JUDGMENT : Bhanwar Singh, J. This petition has been filed by Mrs. Martha S. Khan an officiating Principal of Emma Thompson School, Lalbagh, Lucknow, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.4.2004 contained in Annexure-1 along with resolution of April 5, 2004 of the Committee of Management. By virtue of these order and resolution the Petitioner has been relieved of the office of officiating Principal and in her place, another Teacher Miss A. Walter has been appointed as the officiating Principal. It has also been prayed that by virtue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, the opposite parties be restrained from giving effect to the impugned order and resolution referred to above. 2. Lalbagh Christian Educational Society, Lalbagh is registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society governs the Emma Thompson School, Lalbagh, Lucknow, an institution imparting education upto class XII standard. This school if affiliated to the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination of New Delhi. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a no objection certificate to the Emma Thompson School with the condition that the orders issued by the State of U.P. or Educational Department shall be binding upon the society. 3. The Petitioner, who was an Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid school was appointed as officiating Principal with effect from August 25, 1995, following suspension of the then Principal Mrs. J. De' Castre and since then, she has been discharging her duties with utmost dedication and honesty. No show cause notice was ever served upon her. In her tenure as officiating Principal, the result of the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (Class X) has risen from 67% to 96%. 4. Recalling the past events she asserted that in the meeting of the Management Committee held on 19.4.1996, the society resolved that the Petitioner will continue to work as officiating Principal till the selection of the Principal was made. As the dismissed Principal Mrs. J. De' Castre, filed a writ petition and obtained an interim order to the effect that the opposite parties shall not fill up the post of Principal until further orders, the Petitioner continued to officiate on the post of Principal without any hindrance or interruption. Despite the Court's interim order, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, appointed Miss. Despite the Court's interim order, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, appointed Miss. A. Walter as the officiating Principal in place of the Petitioner. Miss. A. Walter is much junior to the Petitioner and as per seniority rules she cannot dislodge the Petitioner. The procedure adopted by the opposite parties in relieving her from the post of officiating Principal without any rhyme or reason smacks of arbitrariness and favouritism. Though the Petitioner was on medical leave for a few days in the month of April, she had the charge of aforesaid post of Principal throughout. Neither any action has been taken against the Petitioner nor the Society or the Manager of the Society has found any fault with her functioning, yet, by virtue of the unjust resolution, the Manager of the Society removed her from the office of Principal and issued the impugned order. 5. Mrs. J.J. Able filed her counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties and stated that Lalbagh Christian Educational Society managed several educational institutions including Emma Thompson (hereinafter referred to as the school), which is a minority institution. All the members of the Committee of Management are Christians. There are no statutory rules and regulations for governance of the institution. The Petitioner was working as the officiating Principal of the school for more than eight years, but since the affairs of the school were worsening day by day, the Committee of Management of the school constituted an Evaluation Committee consisting of Dr. Prakash Masihas and others. The said Committee submitted an Evaluation Report on March 16, 2004 and a number of short-comings having serious repercussions on the reputation of the school in the eyes of public at large were pointed out. The Management Committee handed over the said report to the Petitioner for remedial steps. Inspite of taking steps for improving the lot of the school, the Petitioner proceeded to submit a counter-analysis, a perusal of which would show that since she was in a defiance mood, she was not prepared to listen sensible advice of the Management either for improving the affairs of the school or removing the short-comings recited in the Evaluation Report. The Committee of Management then resolved in the meeting held on 2.4.2004 that the officiating Principal be changed and a Screening Committee be constituted for its recommendation. The Committee of Management then resolved in the meeting held on 2.4.2004 that the officiating Principal be changed and a Screening Committee be constituted for its recommendation. A few guidelines were laid down by the Screening Committee for suggesting a panel of three persons for appointment of another officiating Principal. The Committee of Management selected one Miss A. Walter, a teacher of the senior class of the school itself as officiating Principal of the school. 6. Mrs. Able, the Manager of the school and deponent of the counter-affidavit issued a letter of appointment to Miss. A. Walter. In pursuance of her appointment, Miss Walter assumed the charge of officiating Principal on 6.4.2004 and since then she has been working on that post. The Petitioner was released from the responsibilities attached with the office of the officiating Principal of the school vide letter dated 6.4.2004. The Petitioner who had reacted to the Evaluation Report had proceeded on leave w.e.f. 2.4.2004. In the matter of the Petitioner's release from the office of the acting Principal neither violation of rules and regulations comes to picture as there are no service conditions of the teachers or employees nor there has been infringement of her any legal right. