JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner who is the Manager of Thendaparamba Lower Primary School in Kannur District has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director of Education, Kannur and Ext.P9 show cause notice dated 20.09.2017 issued by the said respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Ext.P2 order of the 2nd espondent is without any authority of law and hence illegal; and also a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 order dated 27.02.2018 of the 2nd respondent. 2. On 16.03.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 4th respondent. This Court has also granted an interim stay of operation and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 order dated 27.02.2018 for a period of three weeks. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 3. A counter affidavit dated 02.04.2018 has been filed by the 4th respondent opposing the relief’s sought for in the writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 08.04.2018. 4. On 21.05.2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to produce before this Court a copy of the order, whereby the 4th respondent was deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Kannur BRC. Thereafter, on 23.05.2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to produce a copy of the order issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Wayanad dated 26.07.2012 and that issued by the 2nd respondent dated 30.10.2014, along with an application to accept additional documents. Pursuant to the said order, those orders are placed on record, along with an affidavit of the 2nd respondent, by filing I.A.No.9811 of 2018 for accepting additional documents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 are legally unsustainable, since he has not disobeyed any lawful orders issued by the educational authorities. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 are legally unsustainable, since he has not disobeyed any lawful orders issued by the educational authorities. The learned counsel would also contend that, the 2nd respondent has absolutely no authority to order re-appointment of the 4th respondent as Lower Primary School Assistant, in the vacancy which had arisen on account of the promotion of Sri Noufal as the Headmaster of the school and that, the school being a minority institution the petitioner is the absolute authority regarding appointments to be made in that school. The learned counsel would point out that, the petitioner has only acted in terms of Ext.P8 Government circular dated 06.11.2012 by offering re-appointment to the 4th respondent as LPSA on daily wages. 7. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent would point out that, it was on account of denial of re-appointment to the 4th respondent, despite Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.07.2017, and also the subsequent directions of the educational authorities, that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules for disqualification from manager ship. Ext.P8 circular dated 06.11.2012 will not stand in the way of re-appointment of a protected teacher, who was thrown out for want of vacancy in the parent school. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would point out further that, in Ext.R4(a) letter dated 12.01.2017 of the Director of Public Instructions, it has been made clear that protected teachers under Teachers Package, who are appointed as Cluster Co-ordinators, shall be re-appointed in the parent school if there are vacancies in that school during the academic year 2016-17. Since the teachers appointed as Cluster Co-ordinators through Teachers Package fall under the category of protected teachers, in order to re-appoint such teachers in the parent school, once there are vacancies, no order of appointment by the Managers or approval for such appointment need be insisted. 8. Since the teachers appointed as Cluster Co-ordinators through Teachers Package fall under the category of protected teachers, in order to re-appoint such teachers in the parent school, once there are vacancies, no order of appointment by the Managers or approval for such appointment need be insisted. 8. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the school managed by the petitioner is an aided school imparting elementary education from Standard I to V. The school is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (for brevity, 'the Act') and the rules made there under, i.e., the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for brevity, 'KER') and also the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 9. The 4th respondent was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant (for brevity, 'LPSA') in the school managed by the petitioner, with effect from 01.06.2007, against a regular vacancy. In the year 2010, on account of shortage of students, the 4th respondent, being the junior most teacher, was retrenched from service, with effect from 15.07.2010, as per the staff fixation order for that academic year. The 4th respondent was included in the Teachers Bank introduced by the 1st respondent State for protected teachers. 10. The 4th respondent was deployed as Cluster Resource Coordinator, BRC Sulthan Bathery, vide Ext.R2(a) order dated 26.07.2012 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Wayanad. Though, as evident from Ext.P1 list of protected teachers and non-teaching staff in the Teachers Bank of Kannur district, the 4th respondent was included as Sl.No.296, she was deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator, BRC Sulthan Bathery since there was no vacancy of Cluster Co-ordinator in Kannur district. Later, when there occurred vacancy of Cluster Co-ordinator in Kannur district, the 2nd respondent Deputy Director by Ext.R2(b) order dated 30.10.2014 re-deployed the 4th respondent as Cluster Co-ordinator, BRC Kannur North. As per Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) orders, a protected teacher who is deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator is entitled to re-appointment in the parent school as and when a vacancy arises in that school. As per G.O.