Holding

The management of a minority school has an absolute right under Article 30(1) to appoint any qualified person as Headmaster, subject only to qualifications prescribed by law, and is not bound by seniority rules or other statutory constraints.

Summary

The appellant, a senior teacher at Emjay High School, claimed that, after acquiring the requisite qualifications, he should have been appointed Headmaster of the minority‑aided school. The school management instead transferred a qualified teacher from another school and appointed him as Headmaster, prompting the appellant to seek a mandamus directing his appointment. The Supreme Court examined whether a minority educational institution's management can freely choose any qualified person as Headmaster, or whether it is bound by statutory rules such as Kerala Education Rule 44(1). The Court held that Article 30(1) guarantees an absolute right to administer minority institutions, which can only be limited to prescribing qualifications and service conditions; the management may appoint any qualified person, even from outside the staff, and is not compelled to follow seniority rules. It also ruled that the government's declaration of the school as a minority institution merely recognized an existing fact and does not affect the application of Article 30(1). Consequently, the management's appointment of the fourth respondent was lawful and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The extent of the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution for a minority educational institution to appoint its Headmaster.
Whether statutory provisions such as Kerala Education Rule 44(1) and related rules bind the management of a minority school in appointing the Headmaster.
Whether the government's declaration of a school as a minority institution is prospective or merely recognitional of an existing status.

Legislation cited

Kerala Education Act, 1958s. 14, s. 2(2), s. 2(5)
Kerala Education Ruless. Rule 10, s. Rule 11, s. Rule 13, s. Rule 44(1), s. Rule 44A, s. Rule 45C

Subjects

Article 30(1)minority educational institutionright to administerappointment of headmasterKerala Education ActKerala Education Rulesfreedom of managementgovernment declarationseniority ruleconstitutional law

Judgment

N.AMMAD A
v.
THE MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 7, 1998

(S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, .IJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950-Anic/e 30( I )-Mino1ity educational in-
stitution-Riglzt to administe1-Is an absolute light and any law or executive
direction which inftinges the substance of that light is void to the extent of the
inftingement. C
Right of administration-Of mino1ity educational institution-Freedom
of management to choose qualified person for appointment on the post of
Headmaste1-Held, is insulated by the protective cover of A1ticle 30( 1) of the
Constitution-Rest1iction on the ft"eedoni would diminish the 1ight to ad-
ministe1-Scrvice Law-Appoilltment-Kerala Education Act, 1958-Section D
2(2), U-Kerala Education Rule.1-Rules 10, 44A, 44(1) & 45C.

Minority Educational Institution-Status of-Held, would continue to
be so iirespective of Govemment declaration.

In a minority aided school, a vacancy for the post of Headmaster E
arose in 1991. The appellant, the senior most teacher of the school, who
was initially appointed as High School Assistant (HSA), was put in charge
as Headmaster and was not promoted to the post, as he was not having
rec1uisite ciualilication for the post at that time. In 1994, the appellant, after
acciuiring the qualification, pressed the management to appoint .him as the F
Headmaster. District Education Officer also asked the management to
promote and appoint c1ualified seniormost HSA as Headmaster. The
management appointed Respondent No. 4 as Headmaster by transferring
him from another school and the same was approved by the department.

The appellant filed a uTit petition before High Court against the G
appointment order, seeking his appointment as Headmaster. The mit
petition was allowed by Single Judge while in appeal before the Division
Bench the same was dismissed.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the appellant that the H
453
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A school should not have claimed any protection as a minority school before
2.8.1994, the date when the Government declared the school as a minority
school; and that the management of a minority school is also bound by
Rule 44(1) of the Kerala Education Rules and hence seuiormost HSA
should have beeu appointed as Headmaster. It was alternatively contended
B that the vacancy of Headmaster should have been filled up on the date
when the vacancy arose; that vide Rule 45C (Chapter XIV) of the Kerala
Education Rule~, the appointing authority is rec1uired to promote the
seniormost teacher of the staff of the school or the schools under the
Educational Agency, as Headmaster temporarily; and that the manage·
C ment should have advertised the post inviting applications from qualified
persons.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Management's right to choose qualified person as the
D Headmaster of the school is well insulated by the protective cover of Article
30(1) of the Constitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any
legislative act or executive rule except for fixing up the qualifications and
conditions of service for the post. Any such statutory or executive fiat
would be violative of the fundamental right enshrined in the aforesaid
E Article and would hence be void. (463-G]

