Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Chairman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
1 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT APPEAL No. 2405 of 2025
THE CHAIRMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - learned Senior Counsel with Shri Amir Khan - learned
counsel for appellant.
Shri Ankur Modi - learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri Pawan Raghuvanshi - learned counsel for
respondent No.4.
With
WRIT APPEAL No. 2416 of 2025
DR. S.K.UPADHYAY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
2 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
Appearance:
Shri Narottam Sharma - learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Ankur Modi - learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi - learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Reserved on 16.3.2026
Pronounced on 30.4.2026
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
As per Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat:
Since the controversy involved in the present bunch of Writ Appeals, both
these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
However, for the sake of convenience, facts of W.A. No.2405 of 2025 are being
taken for proper adjudication of the lis between the parties.
W.A. No.2405 of 2025:
By way of instant appeal, filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenge
is made to the order dated 5.8.2025 passed in W.P.No.21032 of 2025; whereby,
writ petition was disposed of.
2. The facts, necessary for adjudication of the present writ appeal, are that the
respondents No.4 is working as an Assistant Professor (Economics) in S.S.L. Jain
P.G. College, Vidisha (M.P.), which is an aided institution funded by the State
Government. One Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Jain was functioning as the In-charge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
3 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
Principal of the said college and was due to retire with effect from 28.02.2025
upon attaining the age of superannuation. Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Girls P.G.
College, Vidisha is the lead college for S.S.L. Jain P.G. College, Vidisha. In view
of the impending retirement of Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Jain, respondent No.7- The
Principal Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Government Girls (leading) P.G. College,
Vidisha recommended the name of respondent No.4- Dr. Archana Jain for being
assigned the charge of the post of Principal, considering that she is the senior-
most Assistant Professor in the institution.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that respondent No.4- Dr. Archana
Jain also submitted a representation to the State Government seeking grant of
charge of the post of Principal. In response, the Under Secretary, Higher
Education Department, vide communication dated 24.02.2025, directed appellant
to initiate the process for assignment of charge of the post of Principal in
accordance with the applicable rules. Pursuant thereto, the Regional Additional
Director, Higher Education, Bhopal-Narmadapuram Division, Bhopal
(Respondent No.3), passed an order dated 27.02.2025, directing that the charge
of the post of Principal be handed over to respondent No.4- Dr. Archana Jain on
account of the retirement of Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Jain. In compliance thereof,
respondent No.4- Dr. Archana Jain submitted her joining on 28.02.2025.
Furthermore, it is borne out from the record that a meeting of the Governing
Body of the Society was held on 28.01.2025 wherein a resolution was passed to
assign the charge of the post of Principal to respondent No.6-Dr. S.K. Upadhyay.
The said resolution was passed in view of the punishment earlier imposed upon
respondent No.4- Dr. Archana Jain on account of certain allegations of indecent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
4 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
behaviour. In light of the said resolution, appellant vide letter dated 27.02.2025,
requested respondent No.3- The Regional Additional Director to cancel the order
dated 27.02.2025 on the ground that the same was contrary to the decision of the
Governing Body. Consequently, appellant issued another order dated 27.02.2025,
directing that the charge of the post of Principal be handed over to respondent
No.6 Dr. S.K. Upadhyay. Piqued by the said order, respondent No.4- Dr. Archana
Jain preferred the writ petition before Hon’ble Single Bench. The Hon’ble Single
Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
proceeded to pass the order impugned which is under challenge in the present
writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned order has been
passed on the basis of letter dated 27.2.2025 but the said letter dated 27.2.2025
talks about the letter dated 15.2.2022 which is an order in respect of current
charge in the Govt. colleges and not in private colleges. It is further submitted
that the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench is contrary to the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma
and others reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 252. It is further submitted that
subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, a fresh charge-sheet has been
issued against the respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the direction issued by
the Hon’ble Single Bench to reconsider the matter would prejudice and vitiate
the rights of the appellant. It is further contended that the findings recorded by
the Hon’ble Single Bench are self-contradictory and therefore, the impugned
order is unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble
Single Bench has failed to appreciate that a writ petition seeking grant of current
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
5 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
charge is not maintainable, as no enforceable legal right accrues from such a
claim. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Single Bench has erred in holding that
the orders issued by the Commissioner, Higher Education Department, are in the
nature of a circular enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
is further submitted that such orders do not have the force of law nor do they
derive authority from any statutory source. Therefore, in the absence of any legal
sanction or source of power, such orders cannot be enforced through a writ. It is
further submitted that the Hon’ble Single Bench failed to consider that the
charge-sheet issued against the respondent pertains to serious allegations of
misconduct. In view of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench,
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and in such circumstances,
entrusting the respondent with the charge of Principal and permitting her to
administrate the institution would not be in the interest of the institution.
Therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
To strengthen his arguments,learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Corporate Educational
Agency v. James Mathew and others reported in (2017) 15 SCC 595, Joint
Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation
(2011) 5 SCC 435.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submit that the
petitioner/respondent No.4- Dr. Archana Jain in W.P. No. 21032/2025 is working
as Assistant Professor (Economics) in S.S.L. Jain P.G. College, Vidisha, a grant-
in-aid college. She is also the senior-most Assistant Professor of the institution.
Petitioner/respondent No.4 challenged order dated 27.2.2025 before the Hon’ble
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
6 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
Single Bench in W.P. No. 21032/2025. The Hon’ble Single Bench, after
considering the record and relevant circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified
08/09/2021) held that the authority to pass orders in relation to grant of current
charge of Principals in aided colleges vests with the Regional Additional
Director. Accordingly, the order dated 27/02/2025 (Annexure P/1) was quashed
to that extent and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by respondent
No.3/Regional Additional Director within 45 days. The arrangement in favour of
Dr. Upadhyay was permitted to be continued till fresh orders are passed. The
appellants’ reliance on the letter dated 24/02/2025 is misconceived. The said
communication only forwarded the request of respondent No.4- Dr. Archana Jain
and directed the Regional Additional Director to process the matter. It cannot be
read as conferring any power on the Governing Body to appoint an In-charge
Principal contrary to the circular dated 25/08/2021. The order dated 27.2.2025
was passed strictly in accordance with Clause-11 of the said circular, which vests
the power in the Regional Additional Director. The Single Bench rightly held that
in grant-in-aid institutions, the State is entitled to regulate through administrative
circulars, including circular dated 25/08/2021 (as modified 08/09/2021). These
circulars, though administrative in nature, are binding on aided institutions as a
condition of grant and in the interest of uniformity in administration. The
appellants’ argument that such circulars are not statutory is misconceived.
Administrative instructions regulating grant-in-aid institutions have consistently
been upheld by this Hon’ble Court (placed reliance on Kusum Bai Jain Girls
College, Bhind Vs. State of M.P. and Others-W.P.No.2205/2017, order dated
24.08.2017). The learned Single Judge did not issue direction for appointment of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
7 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
any person as Principal but only directed the competent authority to reconsider
the matter in accordance with law. The existing arrangement in favour of
appellant was allowed to continue till then. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to
the appellants. Continuation of stay granted in this appeal is wholly redundant.
The Single Bench itself safeguarded the appellants’ position by permitting them
to continue till a fresh decision is taken. The stay order only delays the mandated
reconsideration within 45 days, frustrating the object of the writ court’s
directions. The order of the Hon’ble Single Bench is a balanced and proportionate
exercise of judicial review. It preserves administrative autonomy while correcting
a jurisdictional error.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Perusal of record reveals that respondent No.4- Archana Jain, an Assistant
Professor (Economics), was recommended for the post of In-charge Principal by
Respondent No.7 on account of being the senior-most faculty member, following
the retirement of the then In-charge Principal, Dr. (Smt.) Shobha Jain on
28.02.2025. Pursuant to a communication dated 24.02.2025 issued by the State
Government, Respondent No.3 (Regional Additional Director) passed an order
dated 27.02.2025 assigning the charge of Principal to Respondent No.4- Dr.