(Ms.)No.177/2012/G.Edn. dated 05.06.2012, on deployment as Cluster Co-ordinator, the protected teacher is eligible only for entry pay in the relevant scale of pay. 11. On 31.03.2017, the Headmistress of Thendaparamba Lower Primary School retired from service on superannuation. The petitioner promoted the senior most teacher, namely, Sri Noufal, as the Headmaster, resulting in a consequential vacancy of LPSA. As per G.O.(Ms.)No.177/2012/G.Edn. dated 05.06.2012, on deployment as Cluster Co-ordinator, the protected teacher is eligible only for entry pay in the relevant scale of pay. 11. On 31.03.2017, the Headmistress of Thendaparamba Lower Primary School retired from service on superannuation. The petitioner promoted the senior most teacher, namely, Sri Noufal, as the Headmaster, resulting in a consequential vacancy of LPSA. According to the petitioner, since the school is an uneconomic school, the vacancy of LPSA that has occurred on account of the promotion granted to Sri Noufal could not be filled up by appointing a regular hand. Therefore, the petitioner proposed that the 4th respondent can be appointed on daily wages. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017, whereby the 4th respondent was ordered to be re-appointed as LPSA in the school. By the said order, the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer and also the Block Programme Officer, Kannur North were directed to take necessary steps, so as to enable the 4th respondent to rejoin duty as LPSA in the petitioner's school. 12. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent is one issued without notice to him and that, the said order was also not initially communicated to him. By Ext.P3 notice dated 21.07.2017 (wrongly dated as 21.07.2016), the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner about a complaint made by the 4th respondent dated 21.07.2017, regarding non-compliance of Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017 of the 2nd respondent. In the said complaint, it was alleged that despite Ext.P2 order, the petitioner did not permit the 4th respondent to rejoin duty as LPSA in Thendaparamba Lower Primary School. On receipt of Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply dated 24.07.2017, wherein it was pointed out that, if the 4th respondent is a claimant under Rule 51A, Chapter XIVA of KER and a post is vacant as per the staff fixation order, he has no difficulty in appointing the 4th respondent, provided she makes necessary application under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER. 13. In Ext.P4 reply, the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent Deputy Director of Education has no authority to appoint any teacher under his management, as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules made there under, and that, as Manager of the School, he is bound to obey only lawful orders of the educational authorities. 13. In Ext.P4 reply, the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent Deputy Director of Education has no authority to appoint any teacher under his management, as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules made there under, and that, as Manager of the School, he is bound to obey only lawful orders of the educational authorities. As he has not disobeyed any lawful orders or directions issued by the educational authorities, no proceedings under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER is warranted against him. The petitioner contended further that, the school being a minority educational institution, the Manager has the absolute authority regarding the appointments made in that institution. 14. After submitting Ext.P4 reply to Ext.P3 notice, issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner issued Ext.P5 letter dated 14.07.2017 requiring the 4th respondent to inform whether she is willing to be appointed as LPSA on daily wages in the vacancy which had occurred on account of the promotion granted to Sri Noufal as Headmaster of the school. In Ext.P5, placing reliance on Rule 22A of Chapter V of KER, and also Ext.P8 Government circular No.58604/J2/12/G.Edn. dated 06.11.2012, the petitioner pointed out that, since the school is an uneconomic school, all vacancies occurring in the school can be filled up only by engaging persons on daily wages. By Ext.P5, the 4th respondent was also informed that if she fails to give a reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of that letter, the petitioner will make appointment to the vacancy of LPSA on daily wage basis, without prejudice to her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER, till there are sufficient students in terms of Rule 22A(1) of Chapter V of KER for making appointment on scale of pay basis. 15. On receipt of Ext.P5 communication, the 4th respondent submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 31.08.2017, whereby the petitioner was informed that in view of the protection granted vide G.O. (P)No.119/2011/G.Edn. dated 01.10.2011, she is entitled to be reappointed as LPSA on scale of pay basis and that, Ext.P8 Government circular dated 06.11.2012 will not stand in the way of protected teachers being re-appointed against an existing vacancy in the parent school. By re-appointing such protected hands, no financial burden is caused to the State. dated 01.10.2011, she is entitled to be reappointed as LPSA on scale of pay basis and that, Ext.P8 Government circular dated 06.11.2012 will not stand in the way of protected teachers being re-appointed against an existing vacancy in the parent school. By re-appointing such protected hands, no financial burden is caused to the State. On the other hand, if a fresh hand is given appointment on daily wages, it will cause additional financial burden to the State. The 4th respondent has also pointed out that a protected teacher drawing salary on scale of pay basis cannot be asked to work on daily wage basis and as such, the stand taken by the petitioner in Ext.P5 is per se illegal, which is even contrary to the provisions of KER and also the Government orders on the field. 