JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary. J 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned Additional Advocate General-III appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent No.-1. 3. Heard Mr. Md. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Minority School, namely, Saint Francis High School, Poreyahat, Godda. 4. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the learned writ court in W.P.(S) No. 1122 of 2011, whereby a direction has been issued to the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for permanent absorption on vacant and sanctioned post of teacher in Sanskrit subject in the respondent’s school within a reasonable period preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The learned writ court while passing the aforesaid direction has recorded a finding that considering the series of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to in the judgment, the case of the petitioner fits into the eligibility condition for consideration for permanent absorption in view of the fact that the petitioner has rendered 14 years’ service on the date of advertisement having possessed the requisite qualification. Arguments on behalf of the Appellants 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has referred to para-83 of the memo of appeal which is a representation dated 09.08.2010 filed by the petitioner before the authorities and submits that there is no dispute that even as per the petitioner, the petitioner has been working in the respondent-minority school from 13.02.1996 on purely temporary basis and there is only one sanctioned post of Sanskrit teacher in the school which fell vacant on 31.01.2010 when one Surya Kumar Mandal, Sanskrit teacher superannuated and thereafter on 13.02.2010, an advertisement was issued for the purposes of appointment of Sanskrit teacher, in which, the writ petitioner also participated and the result was against the writ petitioner. In this representation, the writ petitioner has contended that there was no requirement to issue any advertisement and in fact the writ petitioner ought to have been absorbed by way of regularization and the school ought to have referred the case of the writ petitioner for approval by the Directorate of Education at Ranchi. In this representation, the writ petitioner has contended that there was no requirement to issue any advertisement and in fact the writ petitioner ought to have been absorbed by way of regularization and the school ought to have referred the case of the writ petitioner for approval by the Directorate of Education at Ranchi. It was also contended by the writ petitioner in this representation that from 01.02.2010 to 30.06.2010, the writ petitioner was assured by the school that his case will be referred for absorption and will be recommended for approval by the State, but the same was not done by stating that the petitioner has become over-aged and the petitioner does not have B.Ed degree and by raising one or the other excuse, the school has harassed him. The writ petitioner has also stated in the said representation that in the year 1996 when he was appointed in the school, the petitioner had the degree of D.P.E.D. which was duly recognized by the State Government and in the year 2008, his degree was de-recognized, but such decision of the State Government does not apply to him as his appointment was prior to 2008 and on the date of appointment, he had the requisite qualification. The petitioner has also raised a grievance in this particular representation that in connection with his grievance, he met the Secretary of the respondent-Minority School who did not give any heed to his request and also met the District Education Officer, Godda, Director Secondary Education, Ranchi, but they also did not accede to his request and that they are trying to appoint some other person in connivance with each other. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants had taken specific instructions which has been recorded in order dated 22.09.2020 that there is neither any scheme for regularization of teachers working in minority institution nor any teacher in minority institution has ever been regularized by the State Government and if any such direction of regularization is issued by this Court in connection with a teacher working in minority institution under unsanctioned post, the same would amount to interference in the affairs of the minority institution. The aforesaid submission was made and recorded in order dated 22.09.2020 in the backdrop of the fact that admittedly the name of the petitioner was never referred to by the Managing Committee of the minority institution for his regularization or for his appointment pursuant to the advertisement issued by the school for appointment of Sanskrit teacher in which the petitioner had also participated, but his name was never recommended. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to the supplementary-affidavit filed in the present case and submits that for the purposes of appointment in minority schools against sanctioned post, for which the fund is released by the State Government by way of aid to the minority school for payment of the salary of teachers holding the sanctioned post, it is mandatory for the candidate to have the prescribed qualification and the post is required to be filled through advertisement. He submits that, on the one hand, on the date of advertisement, the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification to be appointed against the post of Sanskrit teacher and on the other hand, the petitioner is claiming to be absorbed by way of regularization in the school as a Sanskrit teacher after having participated in the selection process through advertisement and becoming unsuccessful. He has also submitted that admittedly till date, the school has not recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment and any mandamus issued by this Court for consideration of regularization of the petitioner would amount to interference in the right of the educational institution to manage their affairs and violate the provisions of Articles 29 & 30 of the Constitution of India. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned writ court while recording the finding and issuing direction for consideration for regularization of services of the petitioner in the respondent Minority School. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent Minority School 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-minority school also fully supported the argument of the appellants-State and has also submitted that the name of the petitioner was neither recommended for regularization nor his name was recommended for the purposes of appointment pursuing to the advertisement issued by the school. However, it is not in dispute that the solitary sanctioned post of Sanskrit teacher in the school continues to be vacant. However, it is not in dispute that the solitary sanctioned post of Sanskrit teacher in the school continues to be vacant. The learned counsel has also submitted that the school has a right to appoint teacher of their own choice and as per the guidelines of the State Government by issuing advertisement and the direction by the learned writ court to absorb/regularize the writ petitioner has a direct bearing on the right of the respondent minority school to administer the school by appointing teachers of their own choice as per the protection guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Arguments on behalf of the writ petitioner 9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 (Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal) and submits that initially the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was placed before a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi and by virtue of order dated 11.12.2014 both the Hon’ble Judges express their independent views and accordingly, the matter was placed before three judges Bench which was decided on 25th September, 2019. The learned counsel has referred to the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the case and was of the view that there was no reason as to why the appointments of the appellants should not be approved with effect from the date of such vacancies becoming available against which such appointments could be regularized and a direction was issued to the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the appellants with effect from the date the vacancy became available for such appointment with consequential reliefs. The learned counsel submits that in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the fact that it was not in dispute that the appellants were serving for a considerable length of time on a meager salary which the minority institution has been paying to them in the absence of the State Government recognizing the appointments and releasing grant-in-aid against their posts and in the said case, it was also not in dispute that the vacancy on the sanctioned posts fell vacant subsequent to the appointment of the said appellants. 10. 10. The learned counsel submits that the case of the present writ petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inasmuch as, in the present case also, the writ petitioner was duly appointed by the Managing Committee of the school and was having the requisite qualification on the date of his appointment in the year 1996 and continued to work throughout without any complain and accordingly, as soon as the solitary sanctioned post of Sanskrit teacher fell vacant, the writ petitioner ought to have been regularized by the respondents which includes the minority school as well as the State Government and accordingly, he submits that the learned single judge has rightly issued mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularization after having given finding as mentioned in Para-13 of the impugned judgment. 11. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 paras- 14, 15 and 21; (2007) (1) JLJR 161 SC paras-19 and 20 and (2010) 9 SCC 247 para-7. He submits that there is a distinction between irregular appointment and illegal appointment and in the present case, the appointment of the writ petitioner was neither irregular nor illegal and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been regularized/absorbed in the vacancy which arose in the year 2010 relating to sanctioned post. Findings of this Court 12. This Court finds that undisputed facts on record are that the writ petitioner (Respondent herein) was appointed in the respondent-minority school on 13.02.1996 on purely temporary basis for a period expiring on 12.08.1996 with stipulation that the extension of service of the writ petitioner will be considered depending upon his performance. As per the initial letter of appointment dated 13.02.1996, the writ petitioner was appointed for teaching Hindi and Sanskrit. The service of the writ petitioner was extended by the managing committee of the school for a period of another six months again on purely temporary basis vide communication dated 13.08.1996 and again extended till 12.08.1997 on purely temporary basis vide communication dated 16.03.1997. Thereafter, the writ petitioner continued to work in the respondent-minority school, but there is no letter of extension on record. Thereafter, the writ petitioner continued to work in the respondent-minority school, but there is no letter of extension on record. However, a certificate was issued by the respondent-school as contained in letter No. 22/10 dated 16.02.2010 certifying that the writ petitioner has been working in the school on purely temporary basis right from 13.02.1996 and his services were satisfactory. 13. It was the specific case of the writ petitioner before the learned writ court that the writ petitioner continued to work in anticipation that if in future any vacancy in permanent post of Sanskrit teacher would arise, then his case will be considered on the ground of long length of service and wide experience in teaching Sanskrit. Admittedly, the school had only one sanctioned post of Sanskrit teacher which fell vacant on or from 31.01.2010 upon superannuation of the Sanskrit teacher, namely, Surya Kumar Mandal. Consequently, an advertisement was issued by the minority school on 01.02.2010 calling for application from suitable candidates for fulfilling the permanent post of Sanskrit teacher in the school and the prescribed qualification was that the candidates must possess experience of (Acharya) from any Board/University. Pursuant to the advertisement, the writ petitioner made an application for being considered to be appointed on the post of permanent Sanskrit teacher and writ petitioner was asked to appear in written exam as well as in interview vide communication dated 06.07.2010. It is not in dispute that the respondent minority school declined to recommend the name of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification as per the advertisement and this fact is also reflecting in the representation of the writ petitioner dated 09.08.2010 (as referred to and relied upon by the appellant -state during the course of arguments). 14. It is the case of the writ petitioner that although the petitioner was called to appear for written exam and interview, but the very basis of issuance of advertisement was absolutely incorrect and illegal as the petitioner should have been absorbed in the vacant sanctioned post and the petitioner also has the requisite education qualification and enormous experience of teaching in the said school. In this background, the petitioner filed representation, received on 24.07.2010, for redressal of his grievance and claimed regularization of his service in the school against the vacant sanctioned post in Sanskrit. In this background, the petitioner filed representation, received on 24.07.2010, for redressal of his grievance and claimed regularization of his service in the school against the vacant sanctioned post in Sanskrit. It is further an admitted fact that neither the writ petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post of Sanskrit nor anyone else was appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2010, nor the writ petitioner was regularized on the post and the post of the Sanskrit teacher is still lying vacant. Admittedly, the name of the writ petitioner was never forwarded/recommended by the school to the Government for regularization or for fresh appointment pursuant to the said advertisement issued in the year 2010. Rather the representation of the writ petitioner as referred to above, clearly indicates that the school had refused to recommend the case of the writ petitioner for appointment against the advertisement, though the writ petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2010. In this background, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking mandamus upon the respondents to forthwith adjust the services of the petitioner against the sanctioned vacant post on Sanskrit teacher and absorb the writ petitioner as permanent teacher of Sanskrit in the respondent minority school in the given pay-scale of the said post and release his entire arrears of salary with all consequential reliefs. 