JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Vikesh Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.Y. Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 14th July, 2009 and the advertisement dated 20th July, 2009. 3. The facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : Abdul Hakeem Agriculture Intermediate College, Ujiyar, Dudhara, Sant Kabir Nagar is a recognised and aided intermediate college. The college has been declared as a recognised minority institution. Provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1921’) and Regulations framed thereunder, as also those of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1971’) are fully applicable to the teachers and staffs of the institution. 4. An advertisement was published by the institution inviting applications for appointment as L.T. Grade teachers in the subject of Hindi and Sanskrit on 8th July, 1994. Petitioner applied in pursuance thereof. He was selected and is stated to have been issued an appointment letter by the Committee of Management dated 24th August, 1994. Petitioner joined on 1st September, 1994. Petitioner was paid a meagre salary of a sum of Rs. 750/- per month. Petitioner was however restrained from discharging his duties w.e.f. 3rd July, 2001 by the Management of the institution. He therefore, filed writ petition No. 42057 of 2001, wherein an interim mandamus was granted on 4th December, 2001 requiring the respondents to allow the petitioner to function and to pay him salary regularly or to show cause by filing counter affidavit. It appears that cause was shown and after exchange of affidavits the writ petition was decided vide order dated 28th May, 2008 directing the petitioner to move a representation before the Regional Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti, who in turn was required to decide the same within the period specified. 5. Petitioner accordingly made his representations dated 16/26th August, 2008 and dated 26th June, 2009. The Regional Joint Director of Education vide order dated 14th July, 2009 rejected the representation made by the petitioner. 5. Petitioner accordingly made his representations dated 16/26th August, 2008 and dated 26th June, 2009. The Regional Joint Director of Education vide order dated 14th July, 2009 rejected the representation made by the petitioner. The Committee of Management advertised the vacancies of L.T. Grade teachers again on 1st October, 1997 and lastly on 20th July, 2009. Petitioner has also approached the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow against the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education. 6. The order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 14th July, 2009 is being challenged on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded and that case set up by the Management was considered behind the back of the petitioner. Written submissions have also submitted in support of contentions raised. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 8. From the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 14th July, 2009 impugned, following facts emerge. 9. Institution in question was granted recognition initially as a High School under Section 7A of Act, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The State Government vide order dated 13th March, 1995 declared the institution as minority institution with reference to the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 w.e.f. 13th March, 1995. From the said date the provisions pertaining to appointment of teachers in a minority institution, i.e. Section 16FF of Act, 1921 stood attracted to the said institution. Prior to the said date provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1982’) and the rules framed thereunder were applicable. The institution in question was granted recognition/affiliation as an Intermediate College under Section 7AA of Act, 1921 i.e. ‘Under Self Finance’. 10. According to the petitioner, he was offered appointment under letter of the Management of the institution dated 24th August, 1994 and in pursuance thereof he joined on 1st September, 1994 as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) (i.e. much prior to the institution being declared as a minority institution). 11. 10. According to the petitioner, he was offered appointment under letter of the Management of the institution dated 24th August, 1994 and in pursuance thereof he joined on 1st September, 1994 as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) (i.e. much prior to the institution being declared as a minority institution). 11. The Regional Joint Director of Education after referring to the factual issues has recorded a categorically finding that on 1st September, 1994, no post of assistant teacher in Hindi subject in L.T. Grade was vacant in the institution. Even otherwise, from 14th July, 1992, (in view of the amendments made and applicable on the date in the Act, 1982), appointment on the post of assistant teachers in recognised high schools even on ad hoc basis could be made by Selection Committee of which the District Inspector of Schools was to be the Chairman. Since the institution was declared a minority institution on 13th March, 1995, the provisions of Act, 1982 will seize to be applicable only from the said date. Lastly it has been recorded that even assuming without admitting that the institution in question was a minority institution, appointment on the post of assistant teacher in minority institution has to be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee as per Section 16-FF of Act, 1921 , which is to comprise of a nominee appointed by the Department. It has therefore, been held that on both grounds claim set up for appointment cannot be accepted. 12. On behalf of the petitioner the impugned order dated 14th July, 2009 is being challenged basically on five points, which are being tabulated as under : (a) provisions of Section 16-FF of Act, 1921 are not applicable qua appointment of teachers in recognised and aided minority intermediate colleges in view of the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, (b) the procedure in fact applicable under Section 16-FF had been followed and therefore, the order which records otherwise is factually incorrect, (c) full and fair opportunity of hearing to controvert the allegations made by the Management had not been afforded to the petitioner and therefore, the order is in violation of principles of natural justice, (d) If Section 16-FF of Act, 1921 is taken to be applicable qua appointment of L.T. Grade teachers, the appointment of other teachers is also liable to be struck down on the same ground. (e) factual findings recorded by the Regional Joint Director of Education qua working of the petitioner are perverse. 