16. On receipt of Ext.P6 reply, the petitioner issued Ext.P7 communication dated 14.09.2017, whereby the 4th respondent was informed that the existing vacancy of LPSA in Thendaparamba Lower Primary School is decided to be filled up on daily wage basis, without prejudice to her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER and that she will be given re-appointment on scale of pay basis, by honouring her claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of KER once there are sufficient students in terms of Rule 22A(1) of Chapter V of KER, for making regular appointment. 17. By Ext.P9 notice dated 20.09.2017 of the 2nd respondent, Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner was informed that, disobedience of Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017 by not re-appointing the 4th respondent as LPSA in Thendaparamba Lower Primary School is illegal and that, she has to be reinstated by implementing Ext.P2 order within one week; failing which proceedings will be initiated against him under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER. By Ext.P9 notice, the petitioner was asked to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of that notice for not initiating proceedings under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER for disqualification from Manager ship. 18. On receipt of Ext.P9 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply dated 28.09.2017 reiterating his stand in Ext.P4 reply submitted before the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer. Along with the said reply, the petitioner has also enclosed a copy of Exts.P5, P6 and P7 communications. 19. 18. On receipt of Ext.P9 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply dated 28.09.2017 reiterating his stand in Ext.P4 reply submitted before the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer. Along with the said reply, the petitioner has also enclosed a copy of Exts.P5, P6 and P7 communications. 19. The 2nd respondent Deputy Director conducted a personal hearing on 03.02.2018 and passed Ext.P11 order dated 27.02.2018, whereby the petitioner is disqualified from continuing as Manager of Thendaparamba Lower Primary School, in exercise of the powers conferred on the 2nd respondent under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER, on account of denial of re-appointment of the 4th respondent as LPSA, despite the orders of the educational authorities. 20. As per the staff fixation order dated 11.07.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer for the year 2017-18, five divisions were sanctioned in Thendaparamba Lower Primary School, i.e., four posts of LPSA and one post of Headmaster. The averments to that effect in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent stands uncontroverted in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 08.04.2018. Therefore, the fact that due to the retirement of the Headmistress and the consequential promotion of Sri Noufal, who was working as LPSA, as the Headmaster of the school, there occurred a vacancy of LPSA with effect from 01.07.2017. 21. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that since the school is an uneconomic school, the vacancy that occurred on 01.07.2017 could not be filled up by making appointment on regular basis and therefore, it was proposed that the 4th respondent could be appointed on daily wage basis. When the petitioner was contemplating such appointment, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017 by reinstating the 4th respondent as LPSA in the vacancy that arose due to the promotion of the senior most teacher as Headmaster. 22. As evident from Ext.R2(a) order dated 26.07.2012, the 4th respondent, who was Sl.No.296 in Ext.P1 list of protected teachers and non-teaching staff in the Teachers Bank in Kannur district, was deployed as Cluster Resource Co-ordinator, BRC Sulthan Bathery, in the absence of any vacancy in Kannur district. Later, by Ext.R2(b) order dated 30.10.2014 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director, she was re-deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator, BRC Kannur North. Later, by Ext.R2(b) order dated 30.10.2014 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director, she was re-deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator, BRC Kannur North. As discernible from Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) orders, a protected teacher, who is deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator, is entitled for re-appointment in the parent school as and when vacancy arise in that school. Going by Ext.R4(a) letter dated 12.01.2017 of the Director of Public Instructions, the protected teachers under Teachers Package, who are appointed as Cluster Coordinators, shall be re-appointed in the parent school, if there are vacancies. Since such teachers falls under the category of protected hands, in order to re-appoint them in the parent school, once there are vacancies, no order of appointment by the Manager or approval for such appointment need be insisted. Therefore, Ext.P2 order issued by the 2nd respondent Deputy Director, whereby the 4th respondent who was re-deployed as Cluster Co-ordinator, BRC Kannur was ordered to be re-appointed as LPSA in Thendaparamba Lower Primary School cannot be said to be an order issued without any authority of law. 23. