Judgment :- K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 5th September, 2008 in W.P.No.27117 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, the request made by the Appellant, to re-fix the seniority and to consider her for promotion to the post of “Head mistress” of St. Marys Higher Secondary School, Melpalai, was rejected. 2. The Appellant was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in English in the Sixth Respondent institution, as per proceedings dated 3 August, 1979. The Seventh Respondent was also appointed in the said institution as teacher in Botany, as per proceedings dated 25 September, 1980. The Appellant as well as Seventh Respondent acquired additional qualification from Madurai Kamaraj University. The University awarded a degree in Bachelor of Education, on the basis of the results published on 12 January, 1982. Even though the Appellant was senior to the Seventh Respondent, she was regularized only with effect from 25 October, 1981 and her junior was regularized with effect from 24 October, 1981. The Appellant claimed regularization with effect from 3 August, 1979 and she made series of representations before the Sixth Respondent. 3. Since there was no follow up action on the part of the Sixth Respondent to re-fix the seniority, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.4302 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, as per order dated 13 February, 2003, by issuing a direction to the Director of School Education, to consider and dispose of the representation made by the Appellant on 12 December, 2002, on merits and as per law. The First Respondent, as per proceedings dated 20 August, 2004 held that as per Rule 35-AA of the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Subordinate Service Rules, when other qualifications are equal, age should be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing seniority. The First Respondent opined that, the Appellant, being elder to the Seventh Respondent, should have been held as senior over the Seventh Respondent. The First Respondent finally opined that the request for re-fixing the seniority cannot be considered as their Sixth Respondent was a minority institution. Accordingly, the request was rejected. 4. The First Respondent opined that, the Appellant, being elder to the Seventh Respondent, should have been held as senior over the Seventh Respondent. The First Respondent finally opined that the request for re-fixing the seniority cannot be considered as their Sixth Respondent was a minority institution. Accordingly, the request was rejected. 4. While the matters stood thus, the Sixth respondent appointed the eighth Respondent as “Headmaster” Of the institution, without considering the claim of senior teachers like the Appellant working in the very same institution, Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant challenged the proceedings dated 20 August, 2004 on the file of the First Respondent and prayed for a consequential direction to re-fix the seniority and to consider her for promotion to the post of “Headmistress” of the Sixth Respondent institution. 5. The Corporate Manager of the Sixth respondent-Institution filed a Counter in answer to the contentions raised in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. According to the Sixth Respondent, the Appellant and the Seventh respondent took their B.Ed. Degree examinations on 24 October, 1981 and 23 October, 1981 respectively and as such, their services were regularised with effect from the date of their final examinations viz., 25 October, 1981 and 24 October, 1981. The contention regarding appointment of an outside teacher as “Headmaster” of the institution was justified on the ground that the Managing Committee was of the opinion that the Eighth Respondent was the most suitable candidate for the post. It was further stated that the Appellant was also considered for the said post. However, the Committee felt that some more candidates should also be considered in the best interest of the School and it was only in such circumstances, the Eighth Respondent, who was working in another institution under the same corporate management, was considered and ultimately he was appointed. The Eighth Respondent took charge of the post on 1 June, 2001. His appointment was also approved by the District Educational Officer. The Eighth respondent has also taken up a substantial contention that it is the prerogative of the minority institution to choose a qualified person of their choice as “Headmaster”. The Judgment of the Judge: 6. The Eighth Respondent took charge of the post on 1 June, 2001. His appointment was also approved by the District Educational Officer. The Eighth respondent has also taken up a substantial contention that it is the prerogative of the minority institution to choose a qualified person of their choice as “Headmaster”. The Judgment of the Judge: 6. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the right to select a “Headmaster” of School or “Principal” of a College is one of the prime function of the institution and the right of the minority to administer the educational institution of its choice, requires a person in whom they repose confidence, who will carry out their directions and to whom they can maintain their traditions, discipline and efficiency of teaching and as such, there was nothing wrong in appointing the Eighth Respondent as “Headmaster” of the institution. The learned Judge mainly considered the issue relating to the appointment of “Headmaster” and as such the claim made by the Appellant to re-fix her seniority was not considered. The learned Single Judge was of the view that no positive direction could be issued to promote the Appellant either as “Headmistress” or “Assistant Headmistress”. