JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. Sri K.P. Shukla is permitted to implead the affected teachers who are seeking promotion under the 25% quota, as respondents and necessary corrections be carried out accordingly. 3. Issue notice to the newly added respondents returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within ten days. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed for bringing on record the communication of the District Inspector of Schools, Agra. 5. On 19.10.2009, the petitioner-Committee has been threatened with action of supersession under Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. A further direction has been issued to cancel the interviews, which are proposed to be held for the purpose of selection in the institution. 6. Sri K.P. Shukla, relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Kund-Kund Jain Inter College, Muzaffarnagar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1528 contended that the District Inspector of Schools has no authority to interfere with the selection proceedings initiated by the petitioner-Committee on any ground, inasmuch as the institution is a minority institution. As such, any action taken by the District Inspector of Schools would amount to violating Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 7. The dispute relates to selection on the post of L.T. grade teachers in the institution. According to the management itself, there are 8 teachers working in the primary section of the institution, who are claiming promotion under the 25% quota as contemplated under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005, reference of which has been made in the letter of District Inspector of Schools dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure 9) to the writ petition. On a simple calculation, two of the teachers would be entitled for promotion out of eight and it appears that they have set their claim for promotion under the said quota. The management is proposing to fill up the post by direct recruitment without considering the claim of such promotion on the ground that the Institution is free to make appointments of its own choice and it is not bound to comply with any such regulation enforced by the State Government. The management is proposing to fill up the post by direct recruitment without considering the claim of such promotion on the ground that the Institution is free to make appointments of its own choice and it is not bound to comply with any such regulation enforced by the State Government. It is not disputed that the posts, which are in dispute, are being aided by the State Government and the salary of such teachers are paid from State funds. 8. Sri K.K. Chand learned Standing Counsel, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra v. State of Gujrat and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7624-7625 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2000 contends that the provisions under the Regulations and Government Order in question are only regulatory measures and they do not prohibit the management from proceeding to make selections of their own choice. He submits that the Government order is necessarily to be observed as the institution is aided and is receiving aid from Government funds. 9. I have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the State counsel. 10. The fact that the institution is recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder and is a minority institution and the fact that it is receiving grant-in-aid is indisputable. So long as the status as a minority institution acknowledged by the State Government through its order dated 9.6.2004 is not annulled, the District Inspector of Schools would be bound by such declaration and he cannot violate the same unless and until a Court of competent jurisdiction or a competent authority recalls the minority status of the petitioner institution. It is also clear from sub-section (14) of Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act that the Committee of Management cannot be proceeded with under the aforesaid provisions for supersession. 11. The only question which now needs to be answered is as to whether the provisions relating to reservation in promotion to the extent of 25% quota in favour of the teachers of the primary section of the institution offend Article 30 or not. Even though the judgment in the case of Committee of Management (supra) was rendered by me but the same does not take notice of the category of promotions as presently involved in this case. Even though the judgment in the case of Committee of Management (supra) was rendered by me but the same does not take notice of the category of promotions as presently involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner is adopting the same reasoning as given in the aforesaid judgment which was in relation to the 50% promotion quota under Chapter II Regulation 5 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Learned counsel may be correct in his submission that the same analogy would apply so far as the present case is concerned, yet keeping in view the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kolwana Gram Vikas Kendra (supra) the matter requires reconsideration by a larger bench. The regulations so framed do not, in my opinion prohibit the Committee of Management from proceeding to make selection or appointment by way of promotion of their own choice. To simply regulate the procedure to be adopted and the Committee of Management is free to resolve to either promote a person or not in view of the minority status of the institution. The aforesaid regulation, therefore, does not offend Article 30 of the Constitution of India to the extent that such regulation be declared as inoperative. A minority institution still has the choice to select a person after consideration of the candidature of a teacher for promotion. The right conferred under the Government order dated 25.11.2005 on a teacher is a right of consideration only and it does not amount to a right of promotion. However, this right of consideration, in my opinion, does not offend Article 30 inasmuch as the discretion still lies with the Committee of Management to either promote or not to promote a candidate upon such consideration. The judgment relied upon in the case of Kolwana Gram Vikas Kendra case (supra), therefore, is a pointer towards a change in the point of view of the Apex Court in such matters. 