JUDGMENT : 1. The Court convened through video conferencing. 2. Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Gautam Baghel appears for Committee of Management, Mirza Anwar Beg Inter College, Userahta, Shahganj, Jaunpur through its Manager. 3. With the consent of parties, all the special appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 4. The Court has occasion to peruse the exemption applications filed in Special Appeal Defective Nos.209 of 2020 and 210 of 2020 and find substance in both the applications. Both the exemption applications stand allowed. 5. Present intra Court special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 11.2.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A Nos.9034 of 2013; 31865 of 2013 and 31868 of 2013 by which all the writ petitions were dismissed with following observations:- “.............The imperatives of a fair and just process of recruitment in order to select the most deserving and qualified candidate is a facet which has an indelible bond to standards of education in an educational institution. The rights that are claimed by a minority institution, consequently must be read as being subject to the caveat noticed above, namely, the obligation to act in accordance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. A process of recruitment which does not answer even the rudimentary requirements of a fair and just process can neither commend sanction in law nor can it be preserved by the protective umbrella of Article 30 of the Constitution. Regard must also be had to the fact that the Institution was in receipt of State aid. Once that institution stands conferred that benefit, the respondents could legitimately claim the right to regulate the selection process within the narrow confine culled out above. The provisions of Section 16FF cannot be construed as conferring an immunity to the minority institution to claim a right to select and appoint by adopting a process which is neither fair nor transparent. The right to select a teacher must be read as being hedged and subject to the rigours of other parts of the Constitution. The power of the State to regulate and overseee within this narrow confine has an ineradicable link to maintenance of standards of education. The right to select a teacher must be read as being hedged and subject to the rigours of other parts of the Constitution. The power of the State to regulate and overseee within this narrow confine has an ineradicable link to maintenance of standards of education. The power if so exercised can neither be viewed as an infringment nor can it be said to impinge upon the rights guaranteed by Article 30. The State cannot be expected to remain a mute spectator while a minority institution proceeds to adopt a selection process which does not answer the requirement of Articles 14 and 16. Article 30 is neither an impregnable barrier nor can it be construed as a restraint upon the power of the State to regulate the affairs of a minority institution to the extent that the said power is exercised and invoked in aid of maintenance of standards. A minority institution cannot be permitted in law to act with impunity and then rise up to claim an unbridled constitutional right to administer. That right must be balanced against the constitutional obligation placed upon all constituents to act in accordance with law and the Constitution. The Court also bears in mind that in the present case, it is the Management which has proceeded to annul the appointment of the petitioners. It does not assert or contend that its rights to administer and manage have been interfered with. Bearing in mind the serious irregularities from which the selection process stood tainted, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the petitions must fail. The writ petitions are consequently dismissed.” 6. It appears from the record in question that the Writ-A No.9034 of 2013 had been preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 17th November, 2011 passed by the Joint Director of Education and consequential order dated 14th December, 2012 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). The order of the Joint Director dated 17th November, 2011 had been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the Court in Writ-A No.20463 of 2011. The order dated 17th November, 2011 directed the District Inspector of Schools to undertake a detailed enquiry in respect of the alleged irregularities in connection of the selection of two Assistant Teachers in the respondent-minority institution in question. The order dated 17th November, 2011 directed the District Inspector of Schools to undertake a detailed enquiry in respect of the alleged irregularities in connection of the selection of two Assistant Teachers in the respondent-minority institution in question. The two Assistant Teachers are the petitioners- appellants in the present special appeals. 7. The petitioners-applicants claim to have been selected and appointed in the institution as Assistant Teachers in LT Grade on 10th April, 2003. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools by its order dated 22nd February, 2005 accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioners-appellants. Consequently a complaint was made in 2020 to the DIOS by certain members claiming affiliation to a new Committee of Management, which had come to hold office. One of the complainants approached the Court by filing Writ Petition No.20463 of 2011, which was disposed of with direction to the Joint Director of Education to enquire into the compliant and take appropriate decision. Pursuant to the said direction, the order impugned dated 17th November, 2011 had been passed by which an enquiry was initiated, whereby the Committee of Management terminated the services of the petitioners-appellants. It is evident from the order dated 17th November, 2011 that there were gross illegalities and irregularities committed in the entire selection process in question. The enquiry, which was undertaken by the educational authorities established that most of the members of the Selection Committee had subsequently stated that their signatures had been forged on the papers relating to selection, which were forwarded by the Management. The respondents have also found serious discrepancies and lack of particulars in the advertisements, which were issued. It was also noted that in none of the advertisements the subject or disciplines in respect of which appointments were sought to be made found mention. The Joint Director in its order had also noted that Mohd. Saleem Khan (petitioner-appellant herein) was appointed on the post of Asstt. Teacher LT Grade and was having qualifications of B.Sc., B.Ed., whereas the advertised qualification was B.A., B.Ed. So far as Mohd. Shoeb Khan (petitioner-appellant herein) is concerned, he held the qualifications of B.A. and Drawing Grade Examination but did not held the B.Ed. degree at all. A categorical finding of fact has been recorded qua the essential qualifications against the petitioners-appellants as well as the fallacies in the advertisement. So far as Mohd. Shoeb Khan (petitioner-appellant herein) is concerned, he held the qualifications of B.A. and Drawing Grade Examination but did not held the B.Ed. degree at all. A categorical finding of fact has been recorded qua the essential qualifications against the petitioners-appellants as well as the fallacies in the advertisement. In this backdrop, the respondent authorities commanded the Management to terminate the services of the two Assistant Teachers i.e. the petitioners-appellants. 8. Learned Single Judge, in this backdrop, while dismissing the writ petitions has heavily relied upon the enquiry so made in response to the writ Court direction and also considered the relevant provisions of the Act of 1921(Intermediate Education Act, 1921) and specially the provisions of Section 16FF of the Act of 1921 as well as Appendix-C contained in Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921. 9. Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has vehemently contended that the Joint Director of Education had no jurisdiction or authority to pass directions to the District Inspector of Schools to undertake any enquiry. He has also heavily relied upon the provisions of Section 16FF of the Act of 1921 and contended that the power to interfere with the choice made by the Management stands vested only in the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector as the case may be. It is also submitted that the Joint Director had no power to recommend or command the Management to terminate the services of the petitioners-appellants. But strangely the authority i.e. Joint Director of Education, which had no jurisdiction in the matter held that the appointment is illegal and commanded the DIOS to take necessary action, which resulted into stopping of salary and finally the Committee of Management terminated the services of the petitioners appellants. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has also urged that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge based upon the enquiry made by the authority qua the educational qualifications is also unsustainable as the petitioners-appellants had requisite qualifications. Infact it was no one's case that the petitioners-appellants' appointments were made on non-sanctioned post. The appellant no.1 Mohd. Shoeb Khan was duly qualified for Arts teacher and appellant no.2 Mohd. Saleem Khan was duly qualified for Science teacher. Infact it was no one's case that the petitioners-appellants' appointments were made on non-sanctioned post. The appellant no.1 Mohd. Shoeb Khan was duly qualified for Arts teacher and appellant no.2 Mohd. Saleem Khan was duly qualified for Science teacher. The respondents have transgressed their authority in outreaching the scope of enquiry under Section 16FF of the Act of 1921, which lays provisions vis-a-vis service conditions in minority institutions. As such it is contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Moreover the petitioners-appellants in response to the advertisement applied and they have rendered more than 7 years of their service and in most arbitrary manner their services have been dispensed with. As such it is contended that this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioners-appellants otherwise they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 10. Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the special appeals and submitted that due to gross illegalities, which were noticed in the course of enquiry and from which the selection proceedings undisputedly sufferred, the respondent authorities were fully justified in interfering with the entire process and command the respondent management to terminate those illegal appointments. More so the same was done on the dictate/ direction made by the Court and as such at no point of time the respondent authorities had transgressed or violated any provisions of the Act of 1921. They were fully justified in interfering with the entire process and commanded the respondent-management to terminate those illegal appointments. He has also vehemently contended that full fledged mechanism is provided in the Act of 1921 and the minority institutions may be empowered to select appointment and eligible persons in the light of the provisions made under Section 16FF, the State cannot be said to be totally deprived or denuded of authority especially when the burden of salaries of such teachers would ultimately fall on public exchequer. On the basis of record admittedly there were discrepancy in the advertisement, which has been highlighted in the enquiry and more so the petitioners-appellants did not have minimum eligibility to get appointment. Therefore, the entire selection was dehorse the provisions and the petitioners-appellants failed to justify that the selection was made strictly in accordance with law. On the basis of record admittedly there were discrepancy in the advertisement, which has been highlighted in the enquiry and more so the petitioners-appellants did not have minimum eligibility to get appointment. Therefore, the entire selection was dehorse the provisions and the petitioners-appellants failed to justify that the selection was made strictly in accordance with law. There is no infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned passed by the educational authorities, which are rightly approved and upheld by learned Single Judge. 11. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for Committee of Management has also vehemently opposed the present special appeals and submitted that the enquiry was made by the educational authorities on the basis of record available in which it was found that there was discrepancy in the appointment. Once the complaint was made and in the enquiry it had been found that there were discrepancies in the selection process and the appointments were made dehorse the Rules, then definitely the management had to give due weightage to the outcome of the enquiry. More so the appointments of the petitioners-appellants were dispensed with in the year 2013 and therefore at this belated stage no interference is required. Learned Single Judge has rightly considered the provisions enshrined in the Act of 1921 and there is no infirmity or illegality in order impugned. 12. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 13. It is evident from the record that the Joint Director of Education in his order dated 17th November, 2011 has found that there were gross irregularities committed by the management in the entire selection process. Moreso the said enquiry was made on the directions issued by the Court. The enquiry also revealed that most of the members of the Selection Committee had subsequently stated that their signatures had been forged on the papers relating to selection, which were forwarded by the management. Serious discrepancy and lack of particulars in the advertisement were also found. 14. It may be noted that the selection and appointment of teachers in a minority institution and the right of the respondents to review or scrutinise an appointment made is governed by the provisions made in Section 16FF. The provision firstly lays down the composition of the Selection Committee. 14. It may be noted that the selection and appointment of teachers in a minority institution and the right of the respondents to review or scrutinise an appointment made is governed by the provisions made in Section 16FF. The provision firstly lays down the composition of the Selection Committee. In case selection is for the Head of the institution, it must comprise of an expert selected out of a panel prepared by the Director. In case of appointment of a Teacher, the Selection Committee must also include the head of the Institution as a member. Section 16FF (2) then provides that the Selection Committee shall follow such procedure “as may be prescribed”. Regulation 17 falling in Chapter II which admittedly governs selections undertaken by a minority institution, attracts the procedure prescribed by Regulation 10 clauses (e) and (f) to such selections. In this backdrop, learned Single Judge has considered the judgment passed in Ajay Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32932 of 2004 where the position has been taken that the provisions made in Appendix-C contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act would ipso facto apply to minority institutions also and in view thereof it was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to award quality point marks upon the evaluation of individual candidates. The legal position as enunciated in Ajay Singh (Supra) is as under:- "In view of the aforesaid provisions, Appendix 'C' attached to Chapter-II becomes applicable in respect of selections made on the post of Lecturers in minority institutions automatically. Appendix 'C' regulates the manner in which quality point marks and interview marks ought to be provided as well as bifurcation of the same. Proceedings of selection are necessary to be submitted in Appendix 'C', referred to above. It is only on such proceedings submitted in Appendix 'C', that the educational authorities can act upon and take decision for grant of approval to selected candidate. Proceedings of selection are necessary to be submitted in Appendix 'C', referred to above. It is only on such proceedings submitted in Appendix 'C', that the educational authorities can act upon and take decision for grant of approval to selected candidate. Appendix 'C' reads as follows:" From the affidavit filed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, noticed herein above, it is