Judgment :- The Writ Petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the appointment of fifth respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as P. G. Assistant (Tamil) and confer all the consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner is qualified in M.A.(Tamil) and she also had B.Ed Degree. She had joined as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the fourth respondent management school on 24.9.1979 and posted to various schools under the control of the fourth respondent. When a post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) fell vacant in the fourth respondent management school due to retirement of an incumbent, one Tmt. Xavier on 31.5.2007, the petitioner working in the same school made a representation to the management requesting the management to promote her as P.G. Assistant Teacher in Tamil on 11.4.2007. She also claims to be the senior most B.T. Assistant Teacher in Tamil and she is having all qualifications required for appointment to the post and there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against her, and that apart, it is also her case, she also belongs to Christian minority community. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering her name, the fourth respondent school which is admittedly a minority institution has appointed the fifth respondent as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil. It is in those circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the relief sought for, namely, to cancel the appointment of fifth respondent contending inter alia that under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, while making promotion, the school has to give preferential right to the qualified persons who are working in the same school and only if such teachers are not available in the same school, it can go for further methods of appointment of persons who are qualified and working as teachers in other schools or by direct recruitment. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent management having not followed the procedures contemplated under Rule 15(4) has violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 and accordingly, fifth respondent's appointment is illegal and liable to be set aside. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent management having not followed the procedures contemplated under Rule 15(4) has violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 and accordingly, fifth respondent's appointment is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is also the case of the petitioner that simply because the fourth respondent claims minority status that does not mean that they can bypass the statutory provisions established, and the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974. It is the further case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent being 100% financed by the government, it cannot under the garb of claiming minority status go against the State's statutory rules. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has stated that the fourth respondent is owning and administering 120 educational institutions in the District of Sivagangai and Ramnad and all the institutions are the Christian minority educational institutions as per the terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and one among the said institutions, is the Sacred Heart's Higher Secondary School. It is also stated that the Schools under the control of the fourth respondent, which were originally under the Madurai Arch Diocese before bifurcation, were recognised as minority institutions in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India in the order of the High Court, Madras in W.P.No.590 of 1975 dated 24.9.1976. Even after bifurcation in 1987, the minority status of the fourth respondent institution continues. While admitting that the petitioner was working as B.T. Assistant Teacher in Tamil in the fourth respondent school, when a Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil fell vacant on 1.6.2007 due to retirement of superannuation of the then incumbent, Tmt. S. Xavier on 31.5.2007, it is stated that the fifth respondent has been appointed in the said vacancy on 8.6.2007. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent management has considered the eligible candidates available in its school including the writ petitioner as well as the teachers working in other schools under the Diocese to fill up the said vacancy. After over all assessment of the candidates, based on merit and ability, the fifth respondent was found to be suitable and hence appointed her as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil with effect from 8.6.2007. After over all assessment of the candidates, based on merit and ability, the fifth respondent was found to be suitable and hence appointed her as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil with effect from 8.6.2007. It is stated that the fifth respondent has been working in the school ever since the date of her appointment. It is also stated that the fifth respondent was working in another school for 7 years under the same Diocese in Karaikudi and she is fully qualified for appointment as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil and she also possess B.Lit (Tamil), M.A.(Tamil) and B.Ed Degree. It is also stated that the Education Department has approved the appointment of the fifth respondent as it is seen in the proceedings of the third respondent dated 11.10.2007. The comparison of qualifications between the petitioner and the fifth respondent is also explained by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit to the effect that while the fifth respondent has passed B.Lit Degree in First Class in 1992, M.A., First Class in 2001, and B.Ed, First Class in 1993, the petitioner has passed her B.Lit Degree, III Class in 1977, M.A., II Class in 1990 and B.Ed., II Class in 1986 and it is also stated that while the fifth respondent has done her B.Ed Degree in the regular course, the writ petitioner has done the same through Correspondence Course. Therefore, according to the fourth respondent, on over all assessment of the qualifications between the petitioner and the fifth respondent and other qualified persons, the management has found the fifth respondent is more suitable and more meritorious candidate than the petitioner and therefore, the appointment of the fifth respondent cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. Further, it is the case of the fourth respondent that the institution being a minority institution, Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 and the method of promotion is not applicable to it. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the educational authorities, who have approved the appointment of the fifth respondent have also stated that Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 is not applicable to the minority institutions. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the educational authorities, who have approved the appointment of the fifth respondent have also stated that Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 is not applicable to the minority institutions. Even though the minority institutions are bound by some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 and the rules framed there under relating to the qualification of teachers to be appointed, staff and students' strength, yet, in respect of the other regulations, it is for the minority institutions to enjoy the fundamental right given under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India to propound the method of its own which should not be arbitrary. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. Panneerselvam, would contend that when once the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 is established, Rule 15 (4) contemplates a method to be adopted for the purpose of promotion and, the fourth respondent school, even though it is a minority institution, inasmuch as it is fully financially aided by the Government, it is incumbent on the part of the fourth respondent to follow the said rule. If the said rule had been scrupulously followed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner would have been given a preferential right and considered and appointed to the post of Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil. Inasmuch as there is a statutory violation committed by the fourth respondent, according to Mr. Panneerselvam, learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of the fifth respondent has no legs to stand. To substantiate his contention, he would rely upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M. Chelladoraiv. Joint Director of School Education & others reported in 2003 Writ L.R.304. In that judgment, the learned single Judge, while dealing with Rule 15(4) has held based on some of the observations in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 , if vacancy arises for promotion, even in a minority school, the procedure contemplated under Rule 15(4) has to be followed. The learned counsel has also submitted that a Division Bench of this court has also confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. The learned counsel has also submitted that a Division Bench of this court has also confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. He also elaborately referred to various paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors cited supra and insists that even in case of minority institutions as long as they are financed by the government, there is a duty imposed on the minority institutions to follow the regulations framed by the State insofar as it does not offend the fundamental right to establish and administer the educational institutions granted to the minority institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. 7. Per contra, it is the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, that in the first instance, the rule, which has been relied on by the petitioner, namely, Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, is not applicable to the minority institutions. The fourth respondent being a minority institution, as per the decision of the High Court, it is open to the fourth respondent to make appointment of teachers of its choice provided such teacher appointed is well qualified as per the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 and the appointment of the teacher is within the sanctioned strength. According to him, except in regulating financial aspect, as financed by the Government, including the audit of the amount and the manner by which the amount was spent, the Government has no power to interfere with the right of administration of the educational institutions since such power has been given as fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. He also relied upon the latest judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Eka Ratchargar Sabai Higher Secondary School, rep. by its Correspondent, Tuticorin District and others v. K. Sumathi and Another reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 322 . He has specifically referred to various Paragraphs of the Judgment wherein the Division Bench has, in fact, dealt with the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and specifically held that Rule 15 (4) is not applicable to the minority institutions and to arrive at such conclusion, various paragraphs in the judgment of TMA Pai Foundations' case has also been relied on. 8. Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent also relied on a few more judgment of a Division Bench of this Court including the judgment referred in A. Belavendranvs. 1. The Joint Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai and 4 others reported in [ 2010 (1) CWC 343 ] wherein the Division Bench has also referred to the judgment of the learned single Judge in M. Chelladoraiv. Joint Director of School Education & others reported in 2003 Writ L.R.304 and ultimately, came to the conclusion that Rule 15(4) of the Rules will not be applicable to the minority institutions. He also referred to another Division Bench judgment of this Court, to which, I am a party, viz., T. SanjeevaRao Vs. The Director of School Education & another reported in 2012 Writ L.R.463, to substantiate his contention that the right of the minority institution to establish and administer the institution of its choice is conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and rules framed there under does not confer any right to the Government to interfere with its right directly or indirectly. It is his submission that in another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. The State of Tamil Nadu [ 2011 (1) CTC 162 ], the right of minority institution has been explained in detail. 9. I this further submission that even assuming that Rule 15(4) is applicable to minority institution, on the facts of this case, even though the petitioner has been working in the same school, it is not a matter of right of promotion but she is entitled only for consideration. In fact, the petitioner was considered along with other eligible candidates and ultimately based on merits and ability, the institution came to the conclusion in selecting the fifth respondent. He would submit that the consideration of the petitioner and the fifth respondent was on proper basis since the institution has decided that the fifth respondent, who had obtained her B.Ed Degree Course on regular stream, is better suitable than the petitioner who had obtained her B.Ed Degree Course by Correspondence Course. In this regard, he also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.Siluvi Rajan Vs. In this regard, he also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.Siluvi Rajan Vs. Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6 and 4 others [2000 (III) CTC 242] wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that if the minority institution has made a comparitive assessment of two candidates and thereupon, selected a person then Rule 15(4) cannot be a bar for the institution to choose the candidate of its own candidate. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader would also contend in line with the contention of the learned appearing for the fourth respondent, Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, that it being a minority institution, the fourth respondent school, is vested with the power conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the selection of the fifth respondent by the fourth respondent school cannot be said to be illegal and especially, when it is approved by the educational authorities. There is no arbitrariness or mala fied in the appointment of the fifth respondent. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, it prompted the educational authorities to approve the appointment of the fifth respondent. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and have given my anxious though to the issue involved in this case. 12. At the outset, as it is narrated above, there cannot be any dispute about the minority status of the fourth respondent school not only due to reason that the High Court has specifically declared but also the fourth respondent institution when it was in the combination under the Madurai District as a minority institution and the status of minority institution has been continued even after the bifurcation. I am of the considered view that the status of minority is only a declaration of the existing fact. When the Government, which is authorised to declare a person as a minority, it is not as if the Government has conferred the status of a minority of a person. The Government is only recognising the minority status which is already available in it. When an institution belongs to Christian or Muslim community is established and administered, the conferment of status of minority and the protection of its right is under the Constitution of India by virtue of declaration by the State Government or Central Government. The Government is only recognising the minority status which is already available in it. When an institution belongs to Christian or Muslim community is established and administered, the conferment of status of minority and the protection of its right is under the Constitution of India by virtue of declaration by the State Government or Central Government. Constitutional right which is already available is only recognised by the State Government and it is that recognition, which has been conferred in respect of the fourth respondent by the High Court in its order. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Panneerselvam, learned counsel for the petitioner doubting about the status of minority is not sustainable. 13. Insosfar as the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, contemplates certain methods for promotion in respect of aided schools, Rule 15(4) reads as follows:- (4) (i) Promotion shall be made on ground of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. (ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the following methods:- (i) Promotion from among the qualfiied teachers in that school (ii) If no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method (i) above- (a) Appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers (b) Appointment of teachers from any other school; (c) Direct recruitment. In the case of appointment from any other school or by direct recruitment, the school committee shall obtain the prior permission of the District Educational Officer in respect of Pre-primary, Primary and Middle School and that of the Chief Educational Officer in respect of High Schools and Higher Secondary schools, Teachers' Training Institutions setting out the reasons for such Schools, Teachers' Training Institutions setting out the reasons for such appointment. In respect of corporate body running more than one school, the schools under that body shall be treated as one unit for purpose of this rule." 14. The Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 cannot be said to be not applicable to minority institutions as a whole. It is only some provisions which impinge upon the constitutional right given to the minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and it is those provisions which are not applicable to the minority institutions. The Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 cannot be said to be not applicable to minority institutions as a whole. It is only some provisions which impinge upon the constitutional right given to the minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and it is those provisions which are not applicable to the minority institutions. Therefore, one cannot say that the entire provisions of The Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 as well as rules framed there under are not applicable to the minority institutions at all. 15. The question is while promoting the teacher, the method formulated by Rule 15(4) of The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 is applicable to the minority institution or not? 16. At the outset, Rule 15(4)(i) enumerated above makes it very clear that the promotion is on the basis of merit and ability, seniority will be only secondary in cases where merit and ability of candidates are equal. Therefore, in the light of Rule 15 (4)(i) of the Rules, one cannot claim promotion either as automatic or as a matter of right. It is ultimately for the authority to promote as per the rule to decide about the merit and ability. The manner in which the ability has to be assessed is decided by the authority as well as the authority empowered under law in its exercise. It is certainly not for the Court to interfere and to say that some other candidate is better qualified simply because there are two opinion, to substitute its won view. On the factual matrix, it is the categorical case of the fourth respondent, who has admitted that the petitioner has been working in the same school as B.T. Assistant Teacher in Tamil and the fourth respondent has considered the name of the petitioner and also other eligible teachers in the other schools and having considered that the fifth respondent even though she was not working in the same school and working in some other Diocese is better suitable and has come to the conclusion that the fifth respondent is more meritorious and having ability, she was appointed. 17. 