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the fact that a copy of Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director was communicated to the petitioner is not in dispute. If the petitioner was feeling aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, he could have challenged the same before appropriate forum, at appropriate time, instead of raising a challenge against the said order for the first time in this writ petition filed on 16.03.2018, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 notice by the 3rd respondent Assistant Educational Officer, for non-compliance of Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply, contending that, since the school being a minority institution, the Manager has the absolute authority regarding the appointments to be made in that school. 24. Section 11 of the Kerala Education Act deals with appointment of teachers in aided schools. Section 11 of the Act provides that, subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government, teachers of aided schools shall be appointed by the Managers from among persons who possess the qualifications prescribed under Section 10. Chapter III of KER deals with management of private schools. Section 11 of the Act provides that, subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government, teachers of aided schools shall be appointed by the Managers from among persons who possess the qualifications prescribed under Section 10. Chapter III of KER deals with management of private schools. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of Chapter III of KER mandates that, the Manager of an aided school shall abide by the orders that may be issued from time to time by the Government and the Department in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules issued there under. Going by sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Rule 22 of Chapter V of KER, the recognition granted to a school or standard may be withdrawn, if there is any breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules; and the departmental rules and directions issued in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules issued there under. Moreover, sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Chapter XIVA of KER mandates that, whenever vacancy of teacher occurs, the Manager of an aided school shall follow the directions issued by the Government from time to time, for ascertaining the availability of qualified hand and also for filling up vacancy. 25. As per Rule 7 of Chapter XIVA of KER, as soon as a teacher is appointed in a school, the Manager shall immediately issue an appointment order to the teacher in Form 27 and the appointment shall be effective from the date on which the teacher is admitted to duty, provided the appointment is duly approved. As per Form 27, which is the statutory form for an appointment order, the appointment of a teacher is subject to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules made there under and such other rules or orders issued from time to time by the Government or other competent authority. Moreover, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of. Chapter XIVA of KER empowers the Educational Officer to approve the appointment made by the Manager only if it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and orders issued by the Government or the Director of Public Instructions from time to time. 26. Chapter XXIII of KER deals with fixation of strength of teachers in departmental and aided schools. 26. Chapter XXIII of KER deals with fixation of strength of teachers in departmental and aided schools. As per Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of KER, substituted by the Kerala Education (Amendment) Rules, 2014, the strength of teaching staff in each school shall be fixed by the Educational Officer, as per the effective strength of pupils reckoned in terms of the provisions under sub rule (1) of Rule 12. However, as per Rule 14 of Chapter XXIII of KER, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, if it is found necessary, the Government may, by orders extend any ban on the creation of posts, retrenchment of staff, etc., effected by them in Government schools to aided schools. 27. After referring to the provisions under the Kerala Education Act and the KER, a Division Bench of this Court in Nair Service Society and others v. Government of Kerala and others [ 2015 (2) KHC 725 ] held that, the right of the Manager of an aided school to make appointment of teachers is not an absolute or unbridled right and the exercise of such right is regulated/restricted not only by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules, but also by the executive orders issued from time to time by the Government as well as the instructions issued by the Director of Public Instructions. 28. As per sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Kerala Education Act, 'aided school' means a private school, which is recognised by and is receiving aid from the Government, but shall not include educational institutions, entitled to receive grants under Article 337 of the Constitution of India, except insofar as they are receiving aid in excess of the grants to which they are so entitled. As per sub-section (5) of Section 2, 'minority schools' means schools of their choice established and administered, or administered, by such minorities as have the right to do so under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution. Article 30(1) of the Constitution protects the right of all minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30(2) provides that, in granting aid, the State shall not discriminate any such educational institutions on the ground that it is under the management of a minority. 