1.2. The right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is a right that is
absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the substance
of that right is void to the extent of infringement. But the absolute
character of the right will not preclude making of regulations in the true
F interests of efficiency or i!Jstruction, discipline, health, sanitation,
morality, public order and the like, as such regulations are not restrictions
on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution. [459-F; G]

Re. Kera/a Education Bill, (1957) AIR (1958) SC 956; Sidhrajbhai
G Sabbai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR (1963) SC 540; The
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & Anr. Etc. v. State of Gujarat &Anr.,
[1957] 1 SCR 173, followed.

1.3. Selection and appointment of He.admaster in a school (or prin-
cipal of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that
H educational institution. [460-B]
N. AMMAD v. MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL 455

Aldo Malia Patro11i v. E.C. Kesavan & Ors., [1964] Kerala Law Times A
791; Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & A11r. etc. v. State of Gujarat &
Anr., [1957] 1SCR173; Ga11dhi College, Shahjahanpur v. University of Agra
& A11r., [1975] 3 SCR 810, referred to.

1.4. If management of school is not given very wide freedom to choose
the personnel for holding such a key post as Headmaster, subject of course
B
to the restrictions regarding qualifications to be prescribed by the State,
the right to administer the school would get much diminished.[461-H]

1.5. The management of a minority school is free to find out a
qualified person either from the staff of the same scho.ol or from outside C
to fill up the vacancy. [462-E]

Hemy Gomez v. 17ie Govemment of Kerala, (1994) 1 ILR Kerala
808; Ma11ager Corporate E. Age11cy v. State of Kera/a, (1990) 2 Kerala Law
Times 240, overruled. D
1.6. It is the management of the minority educational institution
to choose the modality for selecting the qualified persons for appoint-
ment. [ 463-F]

Shainda Hasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1990] 2 SCR 699,
E
distinguished.

2. The contention that the school can claim the protection only after
the Government declared it as a minority school, cannot be agreed to. There
is no provision in the Kerala Education Act, 1958 which enables a Govern- F
ment to declare a school as minority school. If so, a school which is other-
wise a minority school would continue to be so whether Government
declared it as such or not. Declaration by the Government is at best only a
recognition of an existing fact. When the Government declared the school
as a minority school ii has recognised a factual position that the school was
established and is being administered by a minority community. The dec-
G
laration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should
necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. [459-A-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4597-
~ of~ H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.98 of the Kerala High
Court in W.A. No. 746-747 of 1998.

R.F. Nariman and B.V. Deepak for the Appellant.

P.P. Rao, E.M.S. Anam and Fazlin Anam for the Respondents.
B
.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS. J. Special leave granted.

The simple question in these appeals is this : Is the management of
C a minority school free to choose and appoint any qualified person as
Headmaster of the school or whether such management is hedged by any
legislat~ve edict or executive fiat in doing so?

The above question arose when management of a school sought to
appoint 4th respondent (P.M. Aboobacker) as Headmaster thereof. The
D school is: "Emjay Vocational Higher Secondary School", Valliapalli Taluk
Calicut District, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as 'the school'). This move
was stiffly resisted by the appellant who is the seniormost teacher in the
school. At his instance, the District Education Officer (DEO) interfered
but of no avail. Appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court
E of Kerala for a writ of mandamus to the management of the school to
appoint him as Headmaster. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, who
heard the writ petition, allowed it and issued a direction as prayed for by
the appellant. But a Division Bench of the High Court reversed that
judgment and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, appellant has come up
to this Court seeking special leave to appeal.
F
Some more facts will be advantageous to focus on the point m
dispute.

