JUDGMENT : Bharati Dangre, J. 1. The two Petitions filed by the Diocesan Society of Education, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, are assertions of its claim as a religious minority institution, entitled for the benefit of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, to establish and administer its educational institutions. As a concomitant of its right, Writ Petition No.826 of 2025 (F) seek a declaration that the provisions of Rule 46 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, in so far as it seeks to abridge and/or take away the right of the Petitioner-Society to make appointments and/or take disciplinary actions and/or exercise administrative control over the institution established by it, in the form of various schools, violate its right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. On factual aspects, a writ of mandamus is sought to direct the Respondents to grant approval for appointments effected by the Petitioner and quash the impugned letters issued by Deputy Director of Education addressed to the Management, asking to submit a fresh proposal under the signature of Chairman of the Managing Committee of the respective schools. In Writ Petition No.1865 of 2024 (F), the Petitioner apart from Rule 46, also raise a challenge to Rule 97(2) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 and seek a declaration that the Circular issued by the Public Notice dated 26.06.2020 is not applicable to the Petitioner, as it would affect its right to administer the schools. 2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr Pereira for the Petitioner in both the Petitions, who faces opposition from the learned Advocate General Mr Devidas Pangam representing the State as it is the contention of the State that in no way, the right of the Petitioner as minority institution has been infringed and in fact what is sought through the impugned communication is nothing but adherence to the provisions under which the school is established and recognized i.e. Goa School Education Act, 1984 ( referred to as ‘Act of 1984’) as well as Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (referred to as ‘Rules of 1986’). By consent of the respective counsel, since the pleadings in the petitions are complete, we deem it appropriate to issue ‘Rule’ and the Petitions are taken for hearing by making the rule returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of the respective counsel, since the pleadings in the petitions are complete, we deem it appropriate to issue ‘Rule’ and the Petitions are taken for hearing by making the rule returnable forthwith. 3. Mr Pereira, learned Senior Counsel has advanced his submissions in the backdrop of the pleadings contained in Writ Petition No.826 of 2025 (F) and he would submit that the Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it administers 138 schools which includes Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary schools in the State of Goa. The schools established and administered by the Petitioner are conferred status of minority school under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, New Delhi. Tracing the background, Mr Pereira would submit that Roman Catholics in the State of Goa is a Sect amongst the Christians, and in terms of the provisions of Canon Law, the Roman Catholic Church is inter alia organized into territorial Dioceses under the care of the Diocesan Bishop. The Canon Law enjoins the Catholic Church to provide for Catholic Education to the children of its faithful, and Canon 794 prescribes that the Catholic Church has a duty and right of educating, for it has a divine mission of helping all to arrive at the fullness of Christian life. In addition, by invoking Canon 795, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the education must pay regard to the formation of the whole person, so that they may attain their eternal destiny and at the same time promote the common good of the society. He would submit that with this background, the Petitioner-Society was formed with the following prime objectives: 1) To provide, establish, conduct, maintain and administer and manage schools at other educational institutions, as a means of advancing education in the spirit contemplated by the Roman Catholic Church. 2) To formulate and adopt a general educational policy in keeping with the mind of the Church for the Institutions administered by the local Ordinary (the Bishop) or Head of the Archdiocese, through his delegates and to make from time to time, rules and regulations for the administration of the said schools. 3) To advise the Diocesan Authorities to control expansion, limitations and closures of Educational Institutions with due regard to interest of the Church, State and Institutions concerned. 3) To advise the Diocesan Authorities to control expansion, limitations and closures of Educational Institutions with due regard to interest of the Church, State and Institutions concerned. 4) To secure from the Government facilities to impart moral instructions/religious instruction with due regard to rules laid down for the educational institutions in general. 5) To draw up an educational policy in keeping with the mind of the Church wherein the cultural heritage of the people is preserved and fostered without violating the educational standards established by the Government. 4. The list of the schools run by the Petitioner’s society is annexed at Annexure-A to the Petition and Mr Pereira would submit that in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IX of the Rules of 1986, the Petitioner has framed its own code of conduct manual, to be followed by all its employees, in order to maintain discipline in the schools established and administered by it. He also referred to the rule book titled as ‘D.S.E. Manual for its Staff’, providing for disciplinary and other Rules of conduct to be followed by the teaching and non-teaching staff. Emphasis of the learned Senior Counsel is upon the right of the society, which comprises the persons belonging to the Catholic faith, to administer the affairs of the Petitioner-Society, which include administration and management of various schools established by it, through its Governing Council. According to him, as per Rules and Regulations, the Governing Council is the Executive Committee of the Petitioner Society and it consists of 13 members, the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Society being its head and the committee comprising of a President, Secretary, appointed by the Ex-Officio Chairman, four elected representatives fromF amongst the Administrators and Managers of the Society’s institution, five elected representatives from amongst the Principals and Headmasters, three Headmasters, one Principal of the Higher Secondary School and one Principal of the College and one elected representative from amongst extra ordinary members. The Archbishop Patriarch of Goa and Daman is the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Governing Council and the other member of the Governing Council, according to Mr Pereira, is the President, who is also an Ordained Priest, the present incumbent being Rev. Fr. Jesus Rodriguez. 5. The Archbishop Patriarch of Goa and Daman is the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Governing Council and the other member of the Governing Council, according to Mr Pereira, is the President, who is also an Ordained Priest, the present incumbent being Rev. Fr. Jesus Rodriguez. 5. Taking us through the provisions of Act of 1984 and the Rules of 1986, Mr Pereira would invite our attention to the meaning assigned to the terms like ‘School’ in Section 2(u), ‘Manager’ in Section 2(m), ‘Managing Committee’ in Section 2(n) and ‘Minority School’ in Section 2(o). It is the submission of Mr Pereira that the scheme of Management as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act is a must for every recognized school and by specifically relying upon Rule 46 of the Rules, which has prescribed the matters to be provided in the scheme, he would submit that all schools run by the Society have the scheme of Management in place and he has placed before us, one such scheme of Our Lady of Snows High School, Raia, Salcete Goa, which has received approval from the Deputy Director of Education. One more scheme which has received the approval of the Deputy Director of Education for Infant Jesus Higher Secondary School, Colva, Salcete Goa, is also placed on record. Mr Pereira then submit that the scheme of Management is prepared separately in compliance with Rule 46 for each school, but the scheme for the school do not confer control over appointment or disciplinary action and control on the staff, though it has set out the duties and responsibilities of the Managing Committee so constituted. Inviting our attention to clause (q) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 46, he would submit that in any case, the rule itself prescribes that the Managing Committee of a school shall be subject to the control and supervision of the trust or society by which such school is run. Inviting our attention to clause (q) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 46, he would submit that in any case, the rule itself prescribes that the Managing Committee of a school shall be subject to the control and supervision of the trust or society by which such school is run. He would submit that the schools under management of the Petitioner- Society have prepared their scheme of Management and has obtained approval from the Deputy Director of Education and the said scheme is in operation but it has not conferred power upon the Managing Committee to exercise control over the appointment or disciplinary action or control over the staff as that is retained by the Petitioner and being a minority institution, it has right to establish and administer the educational institutions of its choice and this has ensured autonomy to it, the Petitioner being a religious based minority and therefore, according to him, the Petitioner has retained the power of appointment as well as the power of disciplinary action against its employees, teaching and non-teaching. Inviting our attention to Rule 34, in respect of governing the absorption of surplus employees, he would submit that clause (f) of sub-rule (2) thereof provides for a situation where the Management runs more than one schools and the services of the employees are transferable and have a common seniority, then the retrenchment/termination shall be done by following the principle of common seniority in the category of all the schools together. Further, by inviting our attention to Rule 86, as regards the filling of vacancies, he would submit that the explanation appended to the Rule make it clear that, it postulate a situation, where common management run different schools and therefore it has provided for different mechanism in Rule 86A and 86B as well as 87A and he would submit that all the said Rules have employed the term ‘Management’ in contrast to ‘Managing Committee’ and this is referable to the management i.e. the Petitioner. According to Mr Pereira, since the Petitioner has many schools running under its aegis, it maintain a common seniority list and is also entitled to have the employees transferred from one school to another, and even when the employees are rendered surplus, it cannot show them the way out of in normal circumstances casting the responsibility upon the Director of Education to absorb them, but they can be absorbed in distinct schools run by the same Management. 