Archana Jain, who accordingly joined on 28.02.2025. However, prior to this, the
Governing Body of the Society had in its meeting dated 28.01.2025, resolved to
assign the charge of Principal to respondent No.6 Dr. S.K. Upadhyay, in view of
earlier allegations and punishment imposed upon Respondent No.4- Archana
Jain. In light of the said resolution, the appellant requested cancellation of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
8 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
order dated 27.02.2025 and simultaneously another order was issued on the same
date assigning charge to respondent No.6 Dr. S.K. Upadhyay. Irked thereby,
respondent No.4- Dr. Archana Jain filed a writ petition. The Hon’ble Single
Bench, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order, which is under
challenge in the present writ appeal.
8. This Court need not dwell into the aspect of the status of appellant
-Institution because the appellant’s status as minority institution is not in dispute.
If that be the admitted position, whether prescription of the criteria as to who
should be made In-charge Principal, will have to be left to the decision of the
minority institution itself without restricting the said choice by imposition of any
criteria of seniority. The freedom of choice of the minority institution to select
Principal of the institution has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and Ors. (2007)
1 SCC 386, with specific reference to the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 30 of the Constitution of India to minority institution in the matter of
establishment and administration of such minority institution. The factual score
depicted in the said decision were that the post of Principal of the College run by
Malankara Syrian Catholic College Association of Archdiocese at Trivandrum
fell vacant. The post was filled up by appointing a Lecturer in the College which
was under challenge on the grounds that person appointed as Principal did not
possess the required qualifications for the post and consequently that
appointment was violative of Section 57 (3) of the Kerala Literacy, Scientific and
Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The relevant provision contained in
Section 57 (3) of the said Act mandated appointment on the post of Principal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
9 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
based on the criteria of seniority-cum-fitness. The Supreme Court, after
surveying its earlier decision, summarized the general principles relating to
establishment and administration of educational institution by minority as
below:-
“19. The general principles relating to establishment and
administration of educational institution by minorities may be
summarized thus:
(i) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice comprises the following rights :
a) To choose its governing body in whom the founders of the
institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the
affairs of the institution;
b) To appoint teaching staff (Teachers/Lecturers and Head-
masters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff; and to take action
if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees;
c) To admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable
fee structure;
d) To use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution;
(ii) The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to
ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the
minorities in a more advantageous position vis- a`-vis the majority.
There is no reverse discrimination in favour of minorities. The general
laws of the land relating to national interest, national security, social
welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation etc.
applicable to all, will equally apply to minority institutions also.
(iii) The right to establish and administer educational institutions is
not absolute. Nor does it include the right to maladminister. There can
be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and
standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
10 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is
efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the
institution. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the
welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility
criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of
service of employees (both teaching and nonteaching), regulations to
prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations
prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category.
Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under
Article 30(1).
(iv) Subject to the eligibility conditions/qualifications prescribed by
the State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions will
have the freedom to appoint teachers/Lecturers by adopting any
rational procedure of selection.
(v) Extension of aid by the State, does not alter the nature and
character of the minority educational institution. Conditions can be
imposed by the State to ensure proper utilization of the aid, without
however diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1).” It was
further held thus: “20. Aided institutions give instruction either in
secular education or professional education. Religious education is
barred in educational institutions maintained out of State fund. These
aided educational minority institutions providing secular education or
professional education should necessarily have standards comparable
with non-minority educational institutions. Such standards can be
attained and maintained only by having well qualified professional
teachers. An institution can have the services of good qualified
professional teachers only if the condition of service ensures security,
contentment and decent living standards. That is why State can
regulate the service conditions of the employees of the minority
educational institutions to ensure quality of education. Consequently,
any law intended to regulate the service conditions of employees of
educational institutions will apply to minority institutions also,
provided that such law does not interfere with the overall
administrative control of the managements over the staff.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
11 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
9. The decision rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
the case of T.M. A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481,
clarifying and crystallizing the extent of regulations by the State in respect of
employee of minority educational institutions receiving aid from the State were
also noticed as below:
“21. We may also recapitulate the extent of regulation by the State,
permissible in respect of employees of minority educational
institutions receiving aid from the State, as clarified and crystallised in
TMA Pai. The State can prescribe :
(i) the minimum qualifications, experience and other
criteria bearing on merit, for making appointments,
(ii) the service conditions of employees without
interfering with the overall administrative control by the
Management over the staff.
