JUDGMENT : GOPINATH, J. 1. The appellant, who was the senior-most Lower Primary School Assistant in the Naduvannur South AMUP School, Naduvannur, at the time when a vacancy of Headmaster had arisen, was aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent (P.P. Murali) as the Headmaster. It is not disputed that the appellant (writ petitioner) is Senior to the aforesaid P.P. Murali. 2. The Naduvannur South AMUP School is a minority educational institution and its status as such is not challenged. However, it is the case of the appellant (writ petitioner) that the Manager, in selecting P.P Murali, failed to follow the fair procedure contemplated in the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy vs. State of Kerala, (2006) 4 KLT 264 . The said contention was specifically considered by the educational authorities and found against the appellant (writ petitioner). We notice that though the appellant (writ petitioner) relies on Ext.P11 to contend that there is nothing on record to show that the procedure contemplated in Kurian Lizy (supra) had been followed by the Manager, Ext.R4 (g) dated 06.12.2012 indicates that an enquiry by the Deputy Director of Education confirmed that the procedure contemplated by Kurian Lizy (Supra) was indeed followed by the Manager. 3. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions of the appellant (writ petitioner) in substantial detail and has found that the right of a minority educational institution to appoint a Headmaster of their choice is well settled. We would, in this regard, refer to the illuminating words of M.S. Menon C.J. speaking for the Full Bench in Rt. Rev. Aldo Maria Patroni vs. E.C. Kesavan and Others, 1964 KLT 791 (F.B.) where an almost identical issue was considered. It was held:- “14. The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him, wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school; and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. The right to choose the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school; and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. To hold otherwise will be to make the right, a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality.” Therefore, the right, perhaps absolute, of the minority institution to appoint a Headmaster of its choice cannot be disputed. 4. The learned Single Judge also noticed, after referring to Kurian Lizy (Supra), that the law laid down therein was that Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, would have no control over the rights conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India The learned Judge held that the Full Bench in Kurian Lizy (Supra) only held that the Manager will have to evolve a fair procedure for selection of the Headmaster. The learned Single Judge concluded that there is nothing to suggest that a fair procedure had not been adopted by the Manager in selecting the Headmaster of the choice of the management. In the absence of any material to suggest otherwise, we see no reason to take a different view. 5. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.