6. Inviting our attention to the definition of ‘Managing Committee’ as defined in Section 2(n), he would submit that it is the body of individuals which is entrusted with the management of any recognized private school and in support of his submission he would lay emphasis on the word ‘entrust’, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary to mean ‘to confide the care or disposal of; to invest with a trust; to commission or employ (a person) in a manner implying confidence’. He would place reliance upon the decision of the Privy Council in I. L. M. Cadija Umma and another Vs S. Don Manis Appu , AIR 1939 Privy Council 63 in advancement of his submission that the context in which the phrase has been used will be taken into consideration, as the term ‘Management’ is used in various provisions, which is different than the term ‘Managing Committee’ and has different connotation. Mr Pereira would submit that the Petitioner carries the selection process and in no way appoint candidates by diluting the recruitment Rules but he would submit that though the selection process carried out is not strictly in consonance with Rule 74, but it has participation of Deputy Director in every selection process and he has made a categorical statement to that effect in the petition. He would also place reliance upon the decision in the case of State of Ma harashtra Vs Indian Medical Association and others, (2002) 1 SCC 589 with reference to the term ‘Management’ and he would submit that since Section 2 of the Act opens with a word ‘unless the context otherwise requires’, the term ‘Managing Committee’ should be read with reference to this context. Another decision on which he would place reliance is the decision in the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. and anr. vs. Asstt. Another decision on which he would place reliance is the decision in the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. and anr. vs. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer and others, (1994) 2 SCC 434 which has construed the term ‘unless the context otherwise requires’, and he would rely upon Para 18 of the said decision. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Samarth Shiksha Samiti and another vs Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour and others , (2009) 3 SCC 194 and in specific Rule 96(2), which provided that the recruitment of employees in each recognized private school shall be made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, and the distinction was drawn between the employee who is appointed by the school and the employee appointed by the society which has adopted the Code of Conduct contained in Rules 123 and 124 for regulating conduct of such an employee and therefore, it was held that the society was not duty bound to follow the provisions of the Act and the Rules while taking disciplinary action against such an employee. 7. Asserting that the Petitioner has a right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution, Mr Pereira has urged before us that Rule 46(2) (e) takes away its right to manage its institutions as inclusion of certain persons in the Managing Committee, which are not the people of its own choice will not bind the management as the Petitioner being a minority has a right to administer and manage its schools/educational institutions in the way it desire, as long as it is not contrary to the Rules and as it follows the mandate of law. He would submit that, as required, a Managing Committee constituted for every school has been approved by the Deputy Director of Education to manage day-to-day affairs, but the key issues like right of appointment, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, transfer, promotion are retained by the Petitioner as a society with minority status. He would submit that, as required, a Managing Committee constituted for every school has been approved by the Deputy Director of Education to manage day-to-day affairs, but the key issues like right of appointment, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, transfer, promotion are retained by the Petitioner as a society with minority status. Mr Pereira would also place reliance upon the decision in the case of Chandana Das (Malakar) Vs State of West Bengal and others , (2020) 13 SCC 411 when the right to establish and administer linguistic minority educational institution in the backdrop of Article 30(1), Article 29 received reconsideration and it is held that such institutions are entitled to establish and administer, which would include right to appoint teachers of its choice, though it do not denude the State of its power to frame Regulations that may prescribe the conditions of eligibility for appointment of such teachers. In specific, he would rely upon the observations of Justice Thakur (as His Lordship then was), the view being approved by the larger Bench, which has categorically observed that the rights of the minority institution under Article 30 to appoint teachers of its choice, who satisfy the conditions of eligibility prescribed for such appointments under the relevant Rules is implicit in their rights to administer such institutions and such rights cannot be diluted by the State or its functionary 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. Mr Pereira, by taking us through the entire judgment, would submit that this view has been upheld by the larger Bench, and the judgment of Justice Thakur has been held to be laying down correct law. 8. The learned Advocate General, representing the State has once again taken us through the scheme of the Act of 1984 and the Rules formulated thereunder, and with his assistance, we revisited various terms defined therein. 8. The learned Advocate General, representing the State has once again taken us through the scheme of the Act of 1984 and the Rules formulated thereunder, and with his assistance, we revisited various terms defined therein. By inviting our attention to Section 4 of the Act, Mr Pangam would submit, that for establishing a school or opening of additional classes in an existing school, it would be imperative for every individual, association of individuals, Society or Trust to apply to the Director in writing and the requisite permission shall be granted and this provision ensure that the Government provide for the planned development of school education in the State. However when the issue comes to the recognition of the school, by inviting attention to the Section 5, Mr Pangam has submitted that application seeking recognition of a school would require compliance of stipulation like financial stability, which would regulate payment of salaries and allowances and other benefits to its employees and also having a scheme of management as required by Section 6, in place apart from ensuring that the school provides for approved courses of study and efficient instructions and that it has teachers with prescribed qualifications and provide prescribed facilities for physical education, library service, laboratory work, workshop practice and co-curricular activities. By inviting our attention to the Form –I appended to the Rules as an application for the grant of recognition, he would submit that the same is to be submitted under the signature of the Chairman of the Managing Committee/Manager. According to Mr Pangam, Section 11 of the Act, clearly contemplate the role of the Government, as it may make Rules regulating the recruitment, minimum qualifications for recruitment, and the conditions of service of employees of recognized private schools and similarly sub section (2) of Section 11 prescribe that no employee of an aided school shall be dismissed, removed, reduced in rank, compulsorily retired or his service otherwise terminated, except with the prior approval of the Director, subject to any Rules that may be made in this behalf. It is therefore his submission that Section 11 is indicative of the control to be exercised by the Government in the field of Education, as it is duty-bound to maintain the quality of education that is imparted, irrespective of the fact that the school is a minority school or in receipt of aid or a non-aided school. 9. It is therefore his submission that Section 11 is indicative of the control to be exercised by the Government in the field of Education, as it is duty-bound to maintain the quality of education that is imparted, irrespective of the fact that the school is a minority school or in receipt of aid or a non-aided school. 