29. In St. Article 30(1) of the Constitution protects the right of all minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30(2) provides that, in granting aid, the State shall not discriminate any such educational institutions on the ground that it is under the management of a minority. 29. In St. Xavier College Society v. State of Gujarat [ (1974) 1 SCC 717 ] the Apex Court held that, the right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right. This right is not free from regulation. Just as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character and content of minority institutions similarly regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficiency and sound administration. Das, C.J., in Kerala Education Bill case [ AIR 1958 SC 956 ] summed up in one sentence the true meaning of the right to administer by saying that the right to administer is not the right to maladminister. 30. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka W.P.(C)No.9133 of 2018 -20- [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] the Apex Court held that the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is not so absolute as to prevent the Government from making any regulation whatsoever. The right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations in that behalf. It is, of course, true that Government regulations cannot destroy the minority character of the institution or make the right to establish and administer a mere illusion; but the right under Article 30 of the Constitution is not so absolute as to be above the law. The Apex Court held further that, the Constitution in Part III does not contain or give any absolute right. All rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are subject to at least other provisions of the said Part. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that the framers of the Constitution would have given such an absolute right to the religious or linguistic minorities, which would enable them to establish and administer educational institutions in a manner so as to be in conflict with the other Parts of the Constitution. 31. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that the framers of the Constitution would have given such an absolute right to the religious or linguistic minorities, which would enable them to establish and administer educational institutions in a manner so as to be in conflict with the other Parts of the Constitution. 31. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose [ (2007) 1 SCC 386 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, the right to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute. Nor does it include the right to maladminister. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of service of employees (both teaching and non teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 32. In Kurian Lizy and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2006 (4) KLT 264 ] the question that was referred for consideration by a Full Bench of this Court was as to whether the right of the management of a religious minority educational institution to choose a qualified person as Headmaster of the School would come within the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and if so, can it be regulated through a legislative act or an executive rule. In N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School [ (1998) 6 SCC 674 ] a decision referred to by the Full Bench, the Apex Court held as follows in paragraphs 18 and 28; "18. Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or Principal of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that educational institution. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. The functional efficacy of a school very much depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine precept remains unchanged despite many changes taking place in the structural patterns of education over the years. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. The functional efficacy of a school very much depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine precept remains unchanged despite many changes taking place in the structural patterns of education over the years. xxx xxx xxx xxx 28. Thus, the management's right to choose a qualified person as the Headmaster of the school is well insulated by the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the Constitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any legislative act or executive rule except for fixing up the qualifications and conditions of service for the post. Any such statutory executive fiat would be violative of the fundamental right enshrined in the aforesaid Article and would hence be void.” Relying on the said judgment of the Apex Court and also the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (supra) the Full Bench held that, the management of a minority educational institution would have the freedom to appoint Headmaster or Principal. 33. In the context of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew [(2017) 15 SCC 595] held that, as far as the selection and appointment of the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, is concerned, the management of a minority aided educational institution is free to appoint the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, of its own choice and it has no obligation to appoint the available senior qualified member from the same community. The management is entitled to appoint the person, who according to them is most suited, to head the institution, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. Once the management of a minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority community to lead the institution, either as the Headmaster or Principal, the court cannot go into the merits of the choice or the rationality or propriety of the process of choice. In that regard, the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is absolute. 34. Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which protects the right of all minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, is in the nature of a protection to minorities, on their right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. 34. Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which protects the right of all minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, is in the nature of a protection to minorities, on their right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The protection under Article 30(1) is intended to instil confidence in minorities, against any executive or legislative encroachment on their right to establish and administer such educational institutions. However, an educational institution, which is entitled to the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, does not become immune from any regulatory measures, because the right to administer a minority educational institution does not include the right to maladminister such institution. Under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the Manager of an aided minority school governed by the provisions of KER would have the freedom to appoint a person of his choice as the Headmaster of that school, since the selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school are of prime importance in the administration of that educational institution. However, the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution does not include the right to maladminister an aided minority educational institution, denying reappointment of retrenched teachers of that school, who are included in the Teachers Bank, on their redeployment from the post of Cluster Coordinator in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, by flouting the regulatory measures provided under the KER and also the executive orders issued by the Government or the instructions issued by the Director of Public Instructions. 35. In the year 2011, vide G.O.(P) No.119/2011/G.Edn. dated 01.10.2011, the Government implemented the Teachers Package, based on the recommendations made by a committee headed by the Chief Secretary. As per sub-para C of Para 6 of the Government order dated 01.10.2011, the Teachers Bank is a temporary arrangement for retaining excess teachers for suitable deployment to schools and to ensure payment of their salary without any hindrance. It is pertinent to note that, as per Note 1 to Rule 7 of Chapter XXI of KER, 'Teachers Bank' means the list of teachers retrenched due to division fall from the schools of various educational agencies and eligible for protection as per the orders issued by the Government from time to time. It is a temporary arrangement for retaining the protected teachers for suitable appointment/redeployment. It is a temporary arrangement for retaining the protected teachers for suitable appointment/redeployment. Going by sub-rule (7) of Rule 7, the protected teachers appointed in any school from the Teachers Bank shall have no preferential claim or right for appointment in any schools other than their parent schools or any schools under their parent educational agency. 36. The Government and the Director of Public Instructions have issued various orders/circulars regarding retention of posts/filling up of posts in uneconomic schools. Originally, by G.O. (Ms.)No.179/94/G.Edn. dated 20.10.1994, the Government have ordered that the posts of all categories of teachers and non-teaching staff which are likely to be abolished in the staff fixation in schools which are declared uneconomic will be retained in the respective schools until further orders and that, if any of these seats fall vacant, the posts should not be filled up on any account. The Government order dated 20.11.1994 was partially modified by G.O.(Ms.)No.487/95/G.Edn. dated 26.09.1995 and thereafter, by G.O.(Ms.)No.600/95/G.Edn. dated 28.12.1995, ordering retention of posts, depending upon the effective strength of pupils. 37. The restrictions regarding filling up of posts in uneconomic schools were later withdrawn by G.O.(Ms.)No.107/98/G.Edn. dated 04.04.1998. Thereafter, by G.O.(P)No.259/2006/G.Edn. dated 12.10.2006, it was ordered that any vacancy in uneconomic schools shall be filled up only by protected hands. The said Government order was later clarified by Circular No.4545/J2/2007/G.Edn. dated 18.05.2007, whereby it was clarified that all vacancies in uneconomic schools on account of transfer, long leave, i.e., leave vacancies for more than one year, etc. shall be filled up only by protected teachers. In districts where there are no protected teachers for deployment, fresh teachers can be appointed on daily wages. Leave vacancies for less than one year duration and other leave vacancies shall be filled up only on daily wages. On a clarification sought as to whether the post of Headmaster can be filled up in the uneconomic school, by Government letter No.6260/J2/2008/G.Edn. dated 24.03.2008 it was clarified that there is no restriction in filling up the vacancy of Headmasters in uneconomic schools. 