Judgment :- 1. All the above writ appeals are filed by the management of St.Joseph College, Tiruchirapalli, which is a Private Religious Minority College. W.A.No.649 of 2007 is filed against the order passed by the learned singled Judge in W.P.(MD)No.7188 of 2006 dated 24.9.2007 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein (minority college) challenging the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.1785 Education H3 Department dated 5.12.1988 insofar as paragraph 4 Clause 7 is concerned (i.e, Seniormost person in the department shall be designated as Head of the Department in a College). 2. W.A.No.650 of 2007 is filed by the management against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.4882 of 2007 dated 24.9.2007, wherein a direction was issued to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tiruchirapalli, to nominate the first respondent therein as Head of the Department of Physics Department from 1.6.2007. 3. W.A.No.172 of 2008 is also filed by the management of the College challenging the order made in W.P.No.1989 of 2007 dated 8.10.2007 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent in the writ appeal and to direct the management to designate the first respondent as Head of the Department of Commerce. 4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals are as follows: (a)St.Joseph College, Trichy (Autonomous) is an Arts and Science College, established in the year 1844 administered by the Society of St.Joseph College, which is a registered Society bearing registration No.7 of 1907-08. The College is a minority educational institution coming under the purview of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The College is now affiliated to the Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli. (b)The College is conferred with autonomous status by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) had declared the college as "Accredited at the Five Star Level" in the year 2004 and UGC has awarded the status of "Centre for Potential for Excellence" (CPE) in 2004. (c)The College is a Christian Minority College having more than 3,450 students and about 150 teaching staff, apart from non-teaching staff. The college is conducting UG and PG courses, apart from Research and Doctoral courses. It is having 15 departments and each department has a head known as Head of the Department (HOD). (c)The College is a Christian Minority College having more than 3,450 students and about 150 teaching staff, apart from non-teaching staff. The college is conducting UG and PG courses, apart from Research and Doctoral courses. It is having 15 departments and each department has a head known as Head of the Department (HOD). According to the management, the HOD will take care of the day-to-day administration of the department including distribution and allocation of work to the members of the faculty, collection of fees, preparing time tables, organise internal examinations, etc. The HOD will be the ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Studies and College Academic Council. (d)The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.1785 Education (H3) Department, dated 5.12.1988 giving directions to all aided colleges to designate the seniormost person in the department as HOD, irrespective of Ph.D qualification, and that the said designated person will not get any special pay and allowance to that post. The said Government Order is challenged by the management/appellant contending that it is an infringement and interference in the administration of the minority management to run the college with the head and staff of its choice; that it affects the internal autonomy of the institution; that it gives power to the Director of Collegiate Education to designate the seniormost person in the department as HOD in a minority college is not valid; that the Heads of Department is vested with the administration of the entire department like the principal of the college; and that, the management is prevented from designating an eminent person of its choice, etc. (e)Two of the seniormost persons viz., the first respondent in W.A.No.650 of 2007 and 172 of 2008 have filed the respective writ petitions complaining that they have not been designated as HOD of Physics and Commerce. Taking note of the said Government Order as well as the various decisions of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the seniormost staff viz., first respondent in the above writ appeals and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging the Government Order, against which these writ appeals are preferred by the management of the College. 5. 5. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the appellant College management contended that the Government Order was issued to nominate/designate the seniormost person in the department as HOD in Government Colleges/aided colleges and there is no reference about the applicability of the same to minority colleges where the appointing authority is the management and the management alone can designate the HOD. The learned counsel also submitted that HOD post is like the post of the Principal of the College, having administrative responsibility and the choice of designation should be left with the management. By the impugned Government Order the said right of the management is taken away which is an interference in the right of the administration, guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also submitted that even though the Division Bench of this Court earlier upheld the claim of a seniormost lecturer to be designated as HOD, the Government Order was not challenged in that writ petition and therefore the said judgment cannot be applied to these cases, as vires of the Government Order is challenged by the management in this matter. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2011 (1) CTC 162 (The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. The State of Tamil Nadu) and contended that in the said decision the University Grants Commissions direction to constitute a Committee to select staff of the minority colleges has been set aside by this Court and the principle behind the said judgment is equally applicable to the facts of the case as HOD nomination/designation is the issue in these writ appeals. 