JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2014, who thereby dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant, which is the Management Committee of St. Anselm's Senior Secondary School, filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, by the aforesaid order, allowed the application filed by the respondent and set aside the order of his retirement dated 30.06.2014 and declared that he shall be deemed to be continued in service from 01.07.2014 and would be entitled to all consequential benefits. This however would not preclude the appellant Management Committee to get him subjected to medical examination. 3. Bone of the contentions between the parties is about the applicability of Rule 30.1 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws amended by Circular dated 18.02.2014 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education "Shiksha Kendra". The unamended Rule 30.1 provided that every employee including Head of the Institution shall retire from service on attaining the age of sixty with the proviso that if such employee is a recipient of National/State/CBSE Teachers Award, he may be considered for a further extension of service for two years after attaining the age of superannuation provided he is medically fit and is prepared to serve the school. However, proviso to amended Rule 30.1 provides that if such employee is a recipient of National/State/CBSE Teachers Award, he/she shall superannuate from service on attaining the age of 65 subject to meritorious service, good health and good conduct. 4. The respondent, who was about to attain the age of 60 on 30.06.2014, submitted an application on 28.04.2014 to the Principal of the appellant school stating that in view of the aforesaid amendment made in the Affiliation Bye Laws by the CBSE, the age of superannuation for the employees, who are recipient of National/State/CBSE Teachers Award, has been extended to 65 years. Since he was recipient of the National Award for teaching from the Ministry of Human Resources Development on 05.09.2009, his age of superannuation be extended accordingly. The Principal of the school forwarded his application to the appellant Management Committee, which in its meeting held on 23.06.2014, decided not to extend the age of superannuation of the respondent. Since he was recipient of the National Award for teaching from the Ministry of Human Resources Development on 05.09.2009, his age of superannuation be extended accordingly. The Principal of the school forwarded his application to the appellant Management Committee, which in its meeting held on 23.06.2014, decided not to extend the age of superannuation of the respondent. It was this decision of the appellant Management Committee which the respondent assailed before the Tribunal by filing the application. The Tribunal allowed the application. 5. In the writ petition filed by the appellant Management Committee, its learned counsel before the learned Single Judge fairly submitted that the Management in their reply before the Tribunal admitted that the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws are applicable to the school and that none of the grounds as contemplated in Rule 30.1 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions, etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, 'the Rules of 1993') have been mentioned in the reply filed before the Tribunal. However, learned counsel before the learned Single Judge prayed for liberty to the petitioner/appellant to take appropriate decision in the light of the amended Rule 30.1 of the said Rules, if anything adverse recorded against him. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, observed that such liberty is always there and appropriate decision could always be taken by the petitioner, if any of the grounds as contemplated in proviso to the amended Rule 30.1 of the said Rules is found in future. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. 6. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for appellant, has argued that the respondent for the first time informed the school on 28.04.2014 that he is recipient of the National Award for teaching from the Ministry of Human Resources Development on 05.09.2009. There was no prior information to the appellant. Even otherwise the conduct of the respondent had not been good. He was issued warning in 2012 and he had submitted apology on 05.10.2012 admitting his fault. The annual confidential report of the respondent was placed before the Tribunal wherein for the Academic Session 2013-14 it was stated that there were complaints against him of students compelling them for tuition for which he was orally warned and that he is very argumentative. The annual confidential report of the respondent was placed before the Tribunal wherein for the Academic Session 2013-14 it was stated that there were complaints against him of students compelling them for tuition for which he was orally warned and that he is very argumentative. For the Academic Session 2011-12 it was stated that he does not take orders of the Principal easily and that is very argumentative and does not want to take any responsibility. For the Academic Session 2012-13 it was stated that he has not shown any improvement. The respondent did not have good health as he was admitted in ICU from 22.08.2014 to 30.08.2014. 7. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for appellant, argued that the amended Rule 30.1 of the CBSE Bye Laws itself provided that if the Teacher does not have good health or good conduct, he may not be entitled to extension of age of superannuation. The learned Tribunal in its order did not consider the documents pertaining to his conduct and with regard to warning entered in his annual confidential reports and health of the respondent. However, the learned Single Judge, while upholding the order passed by the Tribunal granted liberty to the appellant Management to even now take appropriate decision under Rule 30.1. Now therefore there cannot be any direction for extension of the age of superannuation. The CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws are not statutory and therefore, are not mandatory. They are merely in the shape of executive instructions. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satimbla Sharma and Others Vs. St. Paul Senior Secondary School - 2011 (13) SCC 760 . 