13. This Court may at the very outset record that in the present writ petition, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the correctness of the statement of fact recorded in the impugned order qua institution being granted minority status under notification of the State Government dated 13th March, 1995 nor it has been disputed that prior to 13th March, 1995, the provisions of Act, 1982 were applicable qua appointment on the post of assistant teachers in a recognised and aided intermediate college. It is not in dispute that on the date the petitioner claims selection/appointment in the institution i.e. 1st September, 1994, the Committee of Management of the institution had no power to make any ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy existing in the institution. Power in that regard vested in Selection Committee to be presided over by the District Inspector of Schools, as has been noticed in the impugned order of Regional Joint Director of Education. As a matter of fact vide notification dated 16th July, 1992 published in official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 4th September, 1993, Section 9A was added to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1983’), which laid down a detail procedure for appointment on Ad-hoc basis by direct recruitment on the post of L.T. Grade teachers in a recognised intermediate college. The power in that regard was directly vested in the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools is required to publish an advertisement, after receiving information of the number of vacancies existing in the institutions, under his control. After receipt of the applications along with full particulars, selection committee comprising of the officers of the State has to process the same and prepare a select panel for appointment in various institutions. Name of the Selected Candidate is to be transmitted to the Committee of Management for offering appointment under its resolution. It is admitted in the facts of the present case that the statutory procedures as was applicable on the date, the petitioner claims appointment in the institution i.e. 1st September, 1994, under Rule 9A (as added in the year 1992 to Rules, 1983) had not been followed. It is admitted in the facts of the present case that the statutory procedures as was applicable on the date, the petitioner claims appointment in the institution i.e. 1st September, 1994, under Rule 9A (as added in the year 1992 to Rules, 1983) had not been followed. In view of the aforesaid reasons alone, entire case set up by the petitioner has to fall, more so when the aforesaid findings of the Regional Joint Director of Education have not been challenged in the present writ petition. Normally this Court would have closed the chapter at this stage itself, however, since other issues have been raised, it would be worthwhile to deal with the same also. 14. In support of the first contention, the Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioner submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. J.K. Kalra v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Meerut and others, AIR 1997 All 44 , had held that since the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 will not be applicable to minority institution, provisions of Section 16FF of Act, 1921 would become applicable. The law so declared stands overruled under judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Committee of Management, St. John Inter College v. Girdhari Singh and others, (2001) 4 SCC 296 Paragraph-7, wherein it has been held as follows : “7. The second submission of Mr. Rao on the basis of the coming into force of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, is also of great force. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the aforesaid U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, unequivocally indicates that the earlier provisions contained under Section 16-G(3) (a) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 were found to be inadequate, where the Management proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. In other words, the legislature though that the power of approval or disapproval to an order of punishment imposed by the management should not be vested with a lower educational authority like the District Inspector of Schools but should be vested with an independent commission or board which could function as an independent and impartial body. In other words, the legislature though that the power of approval or disapproval to an order of punishment imposed by the management should not be vested with a lower educational authority like the District Inspector of Schools but should be vested with an independent commission or board which could function as an independent and impartial body. With the aforesaid objective in view, the legislature having enacted the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Services Selection Board having been brought into existence in exercise of power under Section of the aforesaid Act, the power of the Inspector/Inspectress under Section 16-G(3) (a) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 no longer could be exercised, as it would be inconsistent with the provisions of U.P. Act 5 of 1982 and would frustrate the very object for which the legislation has been enacted. Section 32 of U.P. Act 5 of 1982 provides : “32. Applicability of U.P. Act 2 of 1921.—The provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations made thereunder insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the Rules or Regulations made hereunder shall continue to be in force for the purposes of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal termination or reduction in rank of a teacher.” Mr. Sharma, appearing for the respondents, vehementally urged before us that though for all other institutions, the power of approval or disapproval against an order of termination of an employee of an aided educational institution had been vested with the Selection Board under U.P. Act 5 of 1982, but in respect of the minority institution, it must be held to have been vested with the Inspector/Inspectress and that power still vested with those authorities notwithstanding the coming into force of U.P. Act 5 of 1982. We are unable to accept this submission, as in our view, there cannot be any rationale for conferring the power of approval or disapproval of an order of termination of an employee of a minority institution with the Inspector/Inspectress and for all other institutions with the Services Selection Board. Having conferred the power of approval/disapproval with the Selection Board under U.P. Act 5 of 1982, the legislature made it crystal clear by inserting Section 30 therein which states : “30. Having conferred the power of approval/disapproval with the Selection Board under U.P. Act 5 of 1982, the legislature made it crystal clear by inserting Section 30 therein which states : “30. Nothing in this Act shall apply to an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.” The legislature intent is thus apparent that the legislature never intended to subject the order of termination of an employee of a minority institution to the approval/disapproval of the Selection Board. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for us to hold that an order of termination of an employee of a minority institution cannot be given effect to, unless approved by either the Inspector/Inspectress, as provided in Section 16-G(3)(a) or by the Selection Board, as provided under U.P. Act 5 of 1982. Under the provisions, as they stand, the conclusion is irresistible that the question of prior approval of the competent authority in case of an order of termination of an employee of a minority institution does not arise. In the aforesaid premises, the majority view in the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The writ petition filed, stands dismissed.” 15. In the opinion of the Court the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is totally misconceived. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Committee of Management, St. John Inter College (supra) was considering the matter with regard to grant of prior approval to the punishment proposed to be inflicted by a minority institution on its employee. Such provisions of seeking prior approval was held to be hit by Article 30 of the Constitution of India and it is in that background only that the Court held that once legislature declared that the provisions of Act No. 5 of 1982 will not apply to a minority institution, falling back upon the provisions of Act, 1921, i.e. Section 16-G(3)(a) for the same purpose was not called for. 16. The facts before this Court are clearly distinguishable. The issue up for consideration is as to what procedure is to be applied qua appointment of teachers in minority intermediate college. In view of Section 30 of Act, 1982, the provisions of Commission/Board Act will not apply qua appointment of teachers in minority high school/intermediate college. 