17. In such view of the matter, when once the petitioner has been considered as it is averred by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit and the petitioner cannot have as a matter of right to be promoted as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Tamil, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 15(4) of the Rules has not been followed has no basis at all. This is apart from the fact that Rule 15(4) in my considered view is not applicable to the minority institution as per the long established and judicial precedence. 18. Insofar as it relates to the protection of rights of the minority institutions to establish and administer the educational institutions, Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which is as follows makes it clear that in respect of establishing and administering the institution, the rights of minority is absolute. "30. Right to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions-(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice." 19. Nature of the minority right came to be analysed in the hierarchy of judgment and ultimately, while holding that right of establishing and administering educational institutions for the minorities being a fundamental right, is absolute, various clarifications have been issued to the effect that if it relates to the uniform qualification of teachers to be appointed in such institutions and in the event of any other authority competent of imposing certain qualification, the requirement of certain qualification to be followed for teachers to be appointed cannot be said to offend the right of the minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Likewise, if the Government decides to have uniform standard in selecting the teachers, such restriction would not offend the rights conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It was in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case cited supra, the Supreme Court has raised certain questions and answered the same. In Paragraph 161 of the judgment, the question that was raised in Question No.5-(a) relates to the applicability of the procedure and method of admission. It was answered that administration would not mean mal-administration and the procedure which can be followed by the minority is independent except that the same should be transparent and acceptable procedure. In Paragraph 161 of the judgment, the question that was raised in Question No.5-(a) relates to the applicability of the procedure and method of admission. It was answered that administration would not mean mal-administration and the procedure which can be followed by the minority is independent except that the same should be transparent and acceptable procedure. Again, under the same paragraph, while answering the question regarding the right of minority institutions to admit students as to whether any procedure laid down by the Government could be made applicable to the minority institutions, it was held that in respect of the minority institutions obtaining aid from the Government, the authority can always prescribe bylaw or regulation based on which admission should be made including the policy of reservation. It was also opined that to find out merit among the students, there can be either a common entrance test or counselling on the basis of entrance test conducted by the individual institutions. Likewise, Question No.5(c), which alone relates to the administration, as the entire judgment predominantly deals with the administration procedures as framed by the Supreme Court which is as follows:- "Q5(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 Principal including their service conditions and regulation of fees, etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities? 20. The answer given by the Hon'ble Apex Court insofar as it relates to the regulation of the Government regarding the promotion, employment of teachers including the post of principal etc., regulatory should be minimal in character and insofar as it relates it could be the administration of the management of the institution like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching staff and there should not be any external controlling agency. For the better appreciation of the views expressed by the Supreme Court, it is relevant to extract the answer given in the said question, which is as follows: 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 an university or board have to be complied with, but in the mater of day-to- day management like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, 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. For redressing the grievances of employees of aided and unaided institutions who are subjected to punishment or termination from service, a mechanism will have to be evolved, and in our opinion, appropriate tribunals could be constituted, and till then, such tribunals could be presided over by a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge. The State or other controlling authorities, however, can always prescribe the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher or a principal of any educational institution. Regulations can be framed governing service conditions for teaching and other staff for whom aid is provided by the state, without interfering with the overall administrative control of the management over the staff. Fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee." (emphasis supplied) 21. While explaining about the scope of the minority institutions' right including Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, it is narrated in clear terms that mere grant of monetary assistance does not give right to the State to deal with or prejudice the right of the minority institution conferred under the constitution even though such condition made be enforceable if it relates to the qualification of teachers etc., as it is stated in Paragraph 143 of the said judgment which is as follows:- "143. This means that the right under Article 30(1) implies that any grant that is given by the state to the minority institution cannot have such conditions attached to it, which will in any way dilute or abridge the rights of the minority institution to establish and administer that institution. The conditions that can normally be permitted to be imposed, on the educational institutions receiving the grant, must be related to the proper utilization of the grant and fulfillment of the objectives of the grant. Any such secular conditions so laid, such as a proper audit with regard to the utilization of the funds and the manner in which the funds are to be utilized, will be applicable and would not dilute the minority status of the educational institutions. Such conditions would be valid if they are also imposed on other educational institutions receiving the grant." 