15. Before the learned single judge, the specific case of the respondent-school has been recorded in para-5 of the impugned judgment which indicates that it was submitted by the respondent-school that there are certain sanctioned posts for which the Government pays salary and other emoluments and appointment on such sanctioned post is to be made after following the procedure as fixed by the Government which includes adherence to right to appoint and equal opportunity. Consequently, an advertisement is issued and candidates are selected in interview by the Selection Committee and the Managing Committee recommends the name of the selected candidate to the Government for appointment which is approved after completing all the formalities and verifying educational certificates of the successful candidates. It was also submitted by the respondent school that the petitioner after having applied for the post pursuant to advertisement was estopped from challenging the same. It was also submitted by the respondent school that the petitioner after having applied for the post pursuant to advertisement was estopped from challenging the same. A supplementary-affidavit was also filed by the school controverting the averments made in the writ petition and it was stated that the writ petitioner and many other candidates applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis of daily wages and the total number of vacant post of Sanskrit teacher was only one. It was further the specific case of the respondent minority school that the writ petitioner is a teacher appointed by School Managing committee on a private basis and has been working as a Sanskrit teacher in the school from 1996 and the adjustment was done due to increased number of students in the school, but the writ petitioner was never appointed against any valid sanctioned post. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the post of Sanskrit teacher in the school fell vacant from 01.02.2010 and till date it was vacant. 16. This Court finds that the learned writ court found that the petitioner having requisite qualification has been working as a teacher in Sanskrit subject since 1996 in the respondent’s school and after rendering 14 years of service, it would but natural to legitimately expect for permanent absorption on the post in question, particularly when the petitioner had the required qualification having unblemished and uninterrupted service of 14 years. The learned writ court referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) SCC Online SC 771 [: 2018 (3) JLJR (SC) 351] (Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others) paras-8, 9 and 11, wherein certain directions were issued taking into consideration the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi and Kesari. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the intent of the decision of Uma Devi was two-fold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and it was also observed that the fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in the case of Umadevi and therefore, there was a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed and this amounts to nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head and this is precisely what Umadevi and Kesari had sought to avoid. 17. The learned writ court also found that Hon’ble Supreme Court was also of the view that since the State of Jharkhand came into existence only on 15th November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10th April, 2006 and indefinite continuation of irregular appointed employees would perpetuate contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench and under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants of the said case, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc. 18. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc. 18. The learned writ court considered a few more judgments on the point of regularization and held in para-13 that the case of the petitioner fits into the eligibility condition for consideration of permanent absorption in view of the fact that the petitioner has rendered 14 years of service on the date of advertisement having possessed the requisite qualification and consequently issued a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for permanent absorption on the post in question in the vacant and sanctioned post of teacher in Sanskrit subject in the respondent’s school within a reasonable period of four months from the date of receipt/communication of the copy of the order. 19. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India reads as under: - “Section 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” 20. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Minority School in which the writ petitioner has been working is a recognized minority school governed by Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of management and control) Act 1981 also applicable to the State of Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1981). 21. A number of writ petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Act of 1981 on the ground that the provisions of the Act are violative of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1981 were upheld vide judgment reported in (1988) 1 SCC 206 [:199 PLJR (SC) 7] (All Bihar Christian Schools Association and Another vs. State of Bihar). 22. The relevant Sections of the said Act of 1981 which fell for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are Sections 2, 3 and 18. For the purposes of the present case 18(1), (2) 18(a), 18(b) and 18(j) of the aforesaid Act of 1981 are relevant. 23. Section 18 of the said Act of 1981 has been quoted at para 10 of the aforesaid judgment of All Bihar Christian Schools Association (supra). For the purposes of the present case 18(1), (2) 18(a), 18(b) and 18(j) of the aforesaid Act of 1981 are relevant. 