8. It is argued that the CBSE Bye Laws can only be considered directory and not mandatory. The concession made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was not binding on them. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet Vs. Noor Ahmed Shariff and Others - (2011) 12 SCC 658 and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others - (2013) 5 SCC 427 . Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Others Vs. Noor Ahmed Shariff and Others - (2011) 12 SCC 658 and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others - (2013) 5 SCC 427 . Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society and Others Vs. State of Gujarat - (1974) 1 SCC 717 , learned counsel for appellant argued that the fundamental rights particularly, rights of minority institutions cannot be waived. Right to administer a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India includes right to appoint the staff. The Management cannot be compelled to extend the age of superannuation of any of the staff member and any direction to this effect would be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 386 . 9. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for respondent, has argued that the respondent is a post graduate teacher in Biology. He is a National Awardee Teacher. National Award to Teachers, 2008, was conferred upon him on the Teachers Day, i.e., 05.09.2009, by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, for public recognition of his valuable services to the community as a Teacher of outstanding merit. He stood conferred with the aforesaid award on Teachers Day of the Year 2009 by the His Excellency the Vice President of India Hon'ble Mr. Hamid Ali Ansari in the august presence of the then Minister of Science and Technology Shri Kapil Sibbal. The name of the respondent found place in the Directory of recipients of National Award at serial No. 285, which was published by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The appellant Management Committee illegally declined the prayer of the respondent to extend the age of his superannuation, by order dated 26.06.2014. The respondent immediately challenged that order before the Tribunal on 30.06.2014. The Tribunal, looking to the urgency of the matter, heard the same and passed ex-parte interim order on 30.06.2014 itself restraining the appellant from superannuating the respondent. The appellant Management Committee illegally declined the prayer of the respondent to extend the age of his superannuation, by order dated 26.06.2014. The respondent immediately challenged that order before the Tribunal on 30.06.2014. The Tribunal, looking to the urgency of the matter, heard the same and passed ex-parte interim order on 30.06.2014 itself restraining the appellant from superannuating the respondent. Despite restraint order, the appellant did not comply the same and on the contrary served on the respondent a show cause notice on 07.07.2014 as to why he remained absent in the institution on 30.06.2014, when he was supposed to attend his retirement function and receive his retirement order and retiral benefits. 10. It is argued that the appellant Management Committee in their reply to the application before the Tribunal sought to defend the impugned order on the ground, which was neither part of resolution dated 23.06.2014 nor was part of the order dated 26.06.2014, whereby his prayer for extension of superannuation age was declined. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , the learned counsel for the respondent argued that it is a settled legal position that legality and validity of an order has to be tested on the basis of the reasons contained in the order and not on the basis of reasons which are not part of the order and are later on supplied to support the order. The appellant is denying the benefit of extension of age of superannuation to the respondent on flimsy grounds. According to the respondent, he was given preliminary warning on 28.08.2012 for having committed certain mistakes in preparation of formative/quarterly school examination question paper for Classes IX and XII and that during invigilation his school examination on 04.10.2012, while filing the absentee chart, instead of Roll No. 2319 the respondent filled in Roll No. 2316. The appellant could not have denied the benefit of extension of the age of superannuation to the respondent. 11. It is argued that the respondent did not inform the appellant about the National Teacher's Award, is palpably false. The alleged illness of the respondent from 22.08.2014 to 30.08.2014 is wholly irrelevant because that period pertained to the period subsequent to passing of the order dated 26.06.2014. It was a short illness from which he recovered immediately. 11. It is argued that the respondent did not inform the appellant about the National Teacher's Award, is palpably false. The alleged illness of the respondent from 22.08.2014 to 30.08.2014 is wholly irrelevant because that period pertained to the period subsequent to passing of the order dated 26.06.2014. It was a short illness from which he recovered immediately. Even otherwise, in the entire career the respondent did not take a single medical leave which could prove his ill health. The appellant further defended the order dated 26.06.2014 on the ground of uncommunicated remark recorded in the service record for the year 2008-09. While in the year 2007-08, his conduct has been shown to be 'very good' and his work to be excellent. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India, (1998) 7 SCC 310 , it is argued that the appellant did not have such material on the basis of which any reasonable man could reach to the conclusion about his non-suitability for extension of age of superannuation. 12. Mr. Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for respondent, submitted that the result of the respondent for academic years 2009-2014 is testimony of the fact that his services have been throughout remained meritorious and the same was acknowledged by the Government of India as he was awarded the National Award to Teachers, 2008. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. The reply to the application filed by the appellant before the Tribunal in para 3(vi) quite categorically stated that the application of the respondent for extension of age of superannuation upto 65 years in view of his receiving the National Award on 05.09.2009 was considered by the Management Committee in the meeting held on 23.06.2014. All the sixteen members of the Management Committee in the extraordinary meeting unanimously decided that the respondent has no right for extension of the age of superannuation beyond age of 60 years. The appellant has legal right to appoint, confirm, terminate and retire any employee of the institution in view of Rules 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws. The appellant has legal right to appoint, confirm, terminate and retire any employee of the institution in view of Rules 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws. The amended proviso under Rule 30.1 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws does not give a blanket right to the respondent for getting extension of his services beyond the age of 60 years, which has been subjected to meritorious service, good health and good conduct. The respondent did not have meritorious service. He even did not have good health since he suffered severe illness and admitted in ICU in Mittal Hospital, Ajmer from 22.08.2014 to 30.08.2014. He also violated the code of conduct contained in Rule 42 of the said Bye Laws. Besides, he absented from duties on 30.06.2014 without prior permission of his controlling officer and even left the Headquarter without permission. 15. When the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submitted that applicability of CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws has been accepted in the reply to the original application filed before the Tribunal and that none of the grounds contemplated in Rule 30.1 of the Rules of 1993 have been mentioned in the impugned order. 16. We have to satisfy ourselves about what was mentioned in the order dated 26.06.2014, which reads as under:- "Received your undated application for claiming extension for your service on account of your receipt of a National Award in 2009. This is to inform you that your application was put forward in the School Managing Committee Meeting held on Monday, 23rd June, 2014. In the meeting, all the members present were of the opinion that as this school is a minority status institution, appointments & retirements are decided by the Managing Committee of the institution as per the privilege given to the minorities in the Indian Constitution, Article No. 30. Therefore, in view of this, all the members of Managing Committee present resolved not to extend your services and that your superannuation may take place as per the date of birth provided in the school records." 17. The aforesaid order does not convey any of the three reasons on which extension of age of superannuation was declined by the appellant Management Committee as per proviso to amended Rule 30.1, namely, lack of meritorious service, good health and good conduct. The aforesaid order does not convey any of the three reasons on which extension of age of superannuation was declined by the appellant Management Committee as per proviso to amended Rule 30.1, namely, lack of meritorious service, good health and good conduct. While in the unamended Rule 30.1 there was discretion available with the Management to extend the services for two years of an employee after he attained the age of 60 years but now in the amended Rule 30.1 it is rather mandatory that if such employee is recipient of National Award to Teachers he/she shall superannuate from service on attaining the age of 65 years subject to meritorious service, good health and good conduct. The fact that the respondent was awarded National Award to Teachers, 2008, on 05.09.2009 must be within the knowledge of the appellant Management Committee as nomination for such awards is made through the educational institution concerned and the stand of the appellant that the Management Committee was not informed of the award by the respondent and that it was unaware thereof, does not inspire confidence. This contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that the respondent did not communicate this fact to the appellant Management Committee prior to 28.04.2014. In fact, the process of nomination of the Teachers for National Award cannot begin unless the concerned school proposes the same. Even otherwise, the appellant's stand that the Management Committee was not informed about the said award, is falsified from the following assertion made by the respondent in para 3 of the rejoinder to reply filed before the Tribunal:- "3. ...Applicant was awarded National Award for Teachers on 5.9.2009 by the hands of His Excellency the Vice President of India Sh. Hamid Ali Ansari in the auspicious presence for the then Minister for Education Sh. Kapil Sibbgal. One of photographs of the applicant receiving the National Award by the hands of His Excellency the Vice President of India Sh. Hamid Ali Ansari in the auspicious presence of the then Minister for Education Sh. Kapil Sibbal is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-RJ/1. Applicant had been granted 'duty leave' by the Respondent Institution in the first week of September, 2009 in order to facilitate the applicant to go to New Delhi to receive the National Award for Teachers. Hamid Ali Ansari in the auspicious presence of the then Minister for Education Sh. Kapil Sibbal is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-RJ/1. Applicant had been granted 'duty leave' by the Respondent Institution in the first week of September, 2009 in order to facilitate the applicant to go to New Delhi to receive the National Award for Teachers. After having received the National Award on 5.9.2009 at New Delhi, same national Award for Teachers along with the medallion as a mark of respect and honour was re-handed to the applicant in the school assembly in presence of all the students by erstwhile Principal Father Loudru Joseph. One of the photograph of the school assembly wherein applicant was re-handed over the National Award by Father Loudru Joseph is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure RJ-2. ....." 18. Moreover, lack of meritorious service is not the premise on which the application for extension of the age of superannuation was declined by the appellant as would be seen from the order dated 26.06.2014. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent did not have meritorious service. The respondent has produced on record the details of the results of the students of the subject taught by him for the academic sessions 2009-10 to 2013-14, which is detailed out as under:- Year Number of students Result 2009-10 07-01 85% 2010-11 06 100% 2011-12 03 100% 2012-13 07 100% 2013-14 09 100% 19. The performance of the respondent thus clearly demonstrates that the appellant Management Committee has no case or justification to decline the extension of superannuation age of the respondent on the ground of lack of meritorious services. 20. The alleged ill health of the respondent also cannot be a reason not to extend age of superannuation because the order, which was impugned before the Tribunal was passed on 26.06.2014 and according to the appellant Management Committee the respondent remained hospitalized from 22.08.2014 to 30.08.2014 in the ICU. Firstly, no details of the alleged ailment have been placed on record to determine whether the alleged ill health of the respondent was such which could have made him incapable of rendering the services beyond the age of 60 years. Secondly, the alleged illness of the respondent for few days was pertaining to the period subsequent to passing of the order refusing extension of superannuation age. Secondly, the alleged illness of the respondent for few days was pertaining to the period subsequent to passing of the order refusing extension of superannuation age. The appellant Management Committee has not been able to show as to for how many times the respondent had taken medical leaves during his service career of 35 years and whether he was suffering from any serious of ailment or contagious diseases. 21. Moreover, the appellant Management Committee also could not demonstrate any such incident in the service career of the respondent that could prove that his conduct was not good. The reason given by the appellant Management Committee about the conduct of the respondent not being good is that he absented from duties on 30.06.2014 without prior permission of his controlling officer and left the Headquarter without permission which amounted to misconduct and insubordination. The respondent in the rejoinder filed before the Tribunal contended that he received the show-cause notices dated 02.07.2014 and 07.07.2014 asking why he remained absent from duty on 30.06.2014 without prior permission of the controlling authority. This show cause notice was given to the respondent after he initiated legal proceedings before the Tribunal and obtained ex-parte interim order on 30.06.2014, and that too much after the appellant Management Committee declined to extend the superannuation age vide order dated 26.06.2014. The fact is that the respondent stood retired from service on 30.06.2014 itself, when he had proceeded to Jaipur to attend the proceedings of the Educational Institutions Tribunal on that date, thus the absence of the respondent on that day could not be taken as the ground to hold that his conduct was not good. Though the appellant Management Committee has made an attempt to castigate conduct of the respondent as bad but the reasons which they furnished before the Tribunal in their reply were hardly such as could prove that the respondent was not having good conduct. 22. Contention that the appellant Management Committee is minority institution, therefore, it has absolute right to appoint the staff and that it cannot be compelled to extend the age of superannuation of any of its staff member and any direction to this effect would be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, is noted to be rejected as such rights of the minority institution are subject to measures introduced by the regulatory bodies like the CBSE. The appellant Management Committee themselves did not deny the applicability of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws and the Rules of 1993 in the reply to the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal. It cannot claim immunity from such regulations as affiliation granted to it is subject to compliance of its provisions. 23. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra - (2005) 6 SCC 537 , in para 37 of the report, held as under:- "It is next argued that as held in St. Xavier's and reaffirmed in Pai Foundation the right to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution is not an absolute right meaning thereby that it is subject to such regulations that satisfy a dual test that is: the test of 'reasonableness' and 'any regulation regulating the educational character of the institutions so that it is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community and for the others who resort to it'. Any regulation which impinges upon the minority character of the institutions is constitutionally impermissible. It is submitted that between the right of minorities to establish and administer the educational institutions and the right of the State to regulate educational activities for maintaining standard of education, a balance has to be struck. The regulation in relation to recognition/affiliation operates in the area of standard of excellence and are unquestionable if they do not seriously curtail or destroy the right of minorities to administer their educational institutions. Only in maintaining standards of education, State can insist by framing regulations that they be followed but in all other areas the rights of minority must be protected. It is conceded that maladministration is not protected by Article 30 of the Constitution. Similarly, secular laws with secular object that do not directly impinge upon the right of minority institutions and operate generally upon all citizens do not impinge upon Article 30 of the Constitution. This has been the constitutional interpretation of Article 30 not because Article 30 admits no exception like Article 19(6) but because the right conferred under Article 30 does not extend to these areas. The laws that serve national interest do not impinge upon Article 30." 24. This has been the constitutional interpretation of Article 30 not because Article 30 admits no exception like Article 19(6) but because the right conferred under Article 30 does not extend to these areas. The laws that serve national interest do not impinge upon Article 30." 24. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge. The appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 25. This also disposes of stay application and any pending application in the case. 26. The parties to bear their own costs.