22. In fact, while deciding about the minority institution's right, considering the requirement of approval from the Government for removing of a teacher in the minority institution, I had an occasion to sit with M.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, J, presiding in a Division Bench in T. SanjeevaRao v. The Director of School Education & another reported in 2012 Writ L.R.463. While deciding about the obligation of school under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 to constitute a school committee for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against the teaching and non-teaching staff, wherein we have held by referring to the paragraph 143 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case cited supra to come to the conclusion that imposing of condition on minority institution to constitute a school committee to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the teacher would amount to interference with fundamental rights of minority institution to administer the educational institution of its choice guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 23. 23. In yet another judgment of a Division Bench of this court in A.Belavendran'scase cited supra, PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J as Her Lordship then was, while referring to the judgment of the learned single Judge relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, M. Chelladorai'scase cited supra, while holding that the learned single Judge's view that Rule 15(4) of the Rules is applicable to minority institutions also is not acceptable by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Malankara Syrain Catholic College v. T.Jose and others reported in 2007 (1) SCC 386 , which dealt with appointment of Principal under the Kerala University Act, has held in clear terms that the said rule is not applicable in respect of the minority institution by declaring that the principles laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case cited supra has been crystallised in P.A. Inamdarand others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC, which is again reiterated in Secretary, Malankara Syrain Catholic College's case cited supra. 24. In yet another judgment, P.K.Misra, J sitting with S.K. Krishnan, J in EkaRatchagar Sabai Higher Secondary School's case cited supra, while specifically referring to the judgment of the learned single Judge in M. Chelladorai's cited supra relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, held in the light of the T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case cited supra and also judgment in Secretary, Malankara Syrain Catholic College's case cited supra, that discretion of the management in appointing teachers of its choice cannot be curtailed through the process of regulations and other executive instructions and such restriction would violate the constitutional guarantee given to the minority institutions under article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Further, the Division Bench has also specifically held that there is no scope for applying the provisions laid down in Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 in the following paragraphs:- "14. As observed in TMA Pai Foundation's case, essential ingredients of the management including admission of students and recruitment of staff, cannot be regulated. It is of course true that the earlier decision of the single Judge in M. Chelladorai's case, which we have already noticed, also purported to rely upon the observations made in TMA Pai Foundation's case. As observed in TMA Pai Foundation's case, essential ingredients of the management including admission of students and recruitment of staff, cannot be regulated. It is of course true that the earlier decision of the single Judge in M. Chelladorai's case, which we have already noticed, also purported to rely upon the observations made in TMA Pai Foundation's case. However, now that the matter has been decided by the Supreme Court in (2007) 1 SCC 386 after referring to other earlier decisions, we do not think that the interpretation given earlier by different learned single Judges of this Court can hold good. The necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the discretion of the Management to appoint teacher of its own choice (of course a teacher who is otherwise qualified and eligible as per the prescribed regulations) cannot be curtailed through the process of rules, regulations or other executive instructions as such rules, regulations or executive instructions would violate the right of the minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 15. Judged in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in (2007) 1 SCC 386 (supra), the provisions which lay down qualification for appointment of teachers are obviously required to be followed; whereas the procedure contemplated in Rule 15(4) of the Rules severely constricting the scope of the discretion of the Management in appointment of teachers and confining the same to a particular source would be violative of Article 30(1). Therefore, such provisions are not required to be followed by the minority institutions. In view of the above, we cannot agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge under the impugned judgment and such decision is liable to be over-turned. 16. Even assuming that Rule 15(4) of the Rules is applicable and therefore the Management had to follow such procedure, there is no requirement in the Rule nor there is any judicial pronouncement laying down that promotion has to be made only on the basis of seniority. As indicated in the Rule itself, only when a suitable candidate possess the qualification is available from the staff, his case can be considered. In the present case, the Management had given an option to Respondent No.1 to participate in the interview. This was obviously with a view to assess the merit of Respondent No.1. As indicated in the Rule itself, only when a suitable candidate possess the qualification is available from the staff, his case can be considered. In the present case, the Management had given an option to Respondent No.1 to participate in the interview. This was obviously with a view to assess the merit of Respondent No.1. It is no doubt true that simultaneously the Management had also given opportunity to outsiders to participate in the interview. But, merely because of that, it cannot be said that inservice candidates' right had been violated. It is quite possible to hold that the Management in order to avoid delay may think of simultaneously interviewing inservice candidates along with the outsiders and when inservice candidate is found meritorious, such candidate is required to be preferred where Rule 15(4) is applicable. However, merely because such candidate is being interviewed along with other outsiders may not be a factor to vitiate the selection. 