9. Our attention is also invited to Rule 37, which has set out conditions of recognition, and reliance is placed in particular on the following clauses thereof : (i) The school is run by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or public trust constituted under any law for the time being in force and is managed in accordance with the scheme of management made under these Rules: Provided that the managements who are desirous of getting Grant-in-aid from the Government shall necessarily register as societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and failing to do so, they shall not be entitled to claim any grant-in-aid: ["Provided further that the schools established by the Trust/s after enforcement of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (Act 15 of 1985) shall not be eligible for any Grant-in-aid"]. (vi) the Managing Committee observes the provision of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the instructions issued by the Director of Education or his authorised subordinate officer from time to time. 10. (vi) the Managing Committee observes the provision of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the instructions issued by the Director of Education or his authorised subordinate officer from time to time. 10. As far as challenge to Rule 46 is concerned, the learned Advocate General would submit that the composition of the Managing Committee as set out in clause (b) of Rule 46(1) comprises of (i) The head of the school; (ii) One parent, who is a member of the Parent Teachers’ Association of the school, constituted in accordance with such instructions as may be issued by the Director of Education, and is elected by that Association; (iii) One teacher of that school to be elected by the teachers of that school from amongst themselves; (iv) One person (a woman if possible), who is, or has been a teacher of any other school or of any college to be nominated by the society by which the school is run; (v) One member to be nominated by the Director of Education who shall be an Educationist or an Officer of the Directorate of Education not below the rank of the A.D.E.I. ("in Schools other than minority Schools"); (vi) The remaining members to be nominated or elected, as the case may be, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the society, by which the school is run and amongst them only two members nominated/appointed are outside the management i.e. the member of parents teachers’ association and teacher of the school to be elected by the teachers. According to Mr Pangam, the members in clause (iv) as well as clause (vi) are the members who are either nominated or elected as per the Rules and Regulations of the society by which the school is run. Therefore, according to him, in any case, the majority members of the Managing Committee are the members of the management and the Petitioner-Society should make no grievance. He would submit that the inclusion of one member of the parent teachers’ association is in the larger interest of the students and he fails to understand what objection the Petitioner can raise in this regard. He would submit that the inclusion of one member of the parent teachers’ association is in the larger interest of the students and he fails to understand what objection the Petitioner can raise in this regard. Apart from this, he would submit that if the Chairman of every Managing Committee of the school is the Chairman of the Petitioner’s society, and in regard to the process of recruitment/promotion, it will be a Committee of two members i.e. the Chairman and Head of the school, which is again an appointee by the Petitioner-Society. In short, the submission of the learned Advocate General is that the Managing Committee as contemplated in Rule 46 of the Rules 1986 has statutory recognition and this will largely include the members of the Petitioner’s society and in fact the society can by its bye laws provide the mechanism of nominating/electing the members from the management into Managing Committee and can have its own say but the objection that is raised is only about the appointment orders issued in favour of the employees under the signature of the Chairman of the Petitioner’s society and not that of the Managing Committee, which contradict Rule 76 which has clearly stipulated that the appointing authority for every employee shall be the Managing Committee and the appointment of every employee of a school shall be made by the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the school in a form to be specified by the Director of Education. It is thus submitted before us that the only objection raised by the Deputy Director of Education by the impugned communication is about the appointment order to be signed by the Chairman of the School Managing Committee and not by the Chairman of the Petitioner’s society. According to Mr Pangam, he see no difficulty in the appointment order being issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee, who is ultimately the Chairman of the Management of the Petitioner. 11. According to Mr Pangam, he see no difficulty in the appointment order being issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee, who is ultimately the Chairman of the Management of the Petitioner. 11. The submission advanced by the learned Advocate General received rejoinder from Mr Pereira, by submitting that if the Petitioner has received minority status and it enjoy the right under Article 30 of the Constitution, there is no reason why the Petitioner cannot effect appointment and is competent to initiate disciplinary action as it has right to establish and administer its own institution and the Government shall not direct as to how it shall conduct the selection process and how the appointment orders shall be issued. 12. The contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pereira, revolve around Article 30(1) of the Constitution i.e. the right of the minorities, based on religion or language to ‘establish and administer’ educational institutions of their choice. The above provision in the Constitution has recognized the right of the religious and linguistic minorities to set up and manage their own educational institutions as a fundamental right. The right to administer, from the authoritative judicial pronouncements over the past has been held to be consisting of four principle matters; the first being the right to choose its managing or governing body, second is the right to choose its staff, third being a right not to be compelled to refuse admission to students and fourth is the right to use its properties and assets for the benefits of its own institution. However, over the time, the principle has further evolved, to the effect that this right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice, is not an absolute right, not completely free from any regulatory mechanism as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character of the minority institutions and its implementation is also warranted for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. The Regulations which will serve the interest of the students, the teachers and ultimately good administration are being held to bind the management though of a minority institution, as implementation of these Regulations, is desirable in the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness of administration and also to preserve harmony among affiliated institutions which ultimately would ensure that there is no divisive or disintegrating forces in the administration. 13. 13. Necessarily, when we talk of the right of administration, the autonomy in administration means the right to administer effectively and to manage and conduct the affairs of an institution. The distinction between a restriction on the right to administration and a regulation prescribing the manner of administration is subtle, as the right of administration may cover day-to-day administration and the choice in the personnel of the management is a part of this administration. In the field of administration, the minority institution may not be entitled to complete autonomy as checks at stages and steps taken by it while exercising this right of administration may be necessary to ensure efficient administration, which would serve the academic needs of the institution. Thus, time and again, the minority institutions being subjected to reasonable Regulations have been held to be not completely destroying its right to administer, as they are being held to be an effective mechanism to regulate the administration and not interfering in the right to administer the educational institution, as the right to administer do not mean a right to maladministration. 14. The right of the State to regulate education, educational standards cannot be denied as the minority institutions under the guise of administering its own institution cannot fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions and under the guise of exclusive right of management it cannot decline following the general pattern maintaining the standard of education. However, the Regulations made shall not be of such a character, as it denudes the minority educational institution its right to administer or it impinge upon the rights of the minorities as conferred by Article 30(1) as in order to grant recognition of this right and translate it into reality is not merely a pious and abstract sentiment, but it is necessary to ensure that such a right cannot be allowed to be whittled down by any measure masquerading as a Regulation and balance will have to be struck between the two objectives; that of ensuring the standard or excellence of the institution and that of preserving the right of minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions. 15. 