Appellant was appointed as a teacher (High School Assistant - HSA
- as it is called) in the school on 3-6-1982, and in June 1991 he became the
G seniormost teacher there. The post of Headmaster of the school fell vacant
during that time. None in the teaching staff of the school, including the
appellant, was qualified to be appointed as Headmaster then. One of the
requisites for the post of Headmaster, as per the relevant rules, is that he
must possess a minimum service qualification of 12 years of continuous
H graduate service. Appellant would have completed the said period of 12
N.AMMADv. MANAGER EMJAYHIGH SCHOOL[THOMAS,J.] 457

years only in June 1994. Nonetheless, appellant was put in charge as A
Headmaster of the school with the approval of the DEO concerned. When
appellant completed the required period for service qualification he
pressed the management to appoint him as regular Headmaster. The DEO
also sent a communication to the management requesting them "to promote
and appoint a qualified seniormost HSA as Headmaster with immediate
effect". But the management, instead of acceeding to the aforesaid request,
B
brought 4th respondent (who was a graduate teacher having larger period
service than the appellant) from another school as per a transfer order
which was approved by the department on 5-6-1994, and appointed him as
Headmaster of the school. It was then that the appellant filed the writ
petition for issuing appropriate directions including a direction to send 4th c
respondent back to the school wherefrom he was brought.

Some undisputed factual features are these; The school was declared
by the Government as a Muslim Minority Community School as per G.O.
(RT) 2959/94/G. Edn. It is an aided school and is governed by the
D
-· provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). 4th
respondent is qualified to be appointed as Headmaster on the date when
he was appointed as such and he has longer service than the appellant as
HSA, though he had such service in a different school. As per the relevant
rules, when a teacher is transferred from one school to another his rank in
the new school shall be fixed next below the juniormost teacher in that E
school in the particular grade.

The contention of the appellant is that he being: the seniormost
graduate teacher should necessarily have been appointed as the Head-
master and none else. He also contended that transfer of 4th respondent F
from another school was vitiated as approval for such transfer was made
on the premise that he was being transferred to hold the post of Head-
master. The third contention is that as the vacancy of Headmaster arose
before 2-8-1994, the post should have been filled up in accordance with
Rules and the protection as minority school cannot be used to thwart the
legitimate right of the seniormost teacher. G

"Educational Agency" is defined under Section 2(2) of the Act as "any
person or body of persons permitted to estabilish and maintain any private
school under this Act". Chapter XIV of the Kerala Education Rules
contains a fasciculus of Rules regarding " Conditions of service of aided H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A school teachers''. Rule 10 which falls under the said Chapter provides that
where more than one school are under the same Educational Agency, a
teacher from one such school may be transferred to another such school.
Rule 11 provides that a teacher serving in any school under one Educa-
tional Agency may be transferred to a school under another Educational
B Agency with the previous approval of the DEO, and Rule 13 stipulates that
his rank in the new School "will be fixed next below the juniormost teacher
in that particular grade in that school". The minimum service qualification
for appointment as Headmaster is provided in Rule 44A. As Rule 44(1) is
important it is extracted below:

c "The appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to
seniority from the seniority list prepared and maintained under
clauses (a) and (b), as the case may be, of Rule 34. The Manager
will appoint the Headmaster subject to the Rules laid down in the
matter. A teacher if he is aggrieved by such appointment will have
the right of appeal to the "Department."
D
What happens if the management of the school does not conform to
the above rules? Section 14 of the Act enables the Government to take
over the management of schools for a period not exceeding 5 years "when-
--
ever it appears to the Government that the manager of any aided school
has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under this Act
E or the rules made thereunder". But the aforesaid action cannot be taken
against a minority school because sub-section (9) of Section 14 says that
"nothing in this section shall apply to minority schools,"

In the light of the scheme of the Act as set out above relating to
F appointment of Headmaster in a minority school, we have now to consider
whether the DEO can compel the management to appoint the appellant as
Headmaster of the school. For answering the said question we have to deal
with the first contention that the school could not have claimed any
protection as a minority school before 2-8-1994, the date when Government
declared the school as a minority school. The contention, in other words,
G is that the above declaration of the Government is only prospective.

"Minority School" is defined in Section 2(5) of the Act as under :

"Minority school means school of their choice established and
administered, or administered, by such minorities as have the right
H to do so under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution."
N. AMMAD v. MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL [THOMAS, J.] 459

Counsel for both sides conceded that there is no provision in the A
Act which enables the Government to declare a school as minority
school. If so, a school which is otherwise a minority school would
continue to be so whetber Government declared it as such or not.
Declaration by the Government is at best only a recognition of an
existing fact. Article 30( 1) of the Constitution reads thus:
B
"All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have
the right to establish and admi'nister educational institutions of
their choice."