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petitioner is before us as Appellant. Submissions: 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant is also a member of the minority community and the institution itself was started to cater the needs of the Roman Catholics. According to the learned Counsel, The sixth Respondent was bound to consider the claim of Roman Catholics like the Appellant, inasmuch as the institution was started only by the Roman Catholics. The learned Counsel further contended that there was no attempt made by the Sixth Respondent to consider the claim of the Appellant as “Headmistress” at any point of time. It was also contended that even during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Seventh Respondent was appointed as “Assistant Headmaster”, again overlooking the claim made by the Appellant. 8. The learned Counsel for the Sixth Respondent submitted that the institution, being one established by the minority, no interference could be made in its administration. According to the learned Counsel, the Sixth Respondent was fully justified in appointing a teacher of their choice as “Headmaster”. 8. The learned Counsel for the Sixth Respondent submitted that the institution, being one established by the minority, no interference could be made in its administration. According to the learned Counsel, the Sixth Respondent was fully justified in appointing a teacher of their choice as “Headmaster”. It was contended that the management found the Eighth Respondent as suitable for holding the post of “Headmaster” and as such he was appointed. It was his further contention that the other institution where the Eighth Respondent was working hitherto as teacher, was also a unit of the Sixth respondent management and as such, there was nothing wrong in appointing him. In short, it was the contention of the learned Counsel that the minority institution was well within their powers to appoint a teacher or Headmaster or Principal of their choice and nobody much less a teacher of the same community, could challenge such appointments. 9. There is no dispute with respect to the date of appointment of the Appellant as a teacher in the Sixth Respondent institution i.e., on 3 August, 1979. The Seventh Respondent was appointed on 25 September, 1980. Therefore, the Appellant was senior in so far as the Sixth Respondent institution is concerned. Though the Appellant was senior, the management placed the Seventh Respondent above her, on the basis of the date on which the Appellant and the Seventh Respondent took the B.Ed. Examination conducted by the Madurai Kamaraj University. 10. The issue as to whether, the Appellant was senior to the Seventh Respondent was considered by the First Respondent in the light of the statutory provisions. According to the First Respondent, when other things are similar, age assumes significance and as such, the Appellant, being elder in age, should have been placed above the Seventh Respondent. Even though such a finding was recorded by the First Respondent, the said authority was of the view that no direction could be issued to the Sixth respondent to re-fix the seniority as it was a minority institution. 11. When the issue to be decided by the management pertains to seniority of a teacher and in the absence of Regulations made by the minority institution, they have no other option, than to follow the Rules made by the Education Department. 11. When the issue to be decided by the management pertains to seniority of a teacher and in the absence of Regulations made by the minority institution, they have no other option, than to follow the Rules made by the Education Department. It was only on the basis of the relevant rule, the First Respondent arrived at a finding that the Appellant was senior to the Seventh Respondent. The said finding has not been challenged either by the Sixth Respondent or by the Seventh Respondent. 12. Therefore, the decision with respect to the seniority of the Appellant has become final. This aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are constrained to quash the order dated 20 August, 2004 on the file of the First Respondent. We are also of the view that the Appellant was senior to the seventh Respondent and as such, she should be placed above the Seventh respondent in the seniority list. 13. The Appellant has also made a consequential prayer to consider her case for promotion to the post of “Headmistress” in the Sixth Respondent-Institution. 14. Though the Appellant has not made a specific challenge to the appointment of the eighth Respondent as “Headmaster” of the Sixth Respondent-Institution, as per proceedings dated 30.5.2001, she has raised substantial grounds in the Writ Petition in support of her contention that she should have been considered for such appointment. 15. The Sixth Respondent in their Counter Affidavit contended that the case of the Appellant was also considered for appointment to the post of “Headmaster”. However, there was nothing on record to prove such claim. Therefore, we directed the learned Counsel for the Sixth respondent to produce the selection file to substantiate their contention with respect to consideration of the case of the Appellant for appointment to the post of “Headmaster” along with the Eighth Respondent. The learned Counsel, on instructions from the Sixth Respondent fairly conceded that there was no effective consideration and nothing was reduced into writing to show that there was such consideration. 16. According to the learned Counsel for the management, the Sixth Respondent has not framed Regulations with respect to appointment or promotion of teachers. 17. The Sixth Respondent is a minority institution. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India protects the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. 16. According to the learned Counsel for the management, the Sixth Respondent has not framed Regulations with respect to appointment or promotion of teachers. 17. The Sixth Respondent is a minority institution. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India protects the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The State cannot stand in the way of establishment and administration of educational institutions by the minorities. In fact, Article 30 by protecting the right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions projects secular character of our Country and the determination of the State to promote the interest of the minorities, whether based on religion or language. Therefore, the State has got a constitutional duty to see that minority institutions are functioning without any kind of unnecessary state interference. 18. The Supreme Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat, 1974 (1) SCC 717 observed that the object of Articles 25 to 30 was to preserve the rights of religious and linguistic minorities, to place them on a secure pedestal and withdraw them from the vicissitudes of political controversies. The Supreme Court said: Analysis: “12. The real reason embodied in Article 30(1) of the Constitution is the conscience of the nation that the minorities, religious as well as linguistic, are not prohibited from establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice for the purpose of giving their children the best general education to make them complete men and women of the country. The minorities are given this protection under Article 30 in order to preserve and strengthen the integrity and unity of the country. The sphere of general secular education is intended to develop the commonness of boys and girls of our country. This is in the true spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity through the medium of education. If religious or linguistic minorities are not given protection under Article 30 to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice they will feel isolated and separate. General secular education will open doors of perception and act as the natural light of mind for our countrymen to live in the whole.” 19. The question is as to whether in the matter of promotion, minority institutions should consider the claim of teachers belonging to the very same minority community. 20. General secular education will open doors of perception and act as the natural light of mind for our countrymen to live in the whole.” 19. The question is as to whether in the matter of promotion, minority institutions should consider the claim of teachers belonging to the very same minority community. 20. The learned Counsel for the management by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose, 2007 (1) SCC 386 contended that the minority management is entitled to appoint a person, who according to them, is most suited to head the institution and in that process, they could ignore the claim of even the teachers of the same minority community. 21. In Malankara Syrian Catholic College case cited supra, an argument was advanced that the minority institution cannot ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same community, senior to the person proposed to be selected, merely because the institution has the right to select a principal of its choice. It was only in such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the career advancement prospects of the teaching staff, even those belonging to the same community, will have to yield to the right of the management under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions. 22. The substantial issue to be decided in the Writ Appeal pertains to the appointment of a “Headmaster” without considering the claim of senior teachers of the very same institution, who also belongs to the very same minority community. 23. The Sixth Respondent, being a minority institution would be well within their powers to appoint “teachers” as well as “Headmaster” in their institution,. It is prerogative to appoint “Headmaster” of their choice. Since the Sixth Respondent institution is a unit of R.C. Schools managed by the Diocese of Kottar, it would be open to them to appoint “Headmaster” to a particular unit by promoting a teacher from another institution administered by the very same management. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in appointing the eighth Respondent as “Headmaster” of the Sixth Respondent-Institution. 24. However the moot point is, whether in the process of such appointment, the Sixth Respondent could ignore the claim of senior teachers like the Appellant, who also belongs to the very same minority community. 25. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in appointing the eighth Respondent as “Headmaster” of the Sixth Respondent-Institution. 24. However the moot point is, whether in the process of such appointment, the Sixth Respondent could ignore the claim of senior teachers like the Appellant, who also belongs to the very same minority community. 25. The claim of senior teachers like the Appellant cannot be treated on par with the teachers belonging to a different community. The senior teachers would be having legitimate expectation that they would also be considered for appointment to the post of “Headmaster”, in case, they possess the required qualification. However, the fact remains that the ultimate authority to select the “Headmaster” vests only with the management. 26. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (5) CTC 201 (SC): 2002 (8) SCC 481 , at page 589, the Supreme Court considered the statutory provisions regulating the facets of administration in the case of unaided minority institutions. Question No.5 as well as answer given to the said question reads thus: “Q.5.(c) Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, employees, teachers and principals including their service conditions and regulation of fees, etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities? A. So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets of administration are concerned, 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 nonteaching, and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there should not be any external controlling agency. However, a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself.” (emphasis supplied) 27. T.M.A. Pai Foundation case cited supra, therefore, clearly gives an indication that there should be a rational procedure for selection of teaching staff and for taking Disciplinary action and such a procedure has to be evolved by none other than the management. 