(iii) a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the
employees.
(iv) the conditions for the proper utilisation of the aid by
the educational institutions, without abridging or diluting
the right to establish and administer educational
institutions.
In other words, all laws made by the State to regulate the
administration of educational institutions, and grant of aid, will apply
to minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations
interfere with the overall administrative control by the Management
over the staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, the right to
establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to
that extent, will be inapplicable to minority institutions.”
10. The importance of the office of Principal of an educational institution and
the role played by it was highlighted as below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
12 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
“22. The Principal or Headmaster of an educational institution is
responsible for the functional efficiency of the institution, as also the
quality of education and discipline in the institution. He is also
responsible for maintaining the philosophy and objects of the
institution.
23. In State of Kerala vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial [1970 (2) SCC
417], this Court upheld the decisions of the Kerala High Court
declaring subsections (1) (2) (3) of section 53 of the Kerala University
Act, 1969 relating to appointment of Principals were ultra vires Article
30(1) in respect of minority institutions. This Court affirmed the
following findings of the High Court (reported in 1969 Kerala Law
Times 749) without independently considering the same :-
“The principal of a college is, as S.2(12) recognizes, the
head of the college, and, the post of the principal is of
pivotal importance in the life of a college; 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; and the
right to choose the principal is perhaps the most
important facet of the right to administer a college. The
imposition of any trammel thereon except to the extent of
prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience or
otherwise fostering the interests of the institution itself
cannot but be considered as a violation of the right
guaranteed by article 30(1) of the Constitution, and, for
the reasons we have already given, by article 19(1)(f) as
well. To hold otherwise would be to make the rights “a
teasing illusion, a promise of unreality”. Provision may,
of course, be made to ensure that only proper persons are
appointed to the post of principal; the qualifications
necessary may be prescribed, and the mode of selection
for the purpose of securing the best men may be laid
down. But to go beyond that and place any further fetter
on the choice would be an unreasonable interference with
the right of management. Therefore, so far as the post ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1397913 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
principal is concerned, we think it should be left to the
management to secure the services of the best person
available. This, it seems to us, is of paramount
importance, and the prospects of advancement of the staff
must yield to it. The management must have as wide a
field of choice as possible; yet sub- section (2) of Section
53 restricts the choice to the teachers of the colleges or of
all the colleges, as the case may be, and enables the
appointment of an outsider only if there is no suitable
person in such college or colleges. That might well have
the result of condemning the post to a level of dull
mediocrity. A provision by which an outsider is to be
appointed, or a junior member of the staff preferred to a
senior member, only if he is of superior merit, the
assessment of which must largely be left to the
management, is understandable; but a provision which
compels the management to appoint only a teacher of the
college (or colleges) unless it pronounces all the teachers
unsuitable, is clearly in derogation of the powers of the
management, and not calculated to further the interest of
the institution. But we might say that there can be no
objection to the appointment of the principal as of any
other member of the staff being subject to the approval of
some authority of the University so long as disapproval
can be only on the ground that the person appointed has
not the requisite qualifications. Also that if disapproval is
not to be only on some such stated ground, but is left
entirely to the will and pleasure of the appointing
authority, that would be to deprive the educational
agency of its power of appointment and would be bad for
offending article 19(1)(f) and article 30(1).”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. The importance of the right to appointment of Principals/Head-
masters and teachers of their choice by minorities, as an important
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
14 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
part of their fundamental rights under Article 30 was highlighted in St.
Xavier’s thus (SCC pp. 815-16, para 182):
“182. It is upon the principal and teachers of a college
that the tone and temper of an educational institution
depend. On them would depend its reputation, the
maintenance of discipline and its efficiency 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 educational institution. .. So long
as the persons chosen have the qualifications prescribed
by the University, the choice must be left to the
management. That is part of the fundamental right of the
minorities to administer the educational institution
established by them.”
[Emphasis supplied]
25. In N.Ammad (supra) the appellant contended that he being the
senior-most graduate teacher of an aided minority school, he should be