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. Besides this the school did not receive financial aid and assistance from the State Government nor it is under the control of the State Government. So from this point of view also, the opposite parties are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The school being the minority school being run and managed by Lalbagh Christian Society is entitled for protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The appointment of officiating Principal of the school is an integral and inseparable part of running and managing minority Educational Institution. Moreover, the Petitioner has no legal right to stay in the office of the Principal as she was merely asked to officiate as Principal. In other words, her appointment being based on stop gap arrangement, she cannot claim as a measure of right to be permanently appointed on the post of Principal. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. In other words, her appointment being based on stop gap arrangement, she cannot claim as a measure of right to be permanently appointed on the post of Principal. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Miss A. Walter, the newly appointed officiating Principal of the school, has not been impleaded in the array of the opposite parties, although she has been discharging her duties of officiating Principal w.e.f. 5.4.2004. The Petitioner was on leave w.e.f. 2.4.2004 to 24.4.2004. The Petitioner had been duly informed vide Annexure-1 that she had been relieved of her charge of the post of officiating Principal and Miss. A. Walter had already assumed the charge of the said post. The Petitioner filed this petition on 15.4.2004, i.e., 9-10 days after appointment of Miss. A. Walter, but still she chose not to implead her as one of the opposite parties. Since a valuable right can be said to have accrued to Miss. A. Walter who is now holding the charge of the office of the Principal, this petition can be termed to be as bad for non-joinder. Be that as it may, no relief can be granted to the prejudice of Miss. A. Walter in her absence. 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties contended with the reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in Sreedam Chandra Ghosh Vs. State of Assam and others, (1996) 10 SCC 567 , that the Petitioner is working in officiating or stop gap arrangement has no right to the post. It is not disputed by the Petitioner that she was functioning merely as the officiating Principal after suspension of Mrs. J. De' Castre, the then Principal. Mrs. Castre, filed a writ petition in which an interim order restraining the opposite parties from appointing regular Principal was issued. Although the said interim order was never extended, yet the opposite parties remained under an impression that interim order was still in operation. The curtain from the said misconception had been lifted when this Court recorded a finding on February 21, 2000, that there was no requirement of vacating the interim order dated May 22, 1996, since it did not survive after November, 1996. Inspite of this Court's clarification made on 21.2.2000, Mrs. J. De'Castre succeeded to get the dead order survived subsequently, by deliberately concealing the clarification of 21.2.2000. Inspite of this Court's clarification made on 21.2.2000, Mrs. J. De'Castre succeeded to get the dead order survived subsequently, by deliberately concealing the clarification of 21.2.2000. What is significant to note is that in the back drop of this litigation going on between the dismissed Principal Mrs. De' Castre and the Management of the School, the Petitioner was the direct beneficiary. As a consequence she continued to officiate on the post of Principal for a long period, but even the longivity of the tenure did not confer upon her any substantive right. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court observed that the posting in a stop-gap arrangement does not confer any right upon a person to hold the post. In that case senior-most teacher was asked by the Inspector of Schools to discharge the duties of drawing teachers' salary in addition to it her own duty till the joining of the regular incumbent. However, no order was passed authorizing her to work on regular basis as Head Master. In such circumstances the officiation of the Petitioner was held to be as a stop-gap arrangement. She ceased to have any right to hold the post when another incumbent took over as the Headmaster. In this case also almost similar are the facts. The Petitioner though served for a long time under the compelling circumstances as officiating Principal but she was never promoted to the said post nor she was ever held to be legally entitled to continue as the Principal. After she has ceased to officiate as Principal, she continues to be a senior teacher of the school. In other words, her substantive right to hold the post of a teacher is being honoured by the Management Committee, but since she had no legal right to hold the post of Principal, she had been relieved of the charge without any stigma on her functioning. 9. The Evaluation Report as a matter of fact does not cast any aspersions on the Petitioner's functioning and, therefore, the citation, Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, AIR 1999 SC 983 , is not attracted. Even from the observations made by the author of the report, it is not inferable that there is any adverse reflection upon the Petitioner's performance. 10. Satvendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, AIR 1999 SC 983 , is not attracted. Even from the observations made by the author of the report, it is not inferable that there is any adverse reflection upon the Petitioner's performance. 10. It is established from the record that the Petitioner was simply asked to study the Evaluation Report and do the needful in the light of the suggestions made by the Evaluation Committee regarding improvement of all the affairs. The Petitioner took an exception to the suggestions made in the Evaluation Report and prepared a counter analysis and then proceeded on leave. As a sequel to her proceeding on leave, it was essential for this Committee of Management to make an another arrangement so that the post of Principal might not remain vacant. It may not be necessary to look into the reaction of the Petitioner, but certainly it would be meaningful and essential to have a look at the Evaluation Report, a copy of which is C.A.