ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order, Annexure P-l, dated 4.8.2008. A per the petitioner, he was a student of Nirmala Convent Higher Secondary School, Sironj, District Vidisha. He passed 9th Class in the year 2008. His behaviour was quite good. However, vide impugned order, the admission of the petitioner in the aforesaid School has been cancelled on the ground that he has not clean-shaved and he was absent. 3. The respondents in the return stated that the respondent-Institution is a Minority Institution. It has a right to run the institution. It has further been stated that the petitioner was absent in the School and he has not been following the rules and regulations of the School. Apart from this, the petitioner has also taken admission in another School. 4. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has not followed the rules and regulations of the School. He was directed to c1eanshave but he refused to do so on religious ground. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-School is being run by a Minority Institution. The Minority Institution has a right to frame its own bye-laws in accordance with the Constitutional provisions for the purpose of admission of the students as has held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3326. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriate by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution. Minority institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including students of non-minority community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a limited extent only and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational institution status is lost. If they do so, they lose the protection of Art.30 (1)." 5. Looking to the above principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to the regulation framed by the respondent-school for clean-shave of its students. Admittedly, the petitioner has not followed the aforesaid regulation. He was also absent. Looking to the above principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to the regulation framed by the respondent-school for clean-shave of its students. Admittedly, the petitioner has not followed the aforesaid regulation. He was also absent. Hence, the admission of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.