28. T.M.A. Pai Foundation case cited supra, therefore, clearly gives an indication that there should be a rational procedure for selection of teaching staff and for taking Disciplinary action and such a procedure has to be evolved by none other than the management. 28. The Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case also indicated the binding effect of regulations made in the interest of welfare of students and teachers, even for minority institutions. The observation reads thus: “137. It follows from the aforesaid decisions that even though the words of Article 30(1) are unqualified, this Court has held that at least certain other laws of the land pertaining to health, morality and standards of education apply. The right under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of the law, and we reiterate the same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1).” 29. Though an attempt was made by the Sixth Respondent to project as if the claim of the Appellant was also considered for appointment to the post of “Headmaster” along with the eighth Respondent, not even a scrap of paper was produced before us to substantiate such contention. It was only in response to our direction to produce the minutes of selection, the learned Counsel on instruction conceded that there was no such minutes of selection considering the relative merits of the Appellant as well as Eighth Respondent for appointment to the post of “Headmaster”. 30. Therefore, two things are clear insofar as the subject case is concerned. The Sixth Respondent has not framed any kind of regulation with respect to appointment of “teachers” or “Headmaster”. Similarly, there was no attempt made by the Sixth Respondent to consider the claim of senior teachers like the Appellant and the Seventh Respondent, who are working in the very same institution for appointment to the post of “Headmaster” in the said institution. It was not the case of the Sixth Respondent that the Appellant lacks essential qualification for such appointment. We are only on the question of consideration of her claim for such appointment to the post of ‘Headmaster”. It was not the case of the Sixth Respondent that the Appellant lacks essential qualification for such appointment. We are only on the question of consideration of her claim for such appointment to the post of ‘Headmaster”. We are not for a moment suggesting that the management has to appoint the Appellant as “Headmistress”, she being the senior most teacher. The said decision should be left to the wisdom of the management. 31. The issue as to whether the minority management has to consider the case of senior teachers of the minority community for appointment to the post of “Headmaster” came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala, 2006 (4) KLT 264. The Full Bench having found that the minority institutions have got complete freedom to appoint “Headmaster” or “Principal” of their choice, held that the institutions have to evolve a rational procedure for selection of “Headmaster” or “Principal”. The Observation of the Full Bench reads thus: “We, thus, hold that the management of a minority educational institution would have freedom to appoint Headmaster of Principal. R.44(1) of the Rules of 1959 would have no control over the powers conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, although such institution has necessarily to evolve a rationale procedure for selection of the Headmaster or Principal, this context, we feel that some directions should be issued to the Managements of minority educational institutions, to evolve a procedure for selection to the post of Headmaster, in the light of the observations in the answer to question 5(c) in T.M.A. Pai Foundation’s case (supra) quoted above. We notice that in many cases senior teachers belonging to the minority community, which runs the institution are superseded without assigning any reason. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is an armour to protect the minority against the legislative and executive actions of the State, which is normally controlled by the majority. The said armour cannot be used as a weapon against other members of the same minority community. The protection under Article 30(1) is to the minority community and for the minority community. The Manager may supersede the members of other communities and also members of the minority community, who are found unsuitable for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The said armour cannot be used as a weapon against other members of the same minority community. The protection under Article 30(1) is to the minority community and for the minority community. The Manager may supersede the members of other communities and also members of the minority community, who are found unsuitable for promotion to the post of Headmaster. But there may be teachers, who are, in every respect, qualified and suitable to head a minority educational institution. The management may select the best among them. The selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. So, all minority educational institutions, which propose to select the best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, as the case may, be, ignoring seniority in the feeder category or ignoring the available teachers, should frame and publish Regulations or Bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure, governing such selection. The publication can be made in the Notice Board of the educational institution concerned and a copy of it should be available in school/college library for reference. When superseding a senior qualified member of the minority community the reasons thereof should be clear from the record. The question as framed in the beginning of this order is thus answered accordingly. 