-2 on record. Its perusal would reveal that the Evaluation Committee simply suggested ways and means to improve the overall standard of the school especially in the areas of the school evaluation, teaching, general administration and its co-curricular activities. The evaluation team on examination of the entire situation prevailing in the school noticed that, the Computer Classes were not found upto the mark ; that Mrs. P. Philips a teacher in Sociology was not eligible to teach Geography ; some other teachers were also found not eligible to teach subjects like Maths and Science and the time table of classes and the facilities of game were also found lacking. The atmosphere of the library was not calm and serene ; that the students were admitted irrespective of the result of the admission test. The examination system was full of loopholes ; there was a tuition menace as some staff teachers were resorting to the practice of tuition by propagating in the school. The reputation of the school was at jeopardy and this was considered to be the main cause for decrease in the enrolment of students and the curricular activities were badly missing. The examination system was full of loopholes ; there was a tuition menace as some staff teachers were resorting to the practice of tuition by propagating in the school. The reputation of the school was at jeopardy and this was considered to be the main cause for decrease in the enrolment of students and the curricular activities were badly missing. In the school, regular staff meeting were not being held ; the school discipline was deteriorating as girls most of the time were seen loitering or making noise, teachers were in the habit of coming late ; no separate account of income and expenditure on the count of entrance test was maintained and the staff and class room needed better facilities including lighting and cleanings. Suggestions were made on each count as referred to above and orientation programme for staff in order to equip the teacher for latest facilities was needed and expected for betterment. 11. It is important to note that not an iota of criticism against the Petitioner was made. The Evaluation Report was prepared by Dr. Prakash Massi, Mr. S.W. Prasad and Dr. M.B. Lal, all members of the executive committee. Inspite of this, the Petitioner took it as an adverse report against her and she not only retorted the allegations, but also questioned the competence of the committee to make evaluation. She ventured in her counter analysis that the Evaluation Committee's Report on each point was wrong and unsustainable and further made an endeavour to point out that every thing was excellent and much better as compared to what used to be ten years back. Not only this, but the Petitioner even went to the extent of asking the Evaluation Committee to withdraw the report and in case of default threatened to challenge it before the competent authority. The Management Committee in its meeting held in 2.4.2004 discussed the counter-analysis of the Petitioner with the threatening column and unanimously resolved that the officiating Principal be changed and for the purpose a Screening Committee was constituted to suggest the name of other teachers to discharge the duties of the Principal of the school until the regular selection for the post was made. Again nothing adverse was observed against the Petitioner and since she had no valid right to stake her claim on the post of Principal and further since her position in the school teacher was not proposed to be disturbed, no show cause notice was required to be served upon her. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner with reference to the citation Dr. Dhirendra Nath Awasthy Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2003) 6 AWC 5027 : Dhirendra Nath Awasthi (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 185 , that she was entitled to hold the post on the strength of her seniority. As neither any rule nor any regulation governing the appointment of the ad hoc Principal was violated, the decision of the Committee is sustainable. In the matter of Dr. Dhirendra Nath Awasthi, the college was a Government college, i.e., a public institution where the appointment to the post of Principal was to be made on the basis of selection process conducted by the U. P. Public Service Commission. In the case in hand the school known as Emma Thompson is a minority institution being run and managed by the Lalbagh Educational Society. Moreover, the order regarding the change of Principal was not arbitrary nor unreasonable as it was based on the resolution of the Management Committee, which, in back drop of the Evaluation Report and the counter-analysis of the Petitioner took a decision in the interest of the school to change the officiating Principal. It was not violative of any principle, rules or regulations and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Ram Murti Singh v. District Inspector of Schools as, held that where on account of unsatisfactory relationship with teachers and other employees, the senior-most teacher was found to be not competent, appointment of another person in preference to such senior-most teacher was not violative of the rule of the appointment. Emma Thompson Lalbagh School being a Minority (Christian) Institution is not governed by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Renewal defects), 1981 or any other order. Emma Thompson Lalbagh School being a Minority (Christian) Institution is not governed by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Renewal defects), 1981 or any other order. If the Management Committee of the minority community found that the interest of the institution would be served better with the ad hoc appointment of another teacher, as the Petitioner was not amenable to the suggestions of the Management Committee, there was nothing objectionable if the Petitioner was asked to step down from the post of officiating Principal and discharge her normal duties of a teacher. Article 33 of the Constitution of India protects the right of the minority community to establish and administer educational institution of their choice. Administration of such institution means the day-to-day management of the affairs. Although the minority institution cannot be allowed to fall below the standard, no interference is warranted in its affairs of management. In the present case the Committee of Management proposed the change in the office of Principal with a view to ameliorating the affairs of the school including