6. Mr.K.Vellaisamy and Mr.M.Saravanan. learned counsels for the first respondent in W.A.Nos.650/2007 and 172/2008 on the other hand submitted that the seniormost lecturers were also initially selected by the minority management and they are continuously employed in the college without any blemish and so long as their performance is found good by the minority management, they are to be designated as HOD which will confer some status, though not with additional emolument or allowance and it is one of the conditions of service. The impugned order nowhere restricts the right of the management in the administration and it is only a regulation to designate the seniormost person as HOD. The impugned order nowhere restricts the right of the management in the administration and it is only a regulation to designate the seniormost person as HOD. The learned counsels also submitted that conditions of service can also be fixed by the Government as the appellant College is getting cent percentage aid from the Government and therefore the regulations issued by the Government is bound to be followed by the minority management also. The learned counsels also submitted that the admission of students, appointment of Lecturer, selection of the principal are vested with the management and insofar as the designation of HOD is concerned, it is only designation and no selection process arises to exercise the discretion of the minority management and therefore the right of administration is not at all affected and as such the Government Order is not in violation of the Article 30(1) of the constitution of India. The learned counsels heavily relied on the judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2001 (2) CTC 84 (The Principal and Secretary Madras Christian College v. Dr.M.Shams and another) where similar issue regarding the designation of seniormost person as HOD arose and this Court held that even in minority colleges seniormost person should be designated as HOD. The learned counsel ultimately submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is legal and no interference is called for. 7. We have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.649 of 2007. 8. We have considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsels. 9. The point for consideration in these writ appeals are whether the impugned Government order is affecting the rights of the appellant minority management in any manner. 10. The appellant College is governed under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, except certain provisions which are specifically held not applicable. Under the said Act, minority religious college is also covered. Section 15 of the Act states that the University may make regulation, statute or ordinance specifying qualification required for appointment of teachers in any private college and as per Section 15(2), the Government may make rule specifying the qualifications required for appointment to any post other than teachers in any private college. Section 17 empowers the Government to make rules regarding conditions of service. Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Rules, 1976 was framed under Section 53. Section 17 empowers the Government to make rules regarding conditions of service. Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Rules, 1976 was framed under Section 53. Rule 7 provides for payment of grant and Rule 11 deals with conditions of service etc., of Teachers and others in college. 11. The Government Order issued which was impugned in the writ petition filed by the management is based on the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development instructions issued on 17.6.1987, 7.9.1987, 22.7.1988 and 20.9.1988. The relevant clause in the Government order reads as follows: "The Seniormost person in the department of college irrespective of his Ph.D qualification will be nominated and designated as Senior Lecturer/ Selection Grade Lecturer/ Reader/ Head of the Department, by the Director of Collegiate Education and that no special pay will be allowed to that post." This is the only clause challenged by the appellant management. From the perusal of the above clause in the Government Order, it is evident that it is only designation of status as HOD and no selection is involved. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that for designating seniormost person as HOD, no selection procedure is contemplated and the only objection is that discretion of the management to designate any person in the department as HOD, is taken away. Admittedly senior most person to be designated as HOD is also selected and appointed by the management of the minority College initially and his continuance in the college without giving room for any complaint by observing the rules and regulations of the College is not disputed. If any person is unfit to continue as a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Reader, he will not be in a position to continue in the college as disciplinary power is vested with the management. Thus, on any account, a person serving in the minority college alone is to be nominated/designated as HOD. 12.(a)In the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 1389 : (1974) 1 SCC 717 (The Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College SOciety v. State of Gujarat) the Supreme Court listed out the ambit of right to administration in paragraph 19, which reads thus, "19.............. The right to administer is said to consist of four principal matters. First is the right to choose its managing or governing body. The right to administer is said to consist of four principal matters. First is the right to choose its managing or governing body. It is said that the founders of the minority institution have faith and confidence in their own committee or body consisting of persons elected by them. Second is the right to choose its teachers. It is said that minority institutions want teachers to have compatibility with the ideals, aims and aspirations of the institution. Third is the right not to be compelled to refuse admission to students. In other words, the minority institutions want to have the right to admit students of their choice subject to reasonable regulations about academic qualifications. Fourth is the right to use its properties and assets for the benefit of its own institution." (b)In the decision reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 (Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka) the Supreme Court held that reasonable regulations can be laid down by the State Government. Paragraphs 121 reads as follows: "121. The right to administer does not amount to the right to maladminister and the right is not free from regulation. The regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. The regulatory measures can be laid down by the State in the administration of minority institutions." In paragraph 123, the Supreme Court broadly categorised the permissible regulations, which reads thus, "123. Some of the permissible regulations/restrictions governing enjoyment of Article 30(1) of the Constitution are: (i)Guidelines for the efficiency and excellence of educational standards (see Sidhajbhai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1963 