JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay him pay and allowances in the UGC scale of pay for the period from 24.3.2005 to 29.9.2007, during which he served as Lecturer in the department of History of St. Edmunds' College, Shillong pursuant to his selection and appointment for the said post. 2. The basic facts involved in this proceeding are all admitted. The petitioner, who has brilliant academic record to his credit had responded to the advertisement dated 10.3.2005 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in History in the 'St. Edmunds' College. In due course, the selection was conducted and the petitioner was selected for appointment as the first nominee. Although he was a appointed by the college authority, but the Government of Meghalaya did not approve his appointment as is required under the prevalent practice. 3. In view of the aforesaid refusal to accord approval, the petitioner made representations followed by legal notice, to which the Director of Higher Education, Meghalaya furnished his reply vide Annexure-7 letter dated 19.2.2008. By the said letter, it was conveyed that the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in History department in St. Edmunds' College could not be approved in view of the fact that the reservation policy of the State Government was applicable in the matter of appointment of teaching staff. 4. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition claiming the aforesaid relief. Be it stated here that the petitioner after serving the college for the aforesaid period has left the same for his appointment elsewhere. Be it further stated here that along with the petitioner, one Shri Ratnadeep Roy was also appointed as Lecturer in Physics Department in the same college, following the same procedure as in the case of the petitioner. In his case also, same plea was taken towards non-granting of approval of the appointment made by the college authority. 5. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit taking the same plea as in the aforementioned communication. It has been stated that the college was well aware of the State reservation policy and the same having not been followed, the appointment of the petitioner could not be approved. In this connection, they have enclosed the documents pertaining to reservation. 5. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit taking the same plea as in the aforementioned communication. It has been stated that the college was well aware of the State reservation policy and the same having not been followed, the appointment of the petitioner could not be approved. In this connection, they have enclosed the documents pertaining to reservation. They have also enclosed Annexure-R/2 notification dated 26.7.1977 issued by the Government of Meghalaya in the Education Department conveying constitution of the selection committee consisting of the members indicated in the notification for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in all deficit colleges in the State. 6. As per the above notification, a nominee of the State Government is to be included as member of the selection committee. The notification, however, does not provide that non-inclusion of a nominee of the State Government would render selection invalid. This can also be inferred from the fact that by the said notification while indicating the members to be included in the selection committee which include two experts, it was indicated that no selection shall be considered valid unless at least one expert is present. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Government has not cancelled the selection, rather later on, approved the selection of the other incumbent appointed simultaneously along with the petitioner following the same advertisement and in whose selection also, the State Government nominee was absent. 7. In the affidavit, the respondents have also enclosed the letter dated 25.7.2005 addressed to the Principal of the college by which it was instructed that both the candidates i.e. the petitioner and said Shri Ratnadeep Roy should not be entertained/appointed against the sanctioned posts and that no grant should be released in their names pending decision and approval by the Government in the matter. By Annexure-R/6 letter dated 15.6.2007 annexed to the counter affidavit, the Principal of the college was also informed by the office of the Directorate of Higher & Technical Education about the inability to confirm the services of both the incumbents. However, no reason was assigned therein. 8. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit bringing on record the approval of appointment of the other incumbent namely, Dr. Ratnadeep Roy by the Government retrospectively. This was done after the petitioner left the college. Be it stated here that later on, said Shri Roy also left the college. 9. However, no reason was assigned therein. 8. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit bringing on record the approval of appointment of the other incumbent namely, Dr. Ratnadeep Roy by the Government retrospectively. This was done after the petitioner left the college. Be it stated here that later on, said Shri Roy also left the college. 9. I have heard Mr. B.N. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned Advocate General, Meghalaya assisted by Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned State counsel. I have also heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the college i.e. the Respondent No. 5. I have also considered all the relevant materials. 10. When the matter was heard, while the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Manashi Goswami v. State of Assam and Ors., Mr. K. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 5 placed reliance on the decision reported in (2010) 8 SCC 49 (Sindhi Education Society and Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.). 11. According to the petitioner, refusal to grant approval to his appointment is on non-existent ground. On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondents that since the reservation policy was not followed by the college authority, no approval could be accorded to the appointment of the petitioner. 12. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the college in question has been stated to be a minority institution. It has also been stated that the refusal of the State Government to approve appointment has infringed the constitutional right of the institution to administer their institution. In reply to the said statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the respondents have stated that their has been no infringement of the constitutional right of any institution within the State depriving the minority rights since the State Government has no power to interfere with the management of college as far as the Government aided colleges are concerned. 