15. The right of the minority, covering a religious minority as well as linguistic minority, to establish and administer educational institution of their choice, include the procedure and method of admission, selection of students and definitely would cover the right of appointment of staff, employees, teachers and their heads and governing their service conditions. This precise question received an answer in the Constitution Bench decision in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka , (2002) 8 SCC 481 when the majority view, treated the linguistic minority on par with religious minority, leaving it for the State to determine if it is so. The right of the minority institution was however held to be not an absolute right, though conferred as a fundamental right and this right i.e. to establish to administer the institution of its choice and obviously could not cover the right to maladministration, and certainly the minority cannot ask for aid or recognition for an educational institution run by it in unhealthy surroundings, without competent teachers being appointed, without the teachers possessing any semblance of qualification, and which do not ensure maintaining fair standard of teacher. It is therefore concluded as below: “It stands to reason, then that the constitutional right to administer an educational institution of their choice does not necessarily militate against the claim of the State to insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the institutions to be aided.” 16. The law involving Article 30(1) of the Constitution, evolved with time with different shades of rights being discussed and emerging from the various decisions, unequivocally holding that minority institutions have full control in appointing teachers and of their internal management. The law involving Article 30(1) of the Constitution, evolved with time with different shades of rights being discussed and emerging from the various decisions, unequivocally holding that minority institutions have full control in appointing teachers and of their internal management. In Sindhi Education Society vs. Government of NCT of Delhi , (2010) 8 SCC 49 this right of the minority to have full control in appointment of teachers and their internal management was deliberated threadbare with its focus upon the use of the word 'choice', with a conclusion being drawn that in terms of principles enshrined in Articles 29 and 30 of Constitution, the Government does enjoy identical control over the management of minority and majority schools however the logical impact of Article 30 (2) read with the provisions of DSE Act and the Rules framed thereunder is that, to receive grant in aid is the legitimate right of a school, subject to satisfying the requirements of law. The right to establish and administer includes right to appoint teachers, although the State can define the eligibility criteria of such teachers, which was done by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The observation in paragraph 90 of the said law report definitely deserve a reproduction as it throws light on this important and significant ‘right’ : “90. The right to establish and administer includes a right to appoint teachers. Thus, except providing grant-in-aid as per the DSE Rules and having no power to discriminate in terms of Article 30(2) of the Constitution, the Government has a very limited regulatory control over the minority institutions and no control whatsoever on the managing committee, internal management of the school and, of course, has no power to take over such an institution. This Court has also expressed the view in some judgments that in respect of minority or even non-minority institutions, steps can be taken even for closure of such institutions, in the national interest which of course may be a rare exception. Once the State lacks basic power of jurisdiction to make special provisions and reservations in relation to minority institutions, which do not form part of service under the State, it will be difficult for the Court to hold that Rule 64(1)(b) can be enforced against aided minority institution. Once the State lacks basic power of jurisdiction to make special provisions and reservations in relation to minority institutions, which do not form part of service under the State, it will be difficult for the Court to hold that Rule 64(1)(b) can be enforced against aided minority institution. There are still other aspects which can usefully be examined to analyse this issue in a greater detail.” Recognizing that the right under clause (1) of Article 30 is not absolute, but subject to reasonable restrictions which, inter alia, may be framed with regard to the public interest and in the national interest and Regulation can also be framed to prevent maladministration as well as for prescription of standards of education, teaching, maintenance of discipline, public order, health, morality, etc. and minority institution do not cease to be so, even if it is admissible to grant in aid. 17. The rider on the absolute right, to include prescribing its own procedures and method of admission as well as selection of students is, that the process must be fair and transparent. The State, is held to have the power to frame Regulations, which are reasonable and do not impinge upon the basic character of the minority institution. In some of the decisions, a view has been adopted by the Constitutional Courts that the width of the rights and limitations thereof of even unaided institutions, whether run by a majority or by minority, must conform to the maintenance of excellence and with a view to achieve the goal, and therefore keeping in mind this objective, the minority institutions can definitely be subjected to the Regulations made by the State. The State shall exercise its right to prevent maladministration and with this object, if it intends to bring the minority institution under such Regulations, the right of the State has been consistently upheld. These Regulations, however, must relate to guidelines for the efficiency and excellency of educational standards, in form of Rules and Regulations governing the conditions of service of the teachers and employees and their pay and allowances. At the same time, Regulations which destroy the autonomous status of the educational institution, by introduction of outside authority either directly or through its nominees in the body or the Managing Committee of minority institution to conduct its affairs has been deprecated. 18. At the same time, Regulations which destroy the autonomous status of the educational institution, by introduction of outside authority either directly or through its nominees in the body or the Managing Committee of minority institution to conduct its affairs has been deprecated. 18. In the recent decision of the Apex Court in case of Anjum Kadari & anr. vs Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3129 the issue of minority religious educational institution, again came to the forefront and with its emphasis on it being a positive concept of secularism, ensuring substantive equality for the minority religious community, its applicability to the UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004 received consideration from the Apex Court. Reiterating that the constitutional scheme allows the State to strike a balance between the two objectives, namely ensuring the standard of excellence of minority educational institutions on one hand and secondly preserving the right of the minority to establish and administer its educational institution, it is noted that the State generally strikes a balance by enacting Regulations accompanying the recognition of minority educational institutions. The positive concept of secularism under Article 30 of the Constitution, as per the Apex Court, require the State to take active steps to treat minorities on par with secular institutions, while allowing them to retain their minority character, and as the concept of positive secularism finds consonance in the principle of substantive equality. Holding that the Madrasa Act furthers substantive equality for the minority community in State of UP and secure their best interest, it is held that the Madrasa Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the State to ensure that the students studying in recognized Madrasas attain a minimum level of competency, which allow them to effectively participate in the society and earn livelihood. The establishment of the board, by the State legislature to recognize and regulate Madrasa education was held not to be violative of Article 14 and the provisions of the same were described as being reasonable, as they subserved the object of recognition, i.e. ensuring the academic excellence of the students in the recognized Madrasa and the decision of the High Court, invalidating the statute on the grounds of violation of secularism, was struck down. The prescription by the board as regards the curriculum and textbooks, conduct of examination, qualification of teachers and standards of equipment and buildings was held to be provisions subserving the object of recognition i.e. improving the academic excellence of students and even the Regulations pertaining to the standards of education or qualification of teachers was held not directly interfering with the administration of the recognized Madrasas, as the Regulations were 'designed to prevent maladministration of an educational administration.' 19. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pereira has gainfully placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandana Das (Malakar) (supra), where a question that arose for determination was whether Khalsa Girls High School of Calcutta, a minority institution lost its right to select and appoint teachers in the wake of 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. The issue being referred to the Three Judge Bench in view of the disagreement between the two Learned Judges, Justice T. S. Thakur and Justice Banumati, (as Their Lordships then were), in Chandana Das vs. State of West Bengal, 2015 (12) SCC 140. The Appellant who were appointed as teachers on temporary basis in the minority school, on being appointed, did not receive the approval from the District Inspector of Schools Calcutta, as the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions 1969 (The Rules), made it imperative to make any appointment in the school only on the recommendation of the School Service Commission established under the said Rules. The Single Judge of the High Court holding that the Appellants being appointed in a linguistic minority institution, which had a right to select and appoint teachers, allowed the claim of the appellants and directed them to be appointed as full time teachers and also directed release of their salaries. The Division Bench however allowed the appeals filed by Management and held that the institution was bound to follow the mandate of Rule 28 of the Rules, which permitted appointments for permanent posts only on recommendation of the School Service Commission. Dealing with this conundrum in Chandana Das (supra), Justice Thakur, expressed his view in the following words : “21. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position is well settled. Dealing with this conundrum in Chandana Das (supra), Justice Thakur, expressed his view in the following words : “21. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position is well settled. Linguistic institution and religious are entitled to establish and administer their institutions. Such right of administration includes the right of appointing teachers of its choice but does not denude the state of its power to frame regulations that may prescribe the conditions of eligibility for appointment of such teachers. The regulations can also prescribe measures to ensure that the institution is run efficiently for the right to administer does not include the right to maladministration. While grant-in-aid is not included in the guarantee contained in the Constitution to linguistic and religious minorities for establishing and running their educational institutions, such grant cannot be denied to such institutions only because the institutions are established by linguistic or religious minority. Grant of aid cannot, however, be made subservient to conditions which deprive the institution of their substantive right of administering such institutions. Suffice it to say that once Respondent No. 4-Institution is held to be a minority institution entitled to the protection of Articles 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India the right to appoint teachers of its choice who satisfy the conditions of eligibility prescribed for such appointments under the relevant rules is implicit in their rights to administer such institutions. Such rights cannot then be diluted by the State or its functionaries 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.” 20. Such rights cannot then be diluted by the State or its functionaries 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.” 20. On a detailed analysis of the Rules of 1969, including the Rule 6, providing for composition of the Committee of an institution other than provided by the State Government, where the Committee was expected to comprise of several persons including the teaching staff, Head of the institution, one founder, one life member and six guardians as well as the power of the Executive Committee under Rule 8 to approve and supersede the committee and to appoint the Administrator, by tracing the history of the Khalsa Girls High School being established as a minority institution, and taking note of the letter addressed to the institution by the Secretary of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, which provided for the constitution of the Managing Committee of the school by deciding as to who shall be its members, the third referral Judge, J. Nariman (as His Lordship then was), to whom the difference in opinion was referred to, observed thus : “18. It is obvious on a reading of this document that whereas Rule 6 required only one representative of the Sikh community to be on the Management Board, there are three representatives appointed. Equally, whereas Rule 6 requires that there be six guardian representatives to be elected, only four are provided for by this letter. Thus, it cannot be said that by acceptance of this letter, Respondent No.4 has, in any manner, unequivocally waived its right to be treated as a minority institution. On the contrary, the application dated 19th April, 1976, was to recognise it as a minority institution, and merely because Rule 8(3) of the Rules was purportedly applied, it does not mean that the minority character of the institution was not kept in mind while framing the special constitution for future management of the school. On facts, therefore, it is difficult to appreciate how Respondent No.4 can be said to have waived its right to be treated as a linguistic minority institution set up by a linguistic minority, namely, the Sikhs in the State of West Bengal.” Drawing benefit of the observations of Justice Khana in Ahmedabad St. On facts, therefore, it is difficult to appreciate how Respondent No.4 can be said to have waived its right to be treated as a linguistic minority institution set up by a linguistic minority, namely, the Sikhs in the State of West Bengal.” Drawing benefit of the observations of Justice Khana in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat , (1974) 1 SCC 717 , the relevant portion is reproduced : “25. In Rt. Rev. Bishop S.K. Patro v. State of Bihar, [ (1969) 1 SCC 863 : (1970) 1 SCR 172 ] the State of Bihar requested the Church Missionary Society School, Bhagalpur to constitute a managing committee of the school in accordance with an order of the State. This Court held that the State authorities could not require the school to constitute a managing committee in accordance with their order.” In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, the view expressed in Judgment of Justice Thakur was held to be a correct law and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court was approved, setting aside the finding rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court. 21. We have examined the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner through learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Pereira, in light of the aforesaid legal position. The Petitioner-Society comprise of all persons of Catholic faith. In terms of the Rules and Regulations framed by it, the Administration of the affairs of the Society is in its Governing Council and the Governing Council is the Executive Committee of the Petitioner-Society and it consists of 13 members. The Archbishop Patriarch of Goa and Daman is the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Governing Council and the other members are either ordained Priests and/or laymen professing Catholic faith. The Petitioner is thus a Society of Catholic faith and being of linguistic minority claims entitlement to the right under Article 30(1) i.e. the right to manage and administer its institutions. The Petitioner as a Society, registered under the Societies Act, runs as many as 138 schools and it is aggrieved by the impugned Order, which direct the managing society, running various schools and institutions as independent schools to issue order of appointment under the signature of the Managing Committee of the school, i.e the Managing Committee, as recognized under Rule 46 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986. The contention on behalf of the Petitioner is specific, that the Managing Committee of the school is distinct from the management of the Petitioner-Society under whose aegis different schools are being run and though Mr. Pereira is clear in his submission that as far as day-to-day affairs are concerned, definitely that shall be attended to by the Managing Committee under the scheme of Management of Recognized Schools as provided in Rule 46. He has also placed before the documents in relation to distinct schools run by the management, where the Managing Committee is established for its effective running of the schools i.e taking care of its day-to-day affairs. He has however submitted that since there are different schools run by the management and there is an indication in the Goa School Education Act of 1984 and the Rules of 1986, that if more than one school is run by the management, then the issue as regards seniority, transfer, the absorption of the employees when they declared surplus shall take into consideration the fact that there are other schools run by the same management. The specific contention of Mr. Pereira, therefore, is that the school Managing Committee is different than the management and the Department is in confusion in recognizing the Managing Committee of a particular school as equivalent to the management of the school. 22. It is in the wake of this submission, we have perused the entire scheme under the Goa School Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As far as the Act of 1984 is concerned, which is an enactment for better organization and development of school education in the State of Goa. The Act defines the term 'School' in Section 2(u) to mean pre-primary, primary and higher secondary school and any other school which imparts education or training before degree level. Two important definitions in Section 2 with which we are concerned are definitions of the term 'manager' in Section 2(m) and 'Managing Committee' in Section 2(n), which reads thus: “Section 2(m) “manager” in relation to a school, means the person by whatever name called, who is entrusted, either on the date on which this Act comes into force or, as the case may be, under a scheme of management made under section 6 with the management of the affairs of that school. Section 2(n) “managing committee” means the body of individuals which is entrusted with the management of any recognized private school.” Chapter II of the Act provides for the establishment, recognition, affiliation, management of and aid to schools. Under Section 4, the State Government has the power to regulate education in school with an object to provide for the planned development of school education in Goa. With this object in view, every individual, association of individuals, society or trust desiring to establish a school or opening additional classes in an existing school shall apply to the Director, as defined under Section 2(f) in such manner in writing and on consideration of the application and after making such inquiries as it think fit, permit the school or an additional class to be opened as per sub -section (3) of Section 4 on establishment of a new school or opening of a class in an existing school, the provisions made thereunder shall govern it and no school can be established without permission of the Director. Section 5 is a provision for recognition of school i.e. an individual school, and a school will receive recognition subject to the compliance to the stipulations set out in the said provision in form of clause 5(1) (a) to (g) : 5. Recognition of schools.