SC 540 ), State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial ( (1970) 2 SCC 417 ), and All Saints High Schol v. Government of A.P. ( (1980) 2 SCC 478 ). (ii)Regulations ensuring the security of the services of the teachers or other employees (see Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re ( AIR 1958 SC 956 ) and All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. ( (1980) 2 SCC 478 ). (iii) Introduction of an outside authority or controlling voice in the matter of service conditions of employees (see All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. ( (1980) 2 SCC 478 ). (iii) Introduction of an outside authority or controlling voice in the matter of service conditions of employees (see All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. ( (1980) 2 SCC 478 ). (iv)Framing rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of teachers and employees and their pay and allowances (see State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial ( (1970) 2 SCC 417 ) and All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. ( (1980) 2 SCC 478 ). (v)Appointing a high official with authority and guidance to oversee that rules regarding conditions of service are not violated, but, however, such an authority should not be given blanket, uncanalised and arbitrary powers (see All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. ( (1980) 2 SCC 478 ). (vi)Prescribing courses of study or syllabi or the nature of books (see State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial ( (1970) 2 SCC 417 ) and All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. ( (1980) 2 SCC 478 ). (vii) Regulation in the interest of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like (see Sidhajbhai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1963 SC 540 )." (c)In the decision reported in (1979) 2 SCC 124 (Lily Kurian v. Lewina) in paragraph 36 the Supreme Court held as follows: "36. Protection of the minorities is an article of faith in the Constitution of India. The right to the administration of institutions of minoritys choice enshrined in Article 30(1) means management of the affairs of the institution. That right is, however, subject to the regulatory power of the State. Article 30(1) is not a charter for maladministration; regulation, so that the right to administer may be better exercised for the benefit of the institution, is permissible; but the moment one goes beyond that and imposes, what is in truth, not a mere regulation but an impairment of the right to administer, the Article comes into play and the interference cannot be justified by pleading the interests of the general public; the interests justifying interference can only be the interests of the minority concerned." 13. The purport of the impugned order is to designate the seniormost Lecturer/Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader as HOD as no selection/appointment is involved for designation of the seniormost person as the right of the management to administer the college without interference, which is guaranteed right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is not affected. It is only a regulatory measure taken by the Government to give weightage to the seniority at least at the HOD level. If the seniormost person, who is designated as HOD is not performing his duties and if any dereliction of duty is noticed, it is upto the management to take action against such person and the same is also not curtailed in any manner. Conditions of service to a person in service with some status after a long number of years of service based on seniority is a legitimate expectation and the same is only recognised by the Government Order which is not in any way affecting the rights of the minority management. Seniority plays a vital role in Employees service career, which has to be recognised. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2116 (H.S.Vankani v. State of Gujarat) considered the said issue and in paragraph 25 held thus, "25. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in ones service career. Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in ones chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of ones junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. .........." Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned Government Order, particularly clause 7 is in violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and such regulation will infringe the right of the management is unsustainable. .........." Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned Government Order, particularly clause 7 is in violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and such regulation will infringe the right of the management is unsustainable. 14.(a)Similar issue regarding the right of a Teacher, who is attaining the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year in a minority school, can claim the right of re-employment as a matter of right was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1179, 1242, 1243/1993, 132/1994 AND 14226/1993 and the Division Bench of this Court in the decision dated 6.9.1994. The Division Bench held that the teachers attaining the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year are entitled to claim re-employment even in minority schools, if they are satisfying the general conditions viz., they are physically fit, their character and conduct are good. The Division Bench in its decision relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 1389 (The Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College SOciety v. State of Gujarat) to come to the above conclusion. In the above Supreme Court Judgment it is held that minority institutions under the guise of their right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution cannot claim total immunity from the regulations and laws of the University, if they want affiliation or recognition, but the character of permissible regulation must depend upon their purpose. The Division Bench pointed out that the purpose of the Government Order permitting re-employment is not to impose a new teacher upon the minority institutions receiving aid and it is the very same teacher who has been selected by the private management and continued in their service upto the age of superannuation and has been found fit for further continuation, is directed to be re-employed in order to ensure that the benefit of the service is available to students during the rest of the academic year. The Division Bench ultimately held that the Government order regarding re-employment was reasonable and was merely regulatory in nature. The Division Bench ultimately held that the Government order regarding re-employment was reasonable