13. From the above stand of the petitioner and the respondents, what has emerged is that there is no denial on the part of the respondents that the Respondent No.5- college is a minority institution and is entitled to constitutional safeguards. It is in this context, Mr. 13. From the above stand of the petitioner and the respondents, what has emerged is that there is no denial on the part of the respondents that the Respondent No.5- college is a minority institution and is entitled to constitutional safeguards. It is in this context, Mr. Paul, learned Counsel representing the college, has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sindhi Education Society (supra), in which the Apex Court observed thus 111. A linguistic minority has constitution and character of its own. A provision of law or a circular, which would be enforced against the general class, may not be enforceable with the same rigours against the minority institution, particularly where it relates to establishment and management of the school. It has been held that founders of the minority institution have faith and confidence in their own committee or body consisting of the persons selected by them. Thus, they could choose their managing committee as well as they have a right to choose its teachers. Minority institutions have some kind of autonomy in their administration. This would entail the right to administer effectively and to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. There is a fine distinction between a restriction on the right of administration and a regulation prescribing the manner of administration. What should be prevented is the maladministration. Just as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character and content of the minority institutions, similarly, regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. 112. Every linguistic minority may have its own social, economic and cultural limitations. It has a constitutional right to conserve such culture and language. Thus, it would have a right to choose teachers, who possess the eligibility and qualifications, as provided, without really being impressed by the fact of their religion and community. Its own limitations may not permit for cultural, economic or other good reasons, to induct teachers from particular class or community. The direction, as contemplated under Rule 64(1)(b), could be enforced against the general or majority category of the government-aided schools but, it may not be appropriate to enforce such condition against linguistic minority schools. This may amount to interference with their right of choice and, at the same time, may dilute their character of linguistic minority. The direction, as contemplated under Rule 64(1)(b), could be enforced against the general or majority category of the government-aided schools but, it may not be appropriate to enforce such condition against linguistic minority schools. This may amount to interference with their right of choice and, at the same time, may dilute their character of linguistic minority. It would be impermissible in law to bring such actions under the cover of equality which in fact, would diminish the very essence of their character or status. Linguistic and cultural compatibility can be legitimately claimed as one of the desirable features of a linguistic minority in relation to selection of eligible and qualified teachers. 113. A linguistic minority institution is entitled to the protection and the right of equality enshrined in the provisions of the Constitution. The power is vested in the State to frame regulations, with an object to ensure better organisation and development of school education and matters incidental thereto. Such power must operate within its limitation while ensuring that does not, in any way, dilutes or impairs the basic character of linguistic minority. Its right to establish and administer has to be construed liberally to bring it in alignment with the constitutional protections available to such communities. 114. The minority society can hardly be compelled to perform acts or deeds which per se would tantamount to infringement of its right to manage and control. In fact, it would tantamount to imposing impermissible restriction. A school which has been established and granted status of a linguistic minority for years, it will not be proper to stop its grant-in-aid for the reason that it has failed to comply with a condition or restriction which is impermissible in law, particularly, when the teachers appointed or proposed to be appointed by such institution satisfy the laid down criteria and/or eligibility conditions. The minority has an inbuilt right to appoint persons, which in its opinion are better culturally and linguistically compatible to the institution. 14. In Mnashi Goswami (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner having worked as an Assistant Teacher she ought to be paid her salaries for the services rendered by her, although her appointment itself was found to be illegal. 15. During the course of hearing, Mr. 14. In Mnashi Goswami (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner having worked as an Assistant Teacher she ought to be paid her salaries for the services rendered by her, although her appointment itself was found to be illegal. 15. During the course of hearing, Mr. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 produced the letter dated 28.8.2008 addressed to the Principal of the college from the office of the Directorate of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya by which the Government approval towards appointment of the other incumbent namely, Ratnadeep Roy as Lecturer in Physics department in St. Edmunds' College was conveyed. As stated above, like that of the petitioner, the said incumbent has also left the college for appointment elsewhere. He has received his salary in UGC scale of pay on the basis of the aforesaid approval conveyed by the Government for the period he served in the college. 16. The only plea advanced by the respondents is that the reservation policy is applicable to the college. However, no where it has been spelt out as to how the petitioner's appointment has transgressed upon the said reservation policy. Another ground later on urged is that in the selection board, the nominee of the State Government was not present. It is on record that the State Government nominee was invited to participate in the selection process, but he did not report. Non-participation of the nominee of the State cannot render the selection invalid. That apart, it is not the case of the respondents that the selection of the petitioner is illegal. The only ground urged towards non-approval of his appointment is that the reservation policy is applicable in the matter of appointment of Lecturer/teaching staff. As noted above, no where it has been spelt out as to in what manner the petitioner's selection and appointment has disturbed the reservation policy of the State. 17. The respondents treated the case of the petitioner at par with the other incumbent namely, Shri Ratnadeep Roy, who was also appointed as Lecturer in Physics department in the college at the same time following the same procedure as was followed in the case of the petitioner. While refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner, there was also refusal in respect of appointment of Shri Ratnadeep Roy. While refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner, there was also refusal in respect of appointment of Shri Ratnadeep Roy. However, later on, as noted above, his appointment has been approved by the Government with effect from the date of his joining. This being the position, the petitioner is also entitled to get consideration by placing him at par with said Ratnadeep Roy, both the cases being exactly identical with the same plea of the respondents. 18. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed directing the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of salary in the UGC scale of pay for the period in question applying the same yardstick and parameters as was applied to the case of Ratnadeep Roy and consistently with the observation made above. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, by passing appropriate order consistently with the observations made above, but at any rate, not later than 31st January, 2011. 19. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, without, however, any order as to costs. Superintendent (Judl.) I have been directed to request you to enlist the following, for delivery of judgment in Single Bench of his Lordship Honble Mr. Justice B.K. Sharma today (03.12.2010) at 2.00 P.M. Petition allowed.