23. Section 18 of the said Act of 1981 has been quoted at para 10 of the aforesaid judgment of All Bihar Christian Schools Association (supra). The relevant sub-sections and clauses of Section 18 are quoted as under: “18. Recognition of minority secondary schools. — (1) The schools declared a minority school under the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 25 of 1976) and the Bihar Secondary Education Board (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (Bihar Ordinance 82 of 1980) shall be deemed to have been recognised under the provisions of this Act. (2) The State Government may, by notification, recognise as a minority secondary school, such secondary school which has been established by a minority community on the basis of religion or language for the purposes of meeting the educational requirement and for the protection of culture of their section and which fulfils the prescribed condition of recognition. (3) The minority secondary school accorded recognition under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be managed and controlled under the following provisions: (a) Every minority secondary school shall have a managing committee registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1862 and shall have written by-laws regarding its constitution and function. (b) According to the prescribed qualification laid down by the State Government for the teachers of the nationalised secondary schools and within the number of sanctioned posts, the managing committee of the minority secondary schools shall appoint the teacher with the concurrence of the school service board constituted under Section 10 of this Act. Provided that while considering the question of giving approval to appointment of any teacher under this sub-section the board shall only scrutinise as to whether the proposed appointment is in accordance with the rules laying down the qualification and the manner of making appointment framed by the State Government has been followed or not, and no more. (c) There shall be rules regarding the service conditions of teachers of minority schools based on natural justice and the prevailing law, a copy of which shall be sent to the State Government. (d) ……….. (e) ………... (f) ………... (g) ………….. (h) …………….. (i) …………... (c) There shall be rules regarding the service conditions of teachers of minority schools based on natural justice and the prevailing law, a copy of which shall be sent to the State Government. (d) ……….. (e) ………... (f) ………... (g) ………….. (h) …………….. (i) …………... (j) The State Government shall have powers to issue instructions not inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution for efficient management and for improving the standard of teaching and it shall be obligatory for the recognised minority schools to comply with them. (k) In the event of violation of this section and the rules made thereunder and the instructions issued under it, the said managing committee may make an application within sixty days of the date of the order to the officer authorised by the State Government, against the withdrawal of recognition or withholding or stopping grants and the authorised officer shall, after hearing the case, take his decision and it shall be binding.” 24. The point of validity of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act of 1981 has been considered from para 12 onwards of the aforesaid judgment of All Bihar Christian Schools Association (supra). While dealing with the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also dealt with the scheme of Section 18. 25. It has been held that Section 18(3) lays down conditions under which a recognised minority secondary school shall be managed and controlled. These terms and conditions are specified in clauses (a) to (k). This Section requires a recognised minority school to comply with the terms and conditions set out therein and in accordance with rules framed by the managing committee regulating employment of teachers and disciplinary matters. 26. Section 18(3) provides that recognised minority secondary schools shall be managed and controlled in accordance with the provisions contained in clauses (a) to (k).It was urged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3) make serious inroads into the right of a minority institution to carry on its administration according to its own choice and that the terms and conditions prescribed therein regulate and control the administration of a minority school, which are violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 27. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of All Bihar Christian Schools Association (supra) examined each of the clauses (a) to (k) in detail to determine the crucial question, whether any of these clauses violate petitioners’ fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. With regards to clause(a) of 18(3) it has been held that Clause (a) requires a minority secondary school to have a managing committee registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1862 and to frame written by-laws regulating constitution and functions of the managing committee. The by-laws regarding the constitution of the managing committee are required to be framed by the minority institution itself. The State or any other authority has no power or authority to impose any terms or conditions for the constitution of the managing committee. If a society running a minority institution frames written by-laws providing for the constitution of managing committee entrusted with the function of running and administering its school it would ensure efficient administration. This clause is in the interest of the minority institution itself, as no outsider is imposed as a member of the managing committee, there is no interference with the minorities’ right to administer its school. With regards to clause(b) of 18(3) it has been held that Clause (b) provides for two things, firstly it requires the managing committee of a minority school to appoint teachers possessing requisite qualifications as prescribed by the State Government for appointment of teachers of other nationalised schools, secondly, the managing committee is required to make appointment of a teacher with the concurrence of the School Service Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act. Proviso to clause (b) lays down that the School Service Board while considering the question of granting approval to the appointment of a teacher, shall ascertain if the appointment is in accordance with the rules laying down qualifications, and manner of making appointment framed by the State Government. The proviso makes it clear that the School Service Board has no further power to interfere with the right of Managing Committee of a minority school in the appointment of a teacher. Under clause (b), the managing committee is required to make appointment of a teacher with the concurrence of the School Service Board. The expression “concurrence” means approval. Such approval need not be prior approval, as the clause does not provide for any prior approval. Under clause (b), the managing committee is required to make appointment of a teacher with the concurrence of the School Service Board. The expression “concurrence” means approval. Such approval need not be prior approval, as the clause does not provide for any prior approval. Object and purpose underlying clause (b) is to ensure that the teachers appointed in a minority school should possess requisite qualifications and they are appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the appointments are made for the sanctioned strength. The selection and appointment of teachers is left to the management of the minority school; there is no interference with the managerial rights of the institution. In granting approval, the School Service Board has limited power. The appointment of qualified teachers in a minority school is a sine qua non for