— (1) The appropriate authority may, on an application made to it in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner, recognise any school: Provided that no school shall be recognised unless — (a) it has such funds to ensure its financial stability which regulate payment of salaries and allowances and other benefits to its employees as prescribed; (b) it has a scheme of management as required by section 6; (c) it has suitable or adequate accommodation and sanitary facilities having regard, among other factors, to the number, age and sex of the pupils attending it; (d) it provides for approved courses of study and efficient instructions; (e) it has teachers with prescribed qualification; (f) it has the prescribed facilities for physical education, library service, laboratory work, workshop practice and co-curricular activities; and (g) it gives an undertaking that it will follow the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” One of the essential requisites of recognizing a school, is having a scheme of management as prescribed under Section 6. 23. Section 6 of the Act reads as below : “6. 23. Section 6 of the Act reads as below : “6. Scheme of Management.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law, the managing committee of every recognized school shall make, in accordance with the rules made under this Act a scheme of management for such school: Provided that in the case of a recognized school which does not receive any aid, the scheme of management shall apply with such variations and modifications as may be prescribed.” Another important provision in the said chapter is as regards the affiliations of the schools for the purpose of conducting an examination, however, the said provisions need not detain us as the present Petition do not involve the said issue. 24. Chapter IV, 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees of recognized Private Schools', contain the provision which permit the Government to make the Rules regulating the recruitment, minimum qualifications for recruitment and the conditions of service of employees of a recognized private school and the provision in this Chapter is in the form of a scheme, which makes it imperative for the management to make appointment in accordance with the Rules prescribed and juxtaposing this requirement, it prescribe the manner in which the services of the employee shall be regulated including his termination, retirement, dismissal, etc. In addition, there is a provision of the Code of Conduct, which shall bind every employee of recognized school. Chapter V contain provisions applicable to unaided minority schools and this include the power of the Government to make Rules regulating the minimum qualifications for and the method of recruitment of the employees of such schools in addition to prescript for a Code of Conduct and the contract of service between the Managing Committee of unaided minority schools and the employees and its contents. 25. In the Rules which are formulated in exercise of rule-making power conferred by Section 29 of the Act of 1984, to be known as Goa School Education Rules, 1986, Chapter III contains a detailed scheme of opening a new school or classes or closure of the existing school or classes. 25. In the Rules which are formulated in exercise of rule-making power conferred by Section 29 of the Act of 1984, to be known as Goa School Education Rules, 1986, Chapter III contains a detailed scheme of opening a new school or classes or closure of the existing school or classes. The scheme includes a provision for absorption of surplus employees and Rule 34(1)(f) contemplate a procedure in case where the management runs more than one school having services of the employees transferable with common seniority, in that case, the retrenchment/termination shall be done by principle of common seniority in the category of all schools together, in case surplus employee cannot be absorbed in any other school/schools under the same management. The above provision is an indication of the fact that the Act and Rules contemplate a ‘management’ which runs more than one school. Chapter V contain a provision for scheme of management for recognized schools and according to us, this relate to a particular school, which is recognized and the Managing Committee of such school shall consist of not more than ten members and recognized (unaided) school shall not consist not more than 15 members and its composition is prescribed in Rule 46, which we reproduce below : “46. Scheme of Management of recognized schools. - (1) The scheme of management in relation to a recognized school shall provide that: (a) the managing committee of a recognised aided school shall consist of not more than 10 members; and the managing committee of a recognised unaided school shall consist of not more than 15 members; (b) Subject to the total number of members specified in clause (a) every managing committee shall include the following, namely: (i) The Head of the school; (ii) One parent, who is a member of the Parent Teachers’ Association of the school, constituted in accordance with such instructions as may be issued by the Director of Education, and is elected by that Association; (iii) One teacher of that school to be elected by the teachers of that school from amongst themselves; (iv) One person (a woman if possible), who is, or has been a teacher of any other school or of any college to be nominated by the society by which the school is run; (v) One member to be nominated by the Director of Education who shall be an Educationist or an. Officer of the Directorate of Education not below the rank of the A.D.E.I. ("in Schools other than minority Schools"); (vi) The remaining members to be nominated or elected, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the society, by which the school is run.” Sub-section (2) of Rule 46 has set out the matters which can be provided under the Scheme of Management and this includes the following : “(2) The scheme of management shall also provide for the following, namely:- (a) the term of office of the members of the managing committee and the manner of its reconstitution or filling of my vacancy occurring therein; (b) the manner of elections to the managing committee; (c) that for the purpose of elections to the managing committee, the Head of the school shall be the returning Officer and shall conduct and be in-charge of the elections; (d) ... (e) the duties, powers and responsibilities of the managing committee, which shall include the control over appointment, disciplinary action, and control on staff, and shall also provide that no financial irregularities is committed or any irregular procedure is followed; … (q) the managing committee shall be subject to the control and supervision of the trust or society by which such school is run; (r) manager shall not be at the same time the manager of any other school and a person shall not be at the same time the Chairman of the managing committee and the manager; 26. In the scheme of these Rules, when we come to the appointing authority, the appointing authority for every employee as per Rule 76 is the managing committee and the relevant provision reads this : “76. "Appointing Authority and Appointment" "(1) The Appointing Authority for every employee shall be the Managing Committee subject to the approval under rule 75. The appointment of every employee of a school shall be made by the Chairman of the Managing Committee on behalf of the Managing Committee in a form to be specified by the Director of Education." 27. What is pertinent to note in this very scheme is the qualification of the appointment of teaching staff as Rule 78 despite that the qualifications for recruitment/promotion can be in accordance with the National Educational Policy even the minority school shall adhere to the said qualifications. What is pertinent to note in this very scheme is the qualification of the appointment of teaching staff as Rule 78 despite that the qualifications for recruitment/promotion can be in accordance with the National Educational Policy even the minority school shall adhere to the said qualifications. When it comes to the aspect of filing up of an vacancy, the responsibility cast on the management is set up in the following manner : “Rule 86(2) - The vacancy of Principal, Higher Secondary School/ Primary Training Institutes, Headmasters of Secondary Schools and Middle Schools, and the Asstt. Headmasters of Secondary Schools shall be filled up by promotion subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed in rule 78. While filling up of these posts, the managements shall first explore the possibility of selecting the senior most teacher from the next below 'category indicated in column 5 of Table under rule 78. While making such selection the management shall also give very careful consideration and shall select the best qualified and most competent person among those available for selection/appointment to the post. Seniority shall be the first criteria subject to fitness and merit. If the claim of a senior eligible teacher is by-passed, the reason for the same in writing will have to be recorded in the minutes by the promotion committee. The claim of the senior qualified teacher shall not be by-passed arbitrarily without tangible reasons. Explanation:- Common managements running the secondary schools as well as Higher Secondary schools, shall consider the claims of the Headmasters of Secondary schools in the order of interse seniority for the promotion to the post of Principal of Higher Secondary Schools subject to eligibility conditions prescribed in rule 78.” 