16. The facts before this Court are clearly distinguishable. The issue up for consideration is as to what procedure is to be applied qua appointment of teachers in minority intermediate college. In view of Section 30 of Act, 1982, the provisions of Commission/Board Act will not apply qua appointment of teachers in minority high school/intermediate college. No change has been made vis-a-vis the provisions which were applicable under Act, 1921 prior to the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 qua the minority institutions. The procedure for appointment of teachers in minority intermediate college continues to be regulated by Section 16-E read with Section 16-FF of Act, 1921. Such provisions and procedures prescribed thereunder have continued in operation for decades together and at no point of time such provisions which regulates the mode and manner of selection and appointment of teachers in a minority institution have been found to be hit by Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 17. I am of the considered opinion that procedures prescribed under Section 16E read with Section 16-FF of Act, 1921 have the effect of laying down a fair and reasonable method of selection which leads to good administration of intermediate college and has the effect of avoiding maladministration because of wrongful selection of undeserving candidates as teachers. Therefore, such procedure cannot be said to be hit by Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 4811 as well as in the case of Islamic Academic of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 SCC 697 has repeatedly held that any provision, which helps in better administration of minority institution and has the effect of avoiding mall administration will not be voilative of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the opinion of the Court, if the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, i.e. because of Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, none of the provisions of the Act, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, qua their appointment as assistant teachers in minority institution will apply, it will lead to serious consequences. The essential minimum qualification prescribed for appointment of assistant teachers. The essential minimum qualification prescribed for appointment of assistant teachers. In intermediate colleges, under Appendix-A of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under Act, 1921 would also cease to be applicable for the same reason and therefore, anybody can be appointed in minority institution, irrespective of the qualification being possessed by him. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is too broadly stated to be accepted by any Court of law. It is held that provisions of Section 16-E read with Section 16-FF, which lays down the procedure for appointment of assistant teachers in a minority institution hold good and apply with full force qua appointment of assistant teachers in a minority institution irrespective of the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 19. At this stage, this Court may also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society and others v. State of W.B. and others, (2004) 6 SCC 224 , specifically paragraphs-5 and 6 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is clearly distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as in the said case power of the Committee of Management of a minority institution to appoint a teacher of its choice was withdrawn and conferred upon the Selection Board/Commission. Such provision was struck down as being voilative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that authority to administer a minority institution cannot be totally restricted and the institution cannot be treated as a government-owned one, merely because aid is provided by the Government. 20. In the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society (supra) itself it has been held that “Of course the State can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of standards of education and to check maladministration.” 21. The aforesaid judgment only takes forward the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), and therefore, in paragraph-7 of its judgment in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society (supra), the Apex Court has stated as follows : “7. But that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. But that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. It is categorically stated in T.M.A. Pai (SCC at p. 551, para 72) that the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. Independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution......” 22. Having arrived at aforesaid conclusion, this Court may record that under Section 16-E for making appointment on the post of teachers, which applies to minority institution also, vacancy is required to be published in at least two newspapers, having adequate circulation in the State. In the facts of the present case, advertisement was admittedly published in only one newspaper, and therefore, there has been violation of Section 16-E (2) of Act, 1921. 23. So far as the plea of the petitioner qua the impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice, is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the facts and reasons recorded and for the legal principles as noticed herein above, only one view is possible in the facts of the present case. The factual issue raised by the Committee of Management need not be gone into any further. This Court is of the considered opinion that the plea of violation of principles justice as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is futile, inasmuch as non-compliance of the statutory provisions qua appointment claimed are admitted on records. 24. So far as the last but one plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, this Court may only provide that if any other appointment has been made contrary to the statutory provisions applicable, it is left open for the petitioner to make a representation, ventilating all his grievances, supported by such documents, as he may be advised before the Director, Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow qua such appointees along with a certified copy of this judgment. On such representation being made the Director shall call for the records and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, shall pass a reasoned speaking order, within 8 weeks thereafter. 25. On such representation being made the Director shall call for the records and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, shall pass a reasoned speaking order, within 8 weeks thereafter. 25. It is needless to emphasise that petitioner cannot claim any negative equality, inasmuch as if appointment as alleged by the petitioner qua other teachers are illegal, he cannot be permitted to obtain an order from this Court that the same illegality be perpetuated by granting relief prayed for by the petitioner. 26. So far as the last point issue on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, this Court feels that the issue has become more or less infructuous, in view of the conclusions arrived at on admitted facts on issues Nos. a to c. 27. The present writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No orders as to costs. ————