achieving educational standard and better administration of the institution. Clause (b) is regulatory in nature to ensure educational excellence in the minority school. With regards to clause(c) of 18(3) it has been held that Cause (c) is regulatory in nature which requires the managing committee to frame rules of employment consistent with principles of natural justice and the prevailing law. No outside agency is required to frame rules of employment of teachers instead the management itself is empowered to frame rules. There is therefore no element of interference with the management’s right to administer a minority school. With regards to Clauses (j) and (k) of 18(3) it has been held that Clauses (j) and (k) of Section 18(3) confer power on the State Government to issue instructions consistent with the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution for efficient management and for improving the standard of teaching and a minority school is required to comply with those instructions. ………… Any rule or instruction issued by the government to prevent maladministration would be valid. …………... 28. While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 18(3) of the aforesaid Act of 1981, it has been held that Clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3) lay down terms and conditions for granting recognition to a minority school, and these are regulatory in nature which seek to secure excellence in education and efficiency in management of schools. These provisions do not confer any unguided blanket or veto power on any outside agency or authority to veto the decision of the management of the school. These provisions do not confer any unguided blanket or veto power on any outside agency or authority to veto the decision of the management of the school. Instead, minority’s right to manage its school in accordance with rules framed by it is fully preserved. The legislature has taken care to confer a limited power on the School Service Board for granting approval to appointment and dismissal of a teacher which are necessary in the interest of educational need and discipline of the minority school itself. The terms and conditions applicable to a recognised minority school do not compel the management of a minority school to surrender its right of administration; instead, the management is free to administer its school in accordance with the rules framed by it. It has also been held in para 17 of the judgment that the School Service Board is vested with limited power to see that the person proposed to be appointed possesses the requisite qualifications prescribed and that the prescribed method of selection was followed by the management. The choice of the person for appointment continues to vest in the managing committee of the minority school. 29. Thus, the right of the managing committee of a recognized minority school to appoint a person of their choice has been held to be a constitutional right under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and the School Service Board is vested with limited power to see that the person proposed to be appointed possesses the requisite qualifications prescribed and that the prescribed method of selection was followed by the management. This power has been held to be regulatory in nature in order to ensure educational excellence in the minority school and at the same time the right of the managing committee of a recognized minority school to appoint a person of their choice as teacher/non-teaching staff has been preserved in the light of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. 30. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sindhi Education Society reported in (2010) 8 SCC 49 , the right of minority to choose teachers, who possess the required eligibility and qualification, has been reiterated in para 112. This judgment has also been followed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S Thakur in his judgment reported in (2015) 12 SCC 140 (Chandana Das versus State of West Bengal). 31. This judgment has also been followed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S Thakur in his judgment reported in (2015) 12 SCC 140 (Chandana Das versus State of West Bengal). 31. The judgment reported in (2015) 12 SCC 140 (Chandana Das versus State of West Bengal) recorded a difference of opinion between Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S Thakur, who allowed the appeal and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi who dismissed the appeal and was referred to a three judges bench. The three judges bench ultimately upheld the judgment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S Thakur vide judgment reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253(Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal). The learned counsel for the respondent teacher has heavily relied upon the judgment reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 which has been discussed in details in latter part of this judgment. 32. This Court finds that the learned writ court while issuing the aforesaid direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for permanent absorption on the vacant and sanctioned post of teacher in Sanskrit subject has omitted to consider the fact that in the present case the respondent school is a minority school enjoying the protection of Articles 29 & 30 of the Constitution of India and has fundamental right to manage its affairs subject to Articles 29 & 30. This Court further finds that admittedly in the instant case, the name of the writ petitioner was never recommended by the respondent-minority school either for regularization or for appointment pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 2010 and accordingly, a direction for absorption/regularization of the writ petitioner in the services of the minority school in the vacant sanctioned post would amount to giving a complete go by to the right of the respondent-minority educational institution to get a person appointed on the basis of recommendation to be made by the Managing Committee of the minority school. The learned single judge has ignored the distinction between a Government School and a Minority School receiving aid by way of salary to the teachers appointed against the sanctioned post. This Court is of the considered view that a direction to absorb/regularize the writ petitioner would amount to interference in fundamental right of the minority school to manage their own affairs. 33. This Court is of the considered view that a direction to absorb/regularize the writ petitioner would amount to interference in fundamental right of the minority school to manage their own affairs. 33. So far as the judgment which has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 12 SCC 140 (Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal) is concerned, the appellants of the said case were appointed as teachers on temporary basis and their appointments did not meet the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Calcutta, according to whom any such appointment could be made only on the recommendations of the School Service Commission established under the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Inspector, the appellants of the said case approached the High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petitions which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by holding that the Institution in which the appellants were appointed being a linguistic minority institution was entitled to select and appoint its teachers and accordingly, the Single Bench directed the respondents in the writ petitions to approve the appointment of the appellants as whole-time teachers with effect from 28-7-1999 and release the arrears of salary and other service benefits in their favour. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the State of West Bengal preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that since the Institution in which the appellants were appointed was a recognized aided Institution, the management of the Institution was bound to follow the mandate of Rule 28 of the Rules which permitted appointments against a permanent post only if the candidate was recommended for any such appointment by the School Service Commission. The Division Bench further held that the appellants having been appointed beyond the sanctioned staff strength at the relevant point of time and dehors the Rules could not claim any approval in their favour. The Division Bench further held that the appellants having been appointed beyond the sanctioned staff strength at the relevant point of time and dehors the Rules could not claim any approval in their favour. The Division Bench also held that since the Institution had not made any claim to its being a minority institution it was not open to the employee writ petitioners to claim any such status on its behalf and the Division Bench further took the view that once a minority community applies for a special constitution under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8 of the said Rules, it represents to the State Government that it was not claiming the status of a minority institution. The Division Bench was of the view that the Single Bench had, therefore, fallen in error in holding that the Institution where the appellants worked was a minority institution or that the appointment made by such an Institution would not be regulated by Rule 28 of the Rules. 34. In the aforesaid background, the short question which fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the Institution's right to select and appoint teachers is in any way affected by the provisions of the Rules of Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969 framed under the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963? 35. Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur in his judgment held that a simple reading of the rules showed that a special constitution is not envisaged for any particular class of institutes and such special constitution can be approved on the application of any institution or class of institutions and it was immaterial whether the institution is a minority institution or otherwise and accordingly, the argument that the approval of a special institution by itself was indicative of the institution giving up its claim of being a minority institution was rejected. The Hon’ble Judge was of the view that once the institute is recognized as a minority institution, its minority status would entitle the managing committee of the institution to make appointment of teachers against vacancies within its sanctioned strength and the power to make such appointment is enjoyed by the institutes by reason of the constitutional protection with such institution enjoys. It was also observed that linguistic and religious institutions are entitled to establish and administer their own institutions and such right to administer includes the rights of appointing teachers of their own choice, but does not denude the State of its power to frame regulations that may prescribed the condition of eligibility for appointment of such teachers. The regulations can also prescribe measures to ensure that their institutions are run efficiently for the right to administer does not include right to maladministration. The Hon’ble Judge held that once the respondent-institution was held to be a minority institution entitled to protection under Articles 29 & 30 of the Constitution of India, the right to appoint teachers of its own choice, subject to satisfying the condition of eligibility prescribed for such appointments under the relevant rules, is implicit in their right to administer such institutions and such right cannot be diluted by the State or its functionaries by insisting that the appointment should be made only with the approval of the director or by following the mechanism generally prescribed for institutions that do not enjoy the minority status. The Hon’ble Court further held that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that appointments of the appellants were dehors the rules, in as much as, they were not made by the School Service Commission hence did not qualify for approval, did not appear to be sound. The other question considered regarding the matter of approval of such appointments, was the absence of a sanctioned post as on the date when the appointments were made. The Hon’ble judge was of the view that there was no reason why the appointment of the appellants should not be approved with effect from the date of such vacancies becoming available against which such appointments could be regularised. In the result the appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble Judge and the order of the division bench of the High Court was set aside and the writ petitions were allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the appellants with effect from the date vacancies became available for such appointments with consequential reliefs. 36. Hon’ble Mrs. 36. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, in her dissenting judgment was of the view that merely because an educational institution is established by a religious or linguistic minority, it does not automatically become a minority institution for the purposes of claiming right of administration and for getting grant-in-aid. The educational institution concerned so established by the religious or linguistic minority must be recognised or granted the status of minority institution by the competent authorities. According to the official respondents, minority status was never granted to the respondent school and only special constitution of management was granted to the school. The Hon’ble Judge was of the view that as the respondent school was never declared to be a minority institution by the competent authorities, the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case Reported in 2003 (1) JLJR (SC) 1 is not applicable to the respondent school and in absence of any order by the competent authority, the respondent school was bound by the mandate contained in the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969. The Hon’ble Judge held that the respondent school being a recognised aided institution was bound by the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969 and having accepted the special constitution in terms of Rule 8(3), the respondent school cannot turn round and contend that it was a minority institution as per the special rules framed in terms of