apparent that the proceedings of selection, as required, have not been intimated as required in Appendix 'C' nor there is any other record available to educational authorities on the basis whereof Appendix 'C' could be prepared for taking decision that the selection on the post in question is in accordance with law. Even otherwise none of the respondents being able to demonstrate as to what was the maximum marks fixed for interview, the entire documents submitted for selection are rendered mere paper transaction. This Court is also not able to ascertain what was the maximum marks fixed for interview. In view of the aforesaid, the entire papers pertaining to the selection of Sri Desh Deepak Srivastava do not inspire confidence and therefore the selection of Sri Desh Deepak Srivastava cannot be said to have taken place in accordance with the provisions applicable." 15. Learned Single Judge has also considered the judgment rendered in Sanjay Kumar Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur & Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9738 of 2009 and has held that it was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to draw a chart evidencing a comparative analysis of the respective merit of candidates and the award of quality point marks. Undisputedly in the present case no such exercise was undertaken. The members who were shown as constituting the Selection Committee have not only denied having participated in any such exercise, they have gone to the extent of asserting that their signatures as stated to appear on the record of selection have been forged. This aspect amounts to a flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed by statute. 16. We are also of the opinion that Article 30 standing in Part III of the Constitution like all other rights is not absolute. The Constitution while recognising and preserving the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions does not envisage it to be a carte blanche to maladminister or to ignore basic concepts of fairness which must infuse any recruitment exercise. The Constitution while recognising and preserving the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions does not envisage it to be a carte blanche to maladminister or to ignore basic concepts of fairness which must infuse any recruitment exercise. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 has observed as under:- "135. We agree with the contention of the learned Solicitor-General 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. 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. We find it difficult to accept that in the establishment and administration of educational institutions by the religious and linguistic minorities, no law of the land, even the Constitution, is to apply to them. 136.Decisions of this Court have held that the right to administer does not include the right to maladminister. It has also been held that the right to administer is not absolute, but must be subject to reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institutions as the vehicle of education, consistent with national interest. General laws of the land applicable to all persons have been held to be applicable to the minority institutions also --for example, laws relating to taxation, sanitation, social welfare, economic regulation, public order and morality. 137.It follows from the aforesaid decisions that even though the words of Article 30(1) are unqualified, this Court has held that at least certain other laws of the land pertaining to health, morality and standards of education apply. The right under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of the law, and we reiterate the same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1).” 17. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1).” 17. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent decision in Sk. Md. Rafique Vs. Managing Committee Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 4 as under:- “106.The decision inTMA Pai Foundation8, rendered by Eleven Judges of this Court, thus put the matter beyond any doubt and clarified that the right under Article 30(1) is not absolute or above the law and that conditions concerning the welfare of the students and teachers must apply in order to provide proper academic atmosphere, so long as the conditions did not interfere with the right of the administration or management. What was accepted as correct approach was the test laid down by Khanna, J. in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College5 case that a balance be kept between two objectives -one to ensure the standard of excellence of the institution and the other preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions. The essence of Article 30(1) was also stated -"to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions" and that rules and regulations would apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions.” 18. More so learned Single Judge has rightly highlighted in the operative portion of the judgment that in the present case, it is the Management which has proceeded to annul the appointment of the petitioners. It does not assert or contend that its rights to administer and manage have been interfered with. Bearing in mind the serious irregularities from which the selection process stood tainted, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions. 19. Considering the fact and circumstances, the Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. Present special appeals sans merit and are accordingly dismissed.