28. Some relevant provisions which now has reference to the ‘management’ in contra distinction of the ‘Managing Committee are to the following effect : "86A. Some relevant provisions which now has reference to the ‘management’ in contra distinction of the ‘Managing Committee are to the following effect : "86A. Transfer of services of employees.- If the services of an employee of a school are transferable to another school under the same management and if he is so transferred by the management, the employee shall be given the order of such transfer for his record, and (a) the employee so transferred shall be entitled to such joining time and transfer allowances as are admissible to the corresponding employee in the Government schools: Provided that no joining time or transfer allowance shall be admissible to the employee where the transfer is made at the request of the employee or the transfer is made to re-deploy surplus staff. (b) any expenditure incurred by the school on transfer allowances, joining time, pay, etc. shall not be admissible for grants. 86B. Migration of employee.- (1) An employee migrating from an aided school to another under a different management shall forward his application to the new post through proper channel as laid down in sub-rule (3) of rule 74. He shall also apply in a specified form, for concurrence of the Director, through proper channel. (2) The Director may grant his concurrence provided there is no break in service or the break, if any, is condoned under rule 35. (3) The past services of such an employee in his previous school/schools shall be counted for the purpose of: (a) protection of pay, as laid down in rule 85(2); (b) pension and other retirement benefits, as per rule 35. (4) The past services of such an employee shall not count for seniority in the new school. 86C. Relieving an employee on medical grounds.- If a permanent employee is to be relieved from service on medical grounds, the management, shall refer the case to the Director who shall get the employee examined by the Medical Board of the Goa Medical College, Bambolim. It shall be left to the Board to decide whether the employee is fit to continue in service or is to be relieved temporarily or permanently. The decision of the Medical Board of the Goa Medical College, Bambolim, shall be final and binding on both the parties and shall be communicated by the Director to the management with a copy endorsed to the employee for his acknowledgement". 87. Seniority. The decision of the Medical Board of the Goa Medical College, Bambolim, shall be final and binding on both the parties and shall be communicated by the Director to the management with a copy endorsed to the employee for his acknowledgement". 87. Seniority. - (1) Seniority of employees in each category shall be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the concerned post, and those selected on an earlier occasion being ranked senior to these selected later. (2) Inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotes which shall be based on quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively. In case of doubts, the detailed instructions issued by the Government in this behalf in respect of Government servants shall be followed, and, wherever there is a dispute the case shall be, referred to the Director of Education and his decision in the matter shall be final.” 29. In the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, Rule 97 is a procedure for imposing major penalties, which also contemplate that before initiating any action, the approval of the Director is necessary and the provision reads thus : “97. In the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, Rule 97 is a procedure for imposing major penalties, which also contemplate that before initiating any action, the approval of the Director is necessary and the provision reads thus : “97. Procedure for imposing major penalty.-(1) The procedure for imposing penalties specified in rule 94 (1) (b), shall be as applicable to the Government, employees of the corresponding, status : Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules applicable to Government employees of corresponding status, the enquiry into such charges as are not admitted by the employee shall be, made by an Inquiry Officer appointed for the purpose by the Disciplinary Authority." (2) No order with regard to the imposition of a major penalty shall be made by the disciplinary authority except after the receipt of the approval of the Director: "Provided that the Director of Education may, if found necessary, hear both the parties concerned, before granting/refusing his approval: Provided further that where any of the major penalties has been imposed on any employee in violation of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, and where the same has been brought to the notice of the Director of Education, the Director of Education shall revoke the penalty imposed after giving reasonable opportunity to the Disciplinary Authority of showing cause against the proposed action and order that the employee be reinstated in service/and/or be restored in all respects, to his original position prior to the imposition of such penalty." It is in exercise of this power, in Writ Petition No. 1865 of 2024(F), the Director has refused its approval to the contemplated action against imposition of major penalty on Respondent no. 3, employee of Petitioner-Society. 30. In the whole scheme of the Act and Rules, it is evidently clear to us that it is school centric, as for granting recognition to an individual school under the Act, amongst the other requirements the school must have a scheme of management and as per Section 6, the Managing Committee of every recognized school shall be made in accordance with the Rules. Rule 46 has then provided for the composition of the Managing Committee to manage the school either aided or unaided and the composition of the Managing Committee is for the individual school and the Petitioner has no quarrel about this Managing Committee being constituted, as in fact the Managing Committee of its individual schools has received approval from the Director, is not in dispute. What is objected to by the Petitioner, is that for every individual school, it is this Managing Committee constituted under Rule 46, which shall be the appointing authority, the disciplinary authority, etc., and it is the only Authority to take decisions for the employees of the management, and here we find that there exists a problem. 31. The scheme contemplated in the Goa School Education Act of 1984 and the Rules of 1986 provide for management of every school through a Managing Committee which is restricted to each school and for the effective management of the school it shall include the head of the school, one parent who is member of Parent Teachers Association, one teacher of the school elected amongst the teachers, one person nominated by the society, one member nominated by the Director of Education and the remaining members to be nominated or elected in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Society. The scheme of management as contemplated under Rule 46, shall provide for all the necessary stipulations which are necessary for managing ‘a school’, which include elections to the Managing Committee and also assigning the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Managing Committee including the control over appointment, disciplinary action, control on staff, etc. However, the scheme contemplated in Rule 46 make it clear that the Managing Committee shall, however be subject to the control and supervision of the trust of Society by which the school is run. The scheme of management to be implemented by the Managing Committee of an existing school must receive approval from the Director of Education and it is also permissible for the Director of Education to make such alterations or modifications in the draft scheme as the circumstances may require. 32. The scheme of management to be implemented by the Managing Committee of an existing school must receive approval from the Director of Education and it is also permissible for the Director of Education to make such alterations or modifications in the draft scheme as the circumstances may require. 32. From perusal of the scheme of management, which is restricted to a school, we find that the concept of ‘management’ as an application for opening of a new school may come from an individual who is desirous of opening a school, and who shall ensure that the school is run in accordance with law and this can be ensured by framing in advance, a scheme for management of the school as required by Section 6. However, when the school is permitted to be opened by the Society or the Trust, the duty and onus lie upon this trust or Society to follow the norms which are prescribed by the State Government in form of Regulations/Rules and run the schools under its aegis in accordance with such Rules and Regulations. In this scenario, as Rule 46 clause (2)(q) has prescribed, the Managing Committee shall be subject to control and supervision of the trust or Society by which the school is run as this society may run more than one school and the Rules itself contemplate such situation in form of Rule 86A and 86B as well as Seniority list under Rule 87A, where the seniority list shall not be maintained by the Managing Committee of a school but by the management and it shall be a common seniority list as it is permissible to transfer an employee in one school to another school being run under the same Management and even it is permissible for an employee to seek migration from one school to other. 33. 