Rule 33. The Hon’ble judge held that a reading of Rule 8(3) clearly showed that the institution having special constitution cannot have a managing committee of its own, but the Managing Committee should be in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules which indicated that the right of the institution to have the Managing Committee was curtailed. The right of the minorities is to establish and to administer educational institutions of their choice and the moment the said right was abridged, the choice no longer remained a choice. The right of the minorities is to establish and to administer educational institutions of their choice and the moment the said right was abridged, the choice no longer remained a choice. The Hon’ble judge was of the view that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had rightly held that Rule 8(3) of the Rules amounts to an imposition abridging the fundamental right and therefore a special constitution permitted under Rule 8(3) cannot be in relation to minority community institutions and therefore having accepted the special constitution in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules, the respondent school could not contend that it was a minority institution governed by the special rules framed by the State under Rule 33 of the Rules. When the respondent school had accepted the special constitution and had not claimed to be a minority institution, the appellants who were merely employees of such an institution, could not contend that the institution was a minority institution entitled to appoint its own teachers. It was held by the Hon’ble Judge that since the appellants were appointed dehors the provisions contained in Rule 28 of the Rules, the High Court rightly held that their appointment was in contravention of the Rules and beyond the sanctioned strength at the relevant time and no direction could be issued for approval of their appointment. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. 37. In view of the divergence of opinion in terms of separate judgments the appeal was directed to be assigned to a three-Judge Bench. The judgment was ultimately passed by the three judges’ bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 and the view expressed by Hon’ble Justice T.S. Thakur was held to be the correct view. 38. In the judgment passed by the three judges bench reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that the main grounds for disagreement between the two Hon’ble Judges were two. 38. In the judgment passed by the three judges bench reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that the main grounds for disagreement between the two Hon’ble Judges were two. In paragraphs 36 to 40, the learned Judge found that in the absence of any order by the competent authority under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act granting minority status to the Respondent No.4 school, the said school cannot claim to be a minority institution for the purpose of Article 30 and is, therefore, bound, being an aided institution, by the 1969 Rules, in particular Rule 28 thereof. The other plank of the decision was contained in paragraphs 43 and 51, stating that the school having accepted the special constitution in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules, the school is estopped from contending that it is a minority institution governed by special rules to be framed by the State under Rule 33 of the Rules. 39. It was held that there was no manner of doubt that if Respondent school was a minority institution, Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969, cannot apply as there would be a serious infraction of the right of Respondent minority school to administer the institution with teachers of its choice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the competent authorities set up by the Act of West Bengal involved in the said case did not have any power to recognise a minority institution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of the case ultimately held that it cannot be said that Respondent school was, in any manner, estopped from claiming its minority status and it is settled law that the fundamental right under Article 30 cannot be waived. It was held that the judgment of Thakur, J. is correct in law. Consequently, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court was held to be correct, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was set aside and appeals were allowed. 40. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has heavily relied upon the aforesaid judgment reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 (supra). It has been submitted that the view of Hon’ble Mr. 40. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has heavily relied upon the aforesaid judgment reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 (supra). It has been submitted that the view of Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur, as expressed in his judgment reported in (2015) 12 SCC 140 were upheld and the point as to whether approval of appointments made by minority school in absence of a sanctioned post as on the date of appointment of teachers was also considered and the Hon’ble Judge was of the view that there was no reason why the appointment of teachers should not be approved with effect from the date of such vacancies becoming available against which such appointments could be regularized and consequently a direction was issued to the respondents of the case to grant approval to the appointment of teachers with effect from the date vacancies became available for such appointments with consequential reliefs. It has been submitted that the case of the present writ petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment. 41. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner in the present case has submitted that in this case also, at the time of appointment, the petitioner was not appointed against sanctioned post as there was no available sanctioned post at that point of time, but subsequently when the post became vacant consequent to retirement of the concerned teacher, the writ petitioner was required to be regularized and accordingly, it has been vehemently submitted that the learned writ court has rightly directed for absorption/regularization of the services of the writ petitioner who had worked as Sanskrit teacher in the school for more than 14 years. 