JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition is seeking for a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Headmaster in the 7th respondent School. Admittedly, the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.7.2012 and thanks to the order obtained by him from this Court in W.P.No.20466 of 2012 dated 26.11.2012 and he is continuing on reemployment basis. He has to be relieved on 31.5.2013 as the reemployment period will come to an end as it is the end of the academic year. It is at this juncture, the petitioner is now seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School. 2. It is not clear as to how such a request is maintainable when the petitioner had reached the normal age of superannuation and his services are utilized only on reemployment basis. In any event when the petitioner earlier filed two Writ Petitions being W.P.Nos.1780 of 2012 and 8619 of 2012, they were disposed of by a common order dated 4.7.2012. In the common order, it was recorded that the School in which the petitioner is working, is a linquistic minority School and the power of appointment of the Headmaster in such School solely vests with the Management. The petitioner challenged the order by filing two Writ Appeals being W.A.Nos.2795 and 2796 of 2012. However, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 7.1.2013 dismissed the Writ Appeal and in paragraph No.6, it is stated as follows: "6. On going through the entire materials placed on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the learned single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that as the School happens to be a linguistic minority Institution and the Management was not made as a party respondent to the proceedings to take action as per the report of the District Educational Officer, Chennai South, dated 25.2.2010, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable and the said order requires no interference." 3. Once it is accepted that it is the Minority School, the power of appointing the Headmaster or the Principal as the case may be vests solely with the educational agency running the said School, as the School is having a right under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, which guarantees complete autonomy in the matter of internal administration of the School. In such a set up, the question of this Court interfering with the power of the appointment does not arise. 4. The position of law has been made clear by the Supreme Court in more than one decisions and it is only to necessary to cite only two decisions, namely, (i) N.AMMAD vs. Emjay High School reported in 1998(6) SCC 674 and (ii)The Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School vs. J. Rabinson Jacob reportedin 1998(3) MLJ 595 . 5. In the light of the same, there is no case made out. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.