12. Admittedly, the Institution is receiving grant-in-aid from State funds. The teacher who is claiming promotion is a teacher who has been appointed by the present management of the same institution which claims itself to be having a minority status. 12. Admittedly, the Institution is receiving grant-in-aid from State funds. The teacher who is claiming promotion is a teacher who has been appointed by the present management of the same institution which claims itself to be having a minority status. It, therefore, does not appeal to reason that the same teacher who has been given appointment by an institution, which is a minority institution, is being refused promotion on the ground of offending Article 30 for which there does not appear to be any rational basis. The teacher claiming promotion is not a stranger or intruder into the institution. He has been admitted to the minority institution and is very much inside it. He is neither a new entrant nor he has been thrust on the institution against the wishes of the management. Once the teacher has been selected and appointed he cannot be said to have arrived against the wishes of any minority which seeks protection of Article 30. A claim of promotion by such a person who is already serving the institution will not be trending upon the minority status of the institution. An employee of such category, therefore, is not a domestic with no rights nor can be presumed to have either lost waived his rights which do not offend Act 30 of the Constitution of India. 13. This question would, however, require an authoritative pronouncement, keeping in view the fact that this Court itself in a Division Bench has held that the rule of promotion under Chapter II Regulation 5 does not apply to a minority institution and which has been followed in the decision of the Committee of Management (supra) 14. The question as to whether a minority institution would be governed to that extent by even regulatory measures would have to be considered in the light of the decision of this Court in case of Management Committee of M.M. Inter College, Chandpur, District Bijnor v. Deputy Director of Education, IIIrd Region, Bereilly and others, 1984 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 271. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is prima facie evident that the District Inspector of Schools, in view of the law that stands today, does not have the jurisdiction to interfere into matters relating to selections and appointments by a minority institution which cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is prima facie evident that the District Inspector of Schools, in view of the law that stands today, does not have the jurisdiction to interfere into matters relating to selections and appointments by a minority institution which cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Inspector of Schools cannot compel the petitioner, Committee of Management, to make a particular selection in a particular manner. Apart from this, sub-section (14) of Section 16-D of the 1921 Act protects the institution from any such action as is indicated in the impugned letter dated 9.10.2009. 16. Accordingly, this Court further orders that the District Inspector of Schools shall not compel the petitioner committee to make appointments as per the directions contained in the order dated 19.10.2009 nor any action shall be taken against the petitioner-Committee on the said ground under Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. However, this shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner-Committee shall in the mean time proceed with the interview with the participation of 25% of the teachers of the primary section and shall keep the result of such proceedings in a sealed cover during the pendency of the writ petition. The matter shall appear after the reference is answered as per the observations made herein above. 17. Accordingly, keeping in view the provisions of Chapter V Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, this Court finds it necessary to request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to refer the matter to a larger bench to decide the correct position of law, keeping in view the opinion expressed by this Court by the Division Bench in the case of M.B. Lal v. District Inspector of Schools decided on 31.8.1984 as also the latest view taken by the Apex Court in the Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra case (supra). The following questions are framed to be answered by the larger Bench : 1. Whether the institution claiming itself to be a minority institution and acknowledged as such by the State Government is entitled to not to consider the claim of promotion of teachers of the primary section of Intermediate Colleges claiming promotion under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005 whereby 25% quota is reserved in their favour, on the ground that it offends Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the law laid down in the case of M.B. Lal v. District Inspector of Schools case (supra) and in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Kund Kund Jain Inter College, Muzaffarnagar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1528 (All) requires reconsideration in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra v. State of Gujrat and others with Civil Appeal Nos. 7624-7625/04 decided on 20.10.2009. 3. Whether the provisions relating to promotion in respect of teachers of Intermediate College can be treated to be regulatory in nature, keeping in view, the law laid down in the case of Management Committee of M.M. Inter College, Chandpur, District Bijnor v. Deputy Director of Education, IIIrd Region, Bereilly and others, 1984 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 271, and they do not offend Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 18. Let the papers he placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order. ————