When the Government declared the school as a minority school it C
has recognised a factual position that the school was established and is
being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an
oren acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed
antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the
cdntenlion that the school can claim protection only after the Government
declared it as a minority school on 2-8-1994. D

We will now consider the next contention that the management of a
minority school is also bound by Rule 44(1) of the Kerala Education Rules
and hence the seniormost HSA of the school should have been appointed
as Headmaster.
.--·' E
A Constitution Bench of seven judges of this Court in Re Kera/a
Education Bill, 1957, AIR (1958) SC 956 has examined the constitutional
validity of the Bill which was the precursor to the Act when President of
India had sought the advice of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the
Constitution. One of the propositions laid down by the said Constitution F
Bench in the said decision is this: The right guaranteed under Article 30(1)
is a right that is absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes
the substance of that right is void to the extent of infringement. But the
absolute character of the right will not preclude making of regulations in
the true interests of efficiency or instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, G
morality, public order and the like, as such regulations are not restrictions
on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The aforesaid proposition was approved by another Constitution
Bench of this Court in Sidhrajbhai Sabbai & Ors. v. Stnte of Gujarat & Anr.,
AIR (1963) SC 540 and also by a 9 Judge Bench of this Court in The H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Ahmedabdd St. Xaviers College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
(1975] 1 SCR 173.

Thus the legal pos1t10n adumbrated in Re Kera/a Education Bill
(supra) remains unchanged now.

B Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or Principal
of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that educational
institution. Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. He is
the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set around whom they
rotate to generate result. A school is personified through its Headmaster
C and he is the focal point on which outsiders look at the school. A bad
----
Headmaster can spoil the entire institution, an efficient and honest Head-
master can improve it by leaps and bounds. The functional efficacy of a
school very much depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Head-
master. This prestine precept remains unchanged despite many changes
taking place in the structural patterns of education over the years.
D
How important is the post of Headmaster of a school has been pithily
stated by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Aldo Malia Patroni v.
E.C. Kesavan & Ors. (1964) Kerala Law Times 791. Chief Justice M.S.
Menon has, in a style which is inimitable, stated thus :

E "The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the file of
a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution;
on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance
of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose
the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to
F administer a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any
trammel thereon - except to the extent of prescribing the requisite
qualifications and experience - cannot but be considered as a
violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30( 1) of the Constitu-
tion. To hold otherwise will be to make the right 'a teasing illusion,
a promise of unreality' ."(p.794)
G
The importance of the key role which a Headmaster plays in the
school cannot be better delineated than that. The Nine Judge Bench in the
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers Society College (supra) has highlighted the impor-
tance of the role of Principal of a college. In support of the majority view
H in that decision K.K. Mathew, J. has observed thus:
N. AMMADv. MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL [TI-IO MAS, J.] 461

"It is upon the principal and teachers of a college that the tone A
and temper of an educational institution depend. On them would
depend its reputation, the maintenance of discipline and its ef-
ficiency in teaching. The right to choose the principal and to have
the teaching conducted by teachers appointed by the management
after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is
perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer an
B
educational institution."(p.270)

H.R. Khanna, J. has adopted a still broader view that even selection
of teachers is of great importance in the right to manage a school. Learned
Judge has stated thus: C

"The selection and appointment of teachers for an educational
institution is one of the essential ingredients of the right to manage
an educational institution and the minorities can plainly be not
denied such right of selection and appoi~tment without infringing
Article 30(1)." (p.242) D

Krishna Iyer, J. who dissented from the majority view in Gandhi
Faizeam College, Shalijahanpur v. University of Agra & Anr., [1975] 3 SCR
810, has, nevertheless, emphasised the importance of the post of the
Principal in the following words : E
"An activist principal is an asset in discharging these duties which
are inextricably interlaced with academic functions. The principal
is an invaluable insider - the Management's own choice - not an
outsider answerable to the Vice-Chancellor. He brings into the
work of the Managing Committee that intimate acquaintance with F
educational operations and that necessary expression of student-

.. teacher aspirations and complaints which are so essential for the
minority institution to achieve a happy marriage between in-
dividuality and excellence. (p.825)

Whatever is said about the importance of the post of Principal of a
G
college vis-a-vis the administration of the institution would in pwi matelia
apply to the Headmaster of a school with equal force.