and was merely regulatory in nature. A professor, who worked in a minority college is entitled to demand reemployment till the end of the academic year was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 1996 WLR 259 (C.Davidthampi Dhas v. The Governing Body of N.M.Christian College, Marthandam & Others), wherein this Court held that re-employment can be claimed as per the Government Order, though the management is a minority college. (b)In the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 311 (Frank Anthony P.S.E. Association v. Union of India) the Supreme Court held thus: "The excellence of the instruction provided by an institution would depend directly on the excellence of the teaching staff and in turn, that would depend on the quality and the contentment of the teachers. Conditions of service pertaining to minimum qualifications of teachers, their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service which ensure security, contentment and decent living standards to teachers and which will consequently enable them to render better service to the institution and the pupils cannot surely be said to be violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.30(1) of the Constitution. The management of minority Educational Institution cannot be permitted under the guise of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.30(1) of the Constitution to oppress or exploit its employees any more than any other private employee. Oppression or exploitation of the teaching staff of an educational institution is bound to lead, inevitably, to discontent and deterioration of the standard of instruction imparted in the institution affecting adversely the object of making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. The management of minority institution cannot complain of invasion of the fundamental right to administer the institution when it denies the members of its staff the opportunity to achieve the very object of Art.30(1) which is to make the institution an effective vehicle of education." (c)In AIR 1992 SC 1630 (St.Stephens College v. The University of Delhi) the Supreme Court held that, ".................... the regulations which may lawfully be imposed as a condition of receiving grant must be directed in making the institution an effective minority institution. The regulation cannot change the character of the minority institution. the regulations which may lawfully be imposed as a condition of receiving grant must be directed in making the institution an effective minority institution. The regulation cannot change the character of the minority institution. Such regulation must satisfy a dual test, the test of reasonableness and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution. It must be conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. It is thus evident that the rights under Article 30(1) remain unaffected even after securing financial assistance from the Government." (d)In T.M.A.Pai Foundation case, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the Supreme Court held that the right conferred on minority institutions under Article 30 is only to ensure quality and there can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks of administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. (e)Any regulation issued without affecting the right of the management to select a candidate for appointment is upheld by this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions reported in AIR 1999 SC 50 (N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School), (2007) 1 SCC 386 (Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T.Jose). In the latter case in paragraph 21 by following the earlier decisions the Supreme Court held that the state can prescribe (i) the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit for making appointments; (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff. It is also made clear, all laws made by the State to regulate the administration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes in any other manner, such regulations to that extent will be inapplicable to minority institutions. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes in any other manner, such regulations to that extent will be inapplicable to minority institutions. The said cases dealt with selection of Principal or Headmaster of an institution and the Supreme Court held that such power is vested with the management as the Principal/Headmaster post is of primary importance, who will be the head of the institution responsible for the functional efficiency as well as the quality of education and discipline in the institution. He is also responsible for maintaining philosophy and objects of the institution. 15. In this case, as noticed by us, the impugned Government Order is recognising the right of a seniormost person in the department to be nominated and designated as Seniormost Lecturer/Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader/Head of the Department. It is undoubtedly a condition of service to persons, who are in service in the minority college and in other words, it is recognition of right to the staff serving in the very same minority college to enjoy certain status without any monitory benefit. The impugned order was issued by the Government to prevent maladministration and it is intended to promote the excellence of education of the minority college itself. Therefore, it is only regulatory in nature and not in any way interference with the rights of the minority management. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the HOD is to be involved in academic matters including decision making. Merely because the seniormost person is designated as HOD/Seniormost Lecturer/Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader, the management is not prevented from getting the views of other staff members regarding any aspect including academic matters and the collective view of the staff shall be taken into consideration without depending upon the view expressed by the HOD/Seniormost person. Hence the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in that respect has no substance. 17. The learned single Judge considered all these aspects and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the management and allowed the writ petition filed by the seniormost lecturers for designation. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings given by the learned single Judge. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge are confirmed. There is no order as to costs. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings given by the learned single Judge. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge are confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.