25. Further, in the said case, while dealing with the manner in which the promotion was made, the Division Bench has found that, in fact, there was a comparison of assessment made by the management while choosing a candidate and ultimately held that even if assuming that Rule 15(4) of the Rules is applicable when once the management has considered the case of the individuals who are eligible and made comparative assessment, the Courts are not competent to interfere with such selection by substituting their own view. In Paragraph No.17, it has been held as follows:- "17. In the present case, the learned single Judge has given a direction for appointment of Respondent No.1. Even assuming that Rule 15(4) of the Rules would have been applicable, in that case, the Management could have been directed to hold a fresh selection and under no circumstances a positive direction could have been issued for giving appointment to Respondent No.1 without assessment of her merit by the competent authority, namely, the Management. It is no doubt true that the learned single Judge has referred to the so called merit of Respondent No.1, but that was a matter which was required to be left to the Management to assess and the Court obviously should not have substituted its own wisdom." 26. It is no doubt true that the learned single Judge has referred to the so called merit of Respondent No.1, but that was a matter which was required to be left to the Management to assess and the Court obviously should not have substituted its own wisdom." 26. In yet another case of a Division Bench in M. Siluvi Rajan v. Director of School Education's case cited supra, while dealing with the applicability of Rule 15 (4) of the Rules, regarding the exercise of the power of the management in deciding the suitable candidates when there was a comparison of assessment made between various candidates and management by considering one candidate who is better placed and better suitable, S. Jegadeesan, J, His Lordship then was held that in such event, Rule 15 (4) cannot be exercised by the Court to interfere in such manner of appointment, which are held in Paragraph No.5 is as follows:- "5. It is for us now to consider whether it is condition precedent to call for the applications from the outsiders that the management has to come to the conclusion that there is no existing qualifying hand in the school. Even for the purpose of arguments, we accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant herein we are of the view that, management calls for the applications from the outsiders that itself would show a prima facie conclusion on the part of the management that the existing staff is not qualified even if qualified, he is not suitable candidate. Even otherwise, in the interest of institution of provide good education, it is always open to the institution to select a better qualified person by calling for the applications for a comparative study. If any better and suitable candidates are available, the management cannot be forced to give a promotion tot he existing candidate by virtue of the seniority alone. Rule 15(4) makes it clear that the promotions shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. 6. In the case on hand, the qualification of the appellant is M.A. in Economics (Postal), B.Ed (History), whereas fifth respondent is having M.A. in Economics (Regular Course), B.Ed.,(Economics). The regular course would certainly be preferred for a candidate who obtained the Post Graduate Degree by postal study. 6. In the case on hand, the qualification of the appellant is M.A. in Economics (Postal), B.Ed (History), whereas fifth respondent is having M.A. in Economics (Regular Course), B.Ed.,(Economics). The regular course would certainly be preferred for a candidate who obtained the Post Graduate Degree by postal study. Apart from this, when the fifth respondent is having a B.Ed. In Economic, the appellant is having B.Ed. In History. When the vacancy of the P.G. Assistant is with regard to the Economics subject, there is nothing wrong on the part of the fourth respondent in selecting the fifth respondent as better qualified person who is possessing degrees of the requirement subject. 27. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Panneerselvam, by relying on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in B. Devashanthiniv. The Director of School Education, Chennai and 7 others reported in 2010 (2) CWC 757, to substantiate his contention that procedure has not been followed by the fourth respondent, is not helpful to the case of the petitioner at all. What was held by the Division Bench of this Court in that case was that while promotion vests with the management, it is the rational procedure that is to be followed by the management that was a view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case cited supra wherein it is categorically held that to establish and administer the institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, was not mala fide and it is only based on that rationale, the Division Bench held that it is not open to the Courts to decide and find as to whether the procedure adopted in minority institutions in the selection of candidates is rational. On the factual matrix of the case, I do not find any irrational on the part of the fourth respondent. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 28. Therefore, looking at any angle, as submitted by Mr. On the factual matrix of the case, I do not find any irrational on the part of the fourth respondent. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 28. Therefore, looking at any angle, as submitted by Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, as per the latest decision of this Court in The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associatins v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011 (1) CTC 162 , after analysing the entire case laws on the issue regarding the minority institutions' right, has held that not only the right conferred on the minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India is an absolute right but also one of the basic structures of the constitution. Paragraph No.62 of the judgment is as follows:- "62. The right of Minority Institutions under Article 30 is absolute right being basic structure of the Constitution and therefore, any regulation interfering with the right of administration would not be applicable to the Minority Institutions, being violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India." 29. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the appointment of the fifth respondent and also the right of the fourth respondent in promoting the fifth respondent as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil. 30. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.