33. This being recognized as the right of the management, who runs different schools and in the present case, as the Petitioner- Society runs 138 schools, though for the purpose of day to day management, it has formed the Managing Committee of each individual school and each has received approval from the Director of Education which is strictly in accordance with Rule 46, we are of the view that the Petitioner management in exercise of its right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, definitely exercise supervisory control over the Managing Committee of each school, which is formulated under Rule 46 of the Rules of 1986. The scheme of management necessarily must restrict itself to running of the school and when clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 46 permit the scheme of management to demarcate the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Managing Committee, it is always subject to clause (q), which prescribe that the Managing Committee shall be subject to the control and supervision of the trust or society by which the school is run. Therefore, the power of the Managing Committee to exercise administrative control in the matter of appointment, disciplinary action shall not lie in the domain of Managing Committee of the respective school but, being a school run by the society which enjoy Minority status, it is the Management of the Petitioner-Society which is entitled to exercise its fundamental right to administer the schools established by it, of course subject to adherence of the Regulations framed by the State as regards the quality and efficiency of the teachers to be maintained, and it can exercise control over the appointments and is empowered to take disciplinary action against the staff and this power is retained by the Management, as at the school level the Managing Committee shall only handle the official correspondence except the establishment and financial matters which information shall be necessarily forwarded to the Management as clause (h) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 46 provide thus : “(h) the duties, powers and responsibilities of the head of the school, which shall provide that he shall- … (iv) handle official correspondence relating to the school excepting the establishment matters and financial matters and furnish, within the specified dates, the returns and information required by the Director; and in case of correspondence relating to establishment and financial matters, he shall cause to furnish the information by the management. All representations of the staff including the heads of schools shall be routed through the Management.” 34. On a perusal of the scheme with minute detailing, we find that a distinction exists between the ‘Managing Committee’ of the school and the Management of the Society, which runs multiple schools. All representations of the staff including the heads of schools shall be routed through the Management.” 34. On a perusal of the scheme with minute detailing, we find that a distinction exists between the ‘Managing Committee’ of the school and the Management of the Society, which runs multiple schools. The definition of the Managing Committee in Section 2(n) which refer to a body of individuals which is entrusted with the Management, is clearly indicative of the context in which the term is used as ‘entrustment’ refers to investment with the trust or as per the Oxford Dictionary it imply ‘to confide the care or disposal of to’ and therefore entrustment of the Management of the Society which run the schools must be given a wider interpretation to mean that the Management in helm of the affairs, is entitled to control the process of appointment, exercise disciplinary control, through its Managing Committee which is different from the Managing Committee of a school and if different schools are run by the same Management, it shall definitely have a right to select and appoint teachers by a Committee chosen by it but necessarily in accordance with the qualification criteria and the essentials, which would ensure maintenance of quality in the education field and to that extent, the State Government can insist about the qualifications and other criteria and the selection committee shall strictly adhere to the same. 35. An insight into the Act in form of Maharashtra Employees Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977, which is an Act regulating the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Employees in certain private schools in the State, define the term ‘school’ which cover primary schools, secondary schools, higher secondary school, Junior College of Education or any other institution by whatever name or including technical, vocational or an art institution or a college of institution which imparts general, technical, vocational, art or special education or training in any faculty or discipline, or subject before the degree level. The Act has defined the term ‘Management’ in Section 2(12), which reads thus : “Section 2(12) –‘Management’ in relation to a school means - (a) in the case of a school administered by the State Government, the Department ; (b) in the case of a school administered by a local authority, that local authority; and (c) in any other case, the person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not and by whatever name called, administering such school;” With the above meaning assigned to the term ‘Management’ i.e. Department in case of a school administered by the State or a local authority or a body of persons, administering such school, it is indicative of overall control over the school, who administers the school instead of an individual body constituting the Managing Committee of the School. 36. Recognizing the right of the ‘Management’ which runs various other schools, we agree with learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pereira that by restricting the right of Management to the Managing Committee of an individual school, its right as a minority institution, is taken away by directing selection through the said Managing Committee. The Managing Committee of a school shall definitely attend to the day to day affairs of the school but as far as the appointment, transfer, promotion, disciplinary action, i.e. exercising control over the staff employed, we concur with Mr. Pereira who has urged before us that it is the right of the Management of the Society and this is what has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandana Das (supra) where the linguistic minority institution was held entitled to select and appoint teachers and it was not held to be bound 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, and it is categorically held that the right conferred under Article 30 to appoint teachers of its choice, subject to the fact that they satisfy the conditions of eligibility prescribed for such appointment in the relevant Rules, this right cannot be diluted by the State insisting that the appointment should be made only by the Board of Director or following the mechanism prescribed for institutions that do not enjoy the minority status. The legal position emerging from Chandana Das (supra) in our view, entitle the Petitioner as a linguistic Minority to exercise its choice conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and therefore to select and appoint teachers subject to the restriction that the teachers shall necessarily qualify as per the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 and it is Management of the Petitioner-Society, which is entitled to initiate disciplinary action, exercise its power of transfer, absorption, etc., and the insistence of the Respondent that the appointment order should be signed by the Managing Committee of the school and in absence of which no approval can be granted, is a completely unjustified approach resulting into violation of the right of the Petitioner-Society under Article 30 of the Constitution. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is not necessary for us to pronounce upon the validity of Rule 46 and Rule 97(2) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, being ultra vires of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. We deem it appropriate to declare that the Petitioner-Society being a linguistic Minority, is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed therein as, according to us, the right to 'manage and administer', the institutions run by it in the wake of the right conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution do not impose any such limits or restraints on its power, as it is only bound to ensure that the quality of education is maintained by it but, as a Minority Institution, it must enjoy the rights conferred by the Constitution itself. 37. As a result of the above, we pass the following order : (i) Writ Petition No. 1865 of 2024(F) is allowed on the following terms : (a) The impugned Order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Director of Education, Respondent no. 2, thereby refusing approval to the Petitioner-Society under Rule 97(2) of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986, for imposition of major penalty upon the teacher working in St. John of the Cross High School, Sanquelim, as a consequence thereof, we declare that the Petitioner as the Management is entitled to take appropriate action against Respondent no.3 without securing approval from the Director. John of the Cross High School, Sanquelim, as a consequence thereof, we declare that the Petitioner as the Management is entitled to take appropriate action against Respondent no.3 without securing approval from the Director. (b) We quash and set aside the Circular dated 26.06.2020 published by the Director of Education to the extent it infringes the right of the Petitioner-Society to exercise administrative control or the schools run by it, and particularly when there is any apparent conflict between the power exercised by the Managing Committee of a school as against the right of management to run and administer the said schools. (ii) Writ Petition No. 826 of 2025(F) is allowed on the following terms : (a) We quash and set aside the Letters at Annexures M, N, O and P issued by the Deputy Director of Education, seeking an appointment order under signature of the Chairman of School Managing Committee in respect of the individual employee before the approval could be granted on regular basis. By setting and quashing aside the said communication, we direct the cases of the individual employees to be taken up for appointment on regular basis. (b) We also direct the Respondent no. 2 to grant approval to the appointments which are kept pending on that count as set out in Annexure Q. The Petitions are made absolute in the aforesaid terms.