JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is working as LPST in the School managed by the 6 th respondent, seeks to quash Ext.P11 and to compel the 1 st respondent to direct the Manager to promote the petitioner as Headmaster in the School. 2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the 4 th respondent-School from 09.06.1997. The appointment was approved as per Ext.P1. The petitioner has passed all the Departmental Tests. 3. Sri. Askar K., Headmaster, retired from service on 30.04.2021 giving rise to a vacancy of Headmaster from 01.05.2021. The petitioner is the seniormost Teacher having more than 24 years of service. As the petitioner has passed all Departmental Tests, she is eligible to be appointed as Headmaster. 4. The Manager, however, appointed the 5 th respondent as Headmaster. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Assistant Educational Officer stating that she is the seniormost Teacher entitled to be promoted as HM and that the Manager has not followed the procedure laid down by the Full Bench of this Court while filling up the post of Headmaster. The AEO, as per Ext.P7 order dated 22.10.2022, rejected approval to the appointment of the 5 th respondent as Headmaster, holding that the Manager has not followed the dictum laid down by this Court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala [ 2006 (4) KLT 264 ] and relevant Government Orders. The Manager preferred an appeal before the District Educational Officer. The DEO also rejected the appeal as per Ext.P8 order dated 15.11.2022. 5. The Manager preferred a further appeal before the Additional Director of General Education. The Additional Director found that the School has minority status and therefore the Manager can appoint a Teacher of the minority community as Headmaster. The petitioner belongs to General Category and therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, the discretion exercised by the Manager cannot be interfered with. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order dated 01.04.2024 of the Additional Director. 6. The counsel for the petitioner urged that a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra) has held that in the matter of appointment of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, the selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. All minority educational institutions proposing to select best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal ignoring seniority in the feeder category, should frame and publish Regulations or Bye-laws containing a transparent procedure governing such selection. The law laid down by the Full Bench in Kurian Lizy (supra) is ignored by the 6 th respondent. The 1 st respondent is a statutory authority and the 1 st respondent is bound to give cogent reasons for rejecting the findings of the AEO and the DEO. In the facts of the case, Ext.P11 is liable to be set aside and the 1 st respondent is compellable to direct the Manager to promote the petitioner, contended the counsel for the petitioner. 7. The 5 th respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 5 th respondent stated that the petitioner heavily relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra). In view of Ext.R5(f) judgment of the Apex Court, the principle of fair procedure stipulated by the Full Bench has become otiose. Therefore, Ext.P8 order issued by the Deputy Director is not liable to be interfered with. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent. 9. The argument of the petitioner in short is that a Full Bench of this Court in Kurian Lizy (supra) has held that in the matter of appointment of Headmaster/Principal in minority educational institutions, the selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent and all minority Educational Isnstitutions intending to appoint Headmaster/Principal ignoring seniority of Teachers, should frame and publish Regulations or Bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure governing such selection. The 6 th respondent has not followed the Full Bench judgment. Therefore, selection and appointment of the 5 th respondent is illegal. 10. In the judgment in Kurian Lizy (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held as follows: We notice that in many cases senior teachers belonging to the minority community, which runs the institution are superseded without assigning any reason. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is an armour to protect the minority against the legislative and executive actions of the State, which is normally controlled by the majority. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is an armour to protect the minority against the legislative and executive actions of the State, which is normally controlled by the majority. The said armour cannot be used as a weapon against other members of the same minority community. The protection under Article 30(1) is to the minority community and for the minority community. The Manager may supersede the members of other communities and also members of the minority community, who are found unsuitable for promotion to the post of Headmaster. But there may be teachers, who are, in every respect, qualified and suitable to head a minority educational institution. The management may select the best among them. The selection procedure should be fair, reasonable and transparent. The eligible members of the minority community may not have a feeling that they have been superseded without any valid grounds. So, all minority educational institutions, which propose to select the best person to the post of Headmaster/Principal of a School or College, as the case may be, ignoring seniority in the feeder category or ignoring the available teachers, should frame and publish regulations or bye-laws, containing a transparent procedure, governing such selection. The publication can be made in the Notice Board of the educational institution concerned and a copy of it should be available in school/college library for reference. When superseding a senior qualified member of the minority community the reasons thereof should be clear from the records. A reading of the judgment of the Full Bench would indicate that the procedure is prescribed in order to protect senior Teachers belonging to the minority community, in the matter of selection and appointment of Headmaster/Principal in minority educational institutions. The petitioner does not belong to the minority community. Therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn the selection on the basis of non-adherence to the directions given by the Full Bench. 11. The petitioner does not belong to the minority community. Therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn the selection on the basis of non-adherence to the directions given by the Full Bench. 11. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew and others [ (2017) 15 SCC 595 ] that once management of a minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority community to lead the institution, as the Headmaster or Principal, court cannot go into the merits of the choice or the rationality or propriety of the process of choice, as the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is absolute. In view of the law laid down by this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P11 order passed by the Additional Director (Academic) of General Education. The writ petition fails and it is hence dismissed.