the standards of education and since minority community has a right to improve the functioning of its school, its decision unless arbitrary and unreasonable in nature should not be interfered with. The Apex Court while dealing a similar matter, in State of Kerala, etc. Vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, etc., (1970) 2 SCC 417 , observed that the management of the minority institution 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 of the community will be best served. No part of the management can be taken away and vested in another body without an encroachment upon the guaranteed right. Similarly in another decision, as N. Ammad Vs. The Manager, Emjay High School and Others, AIR 1999 SC 50 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any minority educational institution, the management has full freedom to appoint any person on the post of Headmaster either from the same school or from outside subject to restriction as regards the qualification prescribed under Statute, Rules or Regulations. The following quotation from the above decisions with reference to an earlier case, Aldo Maria Patroni and Another Vs. The following quotation from the above decisions with reference to an earlier case, Aldo Maria Patroni and Another Vs. E.C. Kesavan and Others, AIR 1965 Ker 75 , is worth reading: The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. 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 headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon-except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience-cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. To hold otherwise will be to make the right 'a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality'. 12. Almost equal rather more important is the post of the Principal of a college as he/she is of the prime importance in the institution. Further, a minority institution requires presence of a person on such a post, in whom it can repose confidence that he/she will carry out its directions and in whom they can find and look forward to maintain traditions, discipline and the efficiency of the teaching. 13. When once the pivotal position of the Headmaster is recognised, it is to be held that the right to appoint a person on the post of Headmaster or Principal is of paramount importance to the minority and therefore, any interference will denude the right of administration of its content reducing it to mere futility. In this way the Management's right to choose a Principal of its choice is very well insulated by the protected cover of Article 30(1) of the Constitution and, therefore, it cannot be chiseled out in any way or manner. This view has well been endorsed by the Apex Court in its decision in Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training Vs. Jt. Director of Public Instructions, Sagar and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 555 and it has also been held by the Apex Court in a case C/M. St. John Inter College Vs. This view has well been endorsed by the Apex Court in its decision in Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training Vs. Jt. Director of Public Instructions, Sagar and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 555 and it has also been held by the Apex Court in a case C/M. St. John Inter College Vs. Girdhari Singh and Others, AIR 2001 SC 1891 , that U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act or orders for the service law of U. P. Intermediate Education are not applicable to a minority institution. Even in the very important case, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2003 SC 355 , a decision which has been placed reliance upon by both the parties, it has been held that in case of an unaided minority educational institution, the regulatory measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as well as the conditions of affiliation to a university or board have to be complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day management, like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching and administrative control over them, the Management should have the freedom and there should not be any external control over the agency. 14. Although a rational procedure for the selection or decision should be evolved by the management yet since in the case in hand the Petitioner has not been removed with any stigma or on the basis of any disciplinary position nor regulations or rules or prior approval of any Government authority was required to be sought, particularly, when, as repeatedly said earlier, the Petitioner had no valid right to hold the officiating authority on the post of Principal. 15. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution it may be observed that whenever an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element, the teacher, the arm of the institution is also entitled to avail the remedy provided under the aforesaid Article. 15. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution it may be observed that whenever an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element, the teacher, the arm of the institution is also entitled to avail the remedy provided under the aforesaid Article. Therefore, the decision of Management Committee is amenable to writ jurisdiction irrespective of the fact that the institution being a minority institution does not receive any aid from the Government ; although it is different that in the present case before the Court the decision of the Management Committee is neither contrary to any law rules or regulations nor the same is unreasonable, unjust or arbitrary. Obviously, therefore, in this situation the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 16. However, she has an alternative remedy for filing an appeal before the Board of Governors of Lalbagh Educational Society in accordance with the Lalbagh Educational Society, Lucknow, service rules for private units (effective from 20.4.1996). As no valid right of the Petitioner has been infringed, the principle laid down in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, AIR 1999 SC 22 , is not applicable to the case in hand. 17. In view of the foregoing discussions I am of the decisive view that this writ petition is devoid of merit and therefore deserves to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 19. However, the costs shall be easy.