantaranon ko sweekriti de sakenge. " 9. The above condition provides for prior approval of the concerned Education Officer to the transfer of an employee by an institution from its one school to another. The permission required is to be considered in the context of the grant made available to such institution. The object of the Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam is to make provision for regulating salaries of teachers and other employees of non-government schools receiving grant- in-aid and non-government educational institutions for higher education receiving grant from the State Government. The rules entitled "The Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Institutional Fund) Rules, 1983, require institutions in receipt of the grant to open a separate account for each institution in a treasury/sub-treasury of the area where the institution is situated. For the purpose of receipt of the amount in account, the Principal/Head Master concerned is required to prepare paybills of teachers and other employees of the institution before 20th of the salary month and to prepare a treasury cheque of the total amount payable as per bill to all the employees in the name & the Branch Manager/Post Master of the Bank/Post Office with which the accounts have been opened by teachers and other employees of the institution. The object is, obviously, to ensure payment of the amount to the teachers or other employees of the institution and to obviate possibility of its mis-utilization or misappropriation. The object is, obviously, to ensure payment of the amount to the teachers or other employees of the institution and to obviate possibility of its mis-utilization or misappropriation. There are various other conditions that regulate grant provided to such institutions and since each employee is required to have a separate account in the area in which the institution is situated, the transfer of an employee from one school to anotl1er of the same institution also entails closing of the account in the area from which such a teacher or employee is transferred and opening of an account in the area to which he is transferred. It can also not be ruled out that an institution may not be in receipt of grant in respect of another school under its management. It is, therefore necessary that the authorities in the appropriate department are apprised of such proposals of transfer of employees from one school to another and are given authority to consider whether in the context of the grant, approval to such a transfer should be accorded or not. Grant is made for the benefit of the employee as he is the ultimate recipient of the amount and without such regulatory measures, transfers in a given situation, may result in the denial of the protection granted to such employees. The power concerning grant of approval is required to be exercised only in the context of financial grant made available to the institution for disbursement of salary to teachers or other employees and its arbitrary exercise can be prevented by its judicial review. The condition contained in Annexure P-1 (in W.P. No. 4869/99), therefore, does not infringe the right of the institution to establish and administer educational institutions as it is only a regulatory measure limited in scope by the object stated in the condition itself which obviates the possibility of arbitrariness in its exercise. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Ahmad v. Manager, Emjay High School (1998) 6 SCC 674 . in support of his contention that selection and appointment of Head Master in a school being of prime importance in administration of educational institutions, any restriction in the nature of prior approval constitutes infringement of the right of the minority educational institution. in support of his contention that selection and appointment of Head Master in a school being of prime importance in administration of educational institutions, any restriction in the nature of prior approval constitutes infringement of the right of the minority educational institution. Learned counsel contends that since for better management of the school, a Head Master was transferred to another school, the Deputy Director could not have in exercise of the power under the said condition set aside the order of transfer, much less without notice to the institution. While it is true that Head Master in a school or Principal of a College has pivotal role and the functional efficacy of a school very much depends upon efficiency and dedication of its Head Master, the condition of prior approval cannot be construed as impinging the right as the measure, as observed above, is only regulatory. In the case of N. Ahmad (supra), the challenge was by employee of the institution to the appointment of a person as Head Master brought from another school and it was in this context that it was observed that the Management was not bound by rule 44 (1) of Kerala Education Rules to appoint only the senior most teacher having prescribed qualifications. 11. In the present case, the condition under challenge only provides for approval in the context of grant made available to the institution without in any way curbing the power of the institution to transfer an employee. The condition is only to ensure that the purpose of the grant is not defeated by exercise of the power without in any manner taking away the autonomy of the Management to exercise the power of transfer. The challenge to the condition is, therefore, unsustainable and the petition W.P. 4869/99 deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the result, W.P. 4465/99 is allowed and the institution is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Head Master and to pay him salary for the period ignoring the order of transfer Annexure P-1 within a period of a month from the date of this order. The petition W.P. 4869/99 is dismissed. The Institution shall, however, be at liberty to take a decision afresh with regard to the transfer of the petitioner subject to the prior approval of the educational officer in accordance with condition no. 3 contained in the Circular Annexure P-1. The petition W.P. 4869/99 is dismissed. The Institution shall, however, be at liberty to take a decision afresh with regard to the transfer of the petitioner subject to the prior approval of the educational officer in accordance with condition no. 3 contained in the Circular Annexure P-1. There shall be no order as to costs.