32. The right given to the minority institution, is to administer the institution. Administration does not mean mal-administration. In fact, in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat, 1974 (1) SCC 717 , the Supreme Court indicated that the minority instruction has got a corresponding duty in maintaining good admin istration. The said observation reads thus: 47. In the field of administration it is not reasonable to claim that minority institution will have complete autonomy. Checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound and will serve the academic needs of the institution. The right of a minority to administer its educational institution involves, as part of it, a correlative duty of good administration. 33. When the Writ Petition was pending before the learned Single Judge, the Sixth Respondent appointed the Seventh Respondent as “Assistant Headmaster”. Even while making such appointment, the claim of the Appellant was not considered. The right of a minority to administer its educational institution involves, as part of it, a correlative duty of good administration. 33. When the Writ Petition was pending before the learned Single Judge, the Sixth Respondent appointed the Seventh Respondent as “Assistant Headmaster”. Even while making such appointment, the claim of the Appellant was not considered. In fact, no attempt was made by the Sixth Respondent at any point of time, to consider the claim of other senior teachers belonging to the minority community, for appointment to the post of “Assistant Headmaster” or “Headmaster”. The right of the management to administer the institution was taken as an absolute right even without framing Service Regulations and it was construed as a right even not to consider the case of senior teachers belonging to the very same minority community, for whose benefit the very institution was established. 34. When it was brought to our notice that the Appellant was not considered for appointment to the post of “Headmaster” or “Assistant Headmaster”, we observed that the case of the Appellant should have been considered along with others, in which case, she would have at least the satisfaction that her claim was also considered and rejected. Subsequently, the learned Counsel for the Sixth Respondent produced before us the proceedings of the Sixth Respondent appointing the Appellant as “Additional Assistant Headmistress” of the School where she is working at present. However, it was not acceptable to the Appellant, as there is no such post of “Additional Assistant Headmistress” in any of the institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu. 35. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, the Supreme Court in very clear terms indicated that minority institutions should evolve necessary guidelines in the matter of appointment of “teachers” as well as “Headmaster”. The Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that the minorities enjoy considerable freedom in the matter of establishment and administration of educational institutions. Even then, the Supreme considered it fit to direct the minority institutions to evolve a rational procedure for appointment of teachers. Unfortunately, the direction of the Supreme Court was not implemented by the Sixth Respondent and as a result, they have been making appointments without even considering the claim of senior teachers. 36. The appointment of the Eighth Respondent was made as per proceedings dated 30.5.2001. The Appellant has not challenged the said proceedings. Unfortunately, the direction of the Supreme Court was not implemented by the Sixth Respondent and as a result, they have been making appointments without even considering the claim of senior teachers. 36. The appointment of the Eighth Respondent was made as per proceedings dated 30.5.2001. The Appellant has not challenged the said proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to this Court to set aside the appointment of the eighth Respondent as “Headmaster”. 37. The First Respondent has given a categorical finding that the Appellant was senior and as such, the order placing the Seventh Respondent above the Appellant was wrong. The Sixth Respondent is managed by a Corporate management. There are about 109 recognised institutions run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar. Though the Appellant cannot be considered for appointment to the Post of “Assistant Headmistress” as well as “Headmistress”, in the Sixth Respondent institution, in view of the appointment of Seventh Respondent and Eighth Respondent respectively, she could be considered for future vacancies in any of the institutions under the Corporate Management. However, we make it clear that our direction is only to consider her claim and it should not be treated as a positive direction to appoint her, as we are clear in our opinion that the ultimate authority to take a decision to appoint a teacher to the post of “Headmaster” is only the management of the minority institution. 38. It is appropriate to point out that in spite of the direction given by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, minority institutions have not framed regulations for selection of teaching staff and the procedure for taking disciplinary action and matters incidental thereto. Therefore, action should be taken by the State for framing such regulations by the minority institutions in the interest of best administration of such institutions. 39. In the result, the order dated 20.8.2004 is quashed. The Appellant is declared as senior to the Seventh Respondent. The Sixth Respondent is directed to consider the claim of the Appellant for promotion to the post of “Assistant Headmistress” or “Headmistress” in the next available vacancy in any of the institutions under the Corporate Management taking into account the limited period of service available to her as teacher. 40. The Writ Appeal is allowed as indicated above. No costs.