38. As per Government circular No.13402/J2/12/G.Edn. dated 10.05.2012 and by Government circular No.58604/J2/12/G.Edn. dated 06.11.2012 (Ext.P8) vacancies after 2010-11 in uneconomic schools due to death, resignation, promotion, transfer, etc. should be filled up with only on daily wages. The Government by letter No.59275/J2/14/G.Edn. 38. As per Government circular No.13402/J2/12/G.Edn. dated 10.05.2012 and by Government circular No.58604/J2/12/G.Edn. dated 06.11.2012 (Ext.P8) vacancies after 2010-11 in uneconomic schools due to death, resignation, promotion, transfer, etc. should be filled up with only on daily wages. The Government by letter No.59275/J2/14/G.Edn. dated 29.8.2014 directed the Director of Public Instructions to review such appointments and approve on regular basis if the appointments of those teachers come within the minimum strength of the schools prescribed therein. It was also ordered that appointments which come within the minimum strength can be approved on regular basis. Thereafter, by Government letter No.631703/J2/16/G.Edn. dated 01.08.2016 the District Educational Officers/Deputy Director of Education in the respective districts were authorised to review such appointments on daily wages in uneconomic Lower Primary/Upper Primary schools and to grant approval for such appointments on scale of pay basis, subject to the condition that such appointees are duly qualified and their appointment is in order. 39. A reading of the aforesaid Government orders, circulars and letters would make it explicitly clear that the re-appointment of the 4th respondent as LPSA in the parent school, which is an uneconomic school, in the vacancy that has occurred on account of the promotion granted to Sri Noufal, can only be on regular scale of pay basis and not on daily wage basis. The question of filling up that post on daily wage basis arises only when that post is filled up by appointing a fresh hand, in the absence of a protected teacher. It is pertinent to note that, on re-deployment as Cluster Co-ordinators, the protected teachers are eligible for entry pay in the relevant scale of pay. Such teachers on reappointment in their parent school, which is an uneconomic school, cannot be asked to work on daily wage basis. On the other hand, such teachers are entitled to re-appointment in their parent school on regular scale of pay basis. 40. Showing scant regard to Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director and also the directions of the educational authorities, the petitioner has filled up the vacancy of LPSA by appointing a fresh hand on daily wage basis. Such an appointment was made, by not permitting the 4th respondent, who is drawing salary as Cluster Co-ordinator, to rejoin duty in her parent school as LPSA. 41. Such an appointment was made, by not permitting the 4th respondent, who is drawing salary as Cluster Co-ordinator, to rejoin duty in her parent school as LPSA. 41. Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER deals with action against Manager or educational agency in the event of mismanagement, etc. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, in the event of mismanagement, malpractice, corruption or maladministration, gross negligence of duty, or disobedience of Departmental instruction on the part of the Manager or denial of appointment to a qualified thrown out teacher who has a rightful claim for reappointment by virtue of his/her holding the post earlier or denial of promotion to a teacher who is rightful claimant for promotion by the manager or conviction of the Manager for an offence involving moral turpitude it shall be open to the Director of Public Instructions, after giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and after due enquiry, to declare him unfit to hold the office of Manager in the school or in any other aided school and to require the educational agency to appoint a suitable person as Manager. By G.O.(P)No.52/80/G.Edn. dated 07.05.1980 the power of the Director Public Instructions under Rule 7 is delegated to the Deputy Directors of Education. 42. A reading of Ext.P11 order dated 27.02.2018 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director would show that the said respondent has taken a decision to disqualify the petitioner from Manager ship of Thendaparamba Lower Primary School in Kannur District, after considering the rival contentions, with reference to the provisions under the KER. Until the issuance of Ext.P11 order, the petitioner neither challenged Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent nor permitted the 4th respondent to rejoin duty as LPSA in the school. On receipt of Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply dated 24.07.2017, contending that the Manager is bound to obey only lawful orders of the educational authorities. As he has not disobeyed any lawful orders or directions issued by the educational authorities, no proceedings under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER is warranted against him. In Ext.P4 reply, the petitioner has also contended that the school being a minority school, the Manager has the absolute authority regarding the appointments made in that school. 43. As he has not disobeyed any lawful orders or directions issued by the educational authorities, no proceedings under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER is warranted against him. In Ext.P4 reply, the petitioner has also contended that the school being a minority school, the Manager has the absolute authority regarding the appointments made in that school. 43. Considering the stand taken by the petitioner in Exts.P4 and P10 reply and also the conduct of the petitioner showing scant regard to the orders issued by the educational authorities, by denying reappointment to the 4th respondent as LPSA in the vacancy that has occurred on account of the promotion granted to Sri Noufal, the reasoning of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P11 order cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference by this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 44. As already held, Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent Deputy Director cannot be said to be one issued without any authority of law. Moreover, the belated challenge made against Ext.P2 order dated 12.07.2017, in this writ petition filed on 16.03.2018, only after the issuance of Ext.P11 order dated 27.02.2018 can only be repelled, as devoid of merit. In such circumstances, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.