If management of the school is not given very wide freedom to choose
the personnel for holding such a key post, subject of course to the restric- H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. lS.C.R.

A tions regarding qualifications to be prescribed by the State, the right to
administer the school would get much diminished.

Appellant in this case adopted an alternative contention that the
vacancy of Headmaster should have been filled up on 1-6-1991 the date on
which the vacancy arose. Rule 45C (Chapter XIV)of the Kerala Education
B Rules provides for temporary promotion as Headmaster in the contingency
when a qualified teacher is not available to be promoted in accordance
with the Rules. In such contingency the Rule says that the apiJOinting
authority "shall promote the seniormost teacher on the staff of the school
or the schools under the Educational Agency, as Headmaster, temporarily."
C A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has taken the view that even
in a minority school appointment of Headmaster shall be with reference to
the date of vacancy. (Vide He111y Gomez v. Ihe Govemment of Kera/a,
(1994) 1 ILR (Kerala) 808). In that case the vacancy arose on 2-5-1987 and
none in that school was qualified and so the management of that school
D brought one teacher froin outside and appointed him as Headmaster. The
Division Bench thereupon held that "the management is bound to find out
a qc::Jified teacher from among the members of its staff to be posted as
Headmaster of the school in the vacancy that arose on 2nd May, 1987".

If the said observations were meant for a non-minority school, we
E would not have considered its implications here. But as the observations
are meant for a minority school in that case we may state al once that we
are unable to concur with it. The management of a minority school is free
to find out a qualified person either from the staff of the same school or
from outside to fill up the vacancy. We may point out, in this context, that
F the Division Bench in He111y Gomez's case (supra) has quoted with ap-
proval the following observations of another earlier Division Bench
decision of the same High Court in Manager Corporate E. Agency v. State
of Kera/a, (1990) 2 Kerala Law Times 240 :

"The right to appoint the Headmaster of a school or the Principal
G of a college, is one of prime importance in the administration of
the institution. Ihe 1ight of the min01ity to administer an education{!/_
institution of its choice requires the presence of a person in whom
they can repose confidence, who will cany out their directions, and
to whom they can look f01ward to maintain the traditions, discipline
H and the efficiency of the teaching. When once the pivotal position
N. AMMAD v. MANAGER, EMJAY HIGH SCHOOL [THOMAS, J.) 463

of the Headmaster is recognised, it has to be held that the 1ight to A
apjJoint a pe1:rnn of its choice as Headmaster is of paramoLtnt
imp01tance to the min01ity, any inte1ference with which (otherwise
than by prescribing qualificaticns and experience) will denLtde the
1ight of administration of is content, reducing it to mere hLtsk, without
the grain. Such an inroad cannot be saved as a regulation which
the State might impose for furthering the standards of education."
B

(emphasis supplied)

Approval of the above observations of the earlier Division Bench decision
of the same court does not go in consonance with the direction issued in C
Henry Gomez case that the management is bound to find out a qualified
teacher from among the members of its staff to be posted as Headmaster
of the school.

Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel contended, alternatively, D
that if the management is anxious to find out the most qualified person to
fill up the post of Headmaster the management should have advertised for
the post inviting applications from qualified persons. To buttress up the
said argument learned counsel cited a two Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Shainda Hasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1990] 2 SCR 699.
In that case the management of a college advertised for the post of E
Principal and when appellant was selected by relaxing the qualifications
the University declined to accord approval thereto. When appellant ap-
proached this court learned judges suggested that the University might not
interfere with the selection and appointment under the facts of that case.
But no legal proposition has been laid down that selection process must p
be through advertisement. According to us, it is for the management of the
minority educational institution to choose the modality for selecting the
qualified persons for appointment.

Thus the management's right to choose a qualified person as the

-- Headmaster of the school is well insulated by the protective cover of G
Article 30(1) of the Constitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any
legislative act or executive rule except for fixing up the qualifications and
conditions of service for the post. Any such statutory or executive fiat
would be violative of the fundamental right enshrined in the aforesaid
Article and would hence be void. H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. \

A ln the present case, nobody has alleged that 4th respondent does not
possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Headmaster. If that is
the position, management has the right and freedom to appoint him as the
Headmaster of the school whether it is by bringing him down from another
school or even from outside the State. We therefore concur with the
conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned
B Judgment and dismiss these appeals.

K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.

-