42. This Court finds that there is a marked distinction between the facts involved in the aforesaid judgment heavily relied upon by the writ petitioner, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 (supra), and the facts of the present case. In the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the recommendation for appointment of the teachers as per the choice of Minority institution was made by them, but the State Authorities had refused to approve their appointments on the ground that the appointments were not made upon recommendation of the School Service Commission as per the rules applicable in the State of West Bengal. Thus, apparently in the said case, the Managing Committee of the minority school was supporting the teachers who were recommended by the school. In the present case, admittedly the respondent-minority school never recommended for appointment of the writ petitioner as a teacher against vacant sanctioned post for Sanskrit, although the writ petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued for the purpose and it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has been working in the respondent-minority school much prior to the date of advertisement and at the time of initial appointment of the writ petitioner, the sanctioned post was not vacant. In view of the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the law is well-settled that once the institute is recognized as a minority institution, its minority status would entitle the managing committee of the institution to make appointment of teachers against the vacancies subject to satisfying the condition of eligibility prescribed for such appointments under the relevant provision. This Court also finds that the respondent-minority school has fully supported the appellants (State authorities) in the instant case as the respondent minority school had refused to recommend the name of the writ petitioner for appointment against the vacant sanctioned post after the writ petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement. The aforesaid distinction of the present case on facts as compared to the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has an important bearing on the constitutional rights of the respondent minority school to appoint teachers of their own choice subject to the regulatory provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1981. 43. It has been submitted by the writ petitioner that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner, though not against any sanctioned post, was neither irregular nor illegal and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been regularized/absorbed in the vacancy which arose in the year 2010 relating to sanctioned post. There is no dispute that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was neither illegal nor irregular. There is no dispute that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was neither illegal nor irregular. This Court is of the considered view that the said fact by itself is not sufficient to issue mandamus for regularization/ absorption of the writ petitioner when the respondent minority school has refused to recommend the name of the writ petitioner as a result of the selection process pursuant to the advertisement for the purpose of appointment on the vacant sanctioned post. Such direction has direct bearing on the constitutional right of the respondent minority school to appoint teachers of their own choice subject to regulatory provisions of aforesaid Act of 1981 which admittedly governs the respondent school. 44. This Court is of the considered view that the direction issued by the learned writ court upon the Respondents to absorb/regularize the services of the writ petitioner and absorb his services against vacant sanctioned post of Sanskrit teacher, in spite of his name having been rejected by the Managing Committee of the respondent-minority school in the selection process through advertisement, has a serious bearing upon the right of the respondent Minority School to appoint teachers of their choice subject to the regulatory provisions contained in the aforesaid Act of 1981. The impugned direction of the writ court will amount to denial of the right conferred under Article 30 of the Constitution of India upon the respondent minority school to administer the minority institution and amounts to curtailment of the right of the respondent minority school to appoint teachers of their choice through appropriate selection process amongst those who possess the eligibility and qualification prescribed. The direction issued by the learned writ court has the effect of imposing the writ petitioner and compelling the respondent minority school to appoint the writ petitioner and consequently regularise/absorb his services which is beyond the regulatory provision as prescribed under the aforesaid Act of 1981 and was subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of All Bihar Christian Schools Association (supra), wherein with regard to clause (b) of Section 18(3) of the aforesaid Act of 1981, it has been held as under:- “With regards to clause (b) of 18(3) it has been held that Clause (b) provides for two things, firstly it requires the managing committee of a minority school to appoint teachers possessing requisite qualifications as prescribed by the State Government for appointment of teachers of other nationalised schools, secondly, the managing committee is required to make appointment of a teacher with the concurrence of the School Service Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act. Proviso to clause (b) lays down that the School Service Board while considering the question of granting approval to the appointment of a teacher, shall ascertain if the appointment is in accordance with the rules laying down qualifications, and manner of making appointment framed by the State Government. The proviso makes it clear that the School Service Board has no further power to interfere with the right of Managing Committee of a minority school in the appointment of a teacher. Under clause (b), the managing committee is required to make appointment of a teacher with the concurrence of the School Service Board. The expression “concurrence” means approval. Such approval need not be prior approval, as the clause does not provide for any prior approval. Object and purpose underlying clause (b) is to ensure that the teachers appointed in a minority school should possess requisite qualifications and they are appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the appointments are made for the sanctioned strength. The selection and appointment of teachers is left to the management of the minority school; there is no interference with the managerial rights of the institution. In granting approval, the School Service Board has limited power. The appointment of qualified teachers in a minority school is a sine qua non for achieving educational standard and better administration of the institution. The selection and appointment of teachers is left to the management of the minority school; there is no interference with the managerial rights of the institution. In granting approval, the School Service Board has limited power. The appointment of qualified teachers in a minority school is a sine qua non for achieving educational standard and better administration of the institution. Clause (b) is regulatory in nature to ensure educational excellence in the minority school.” 45. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case which are remarkably different from the facts of the judgment heavily relied upon by the writ petitioner reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1253 (Chandana Das versus State of west Bengal), the judgment of Chandana Das does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 46. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the judgment passed by the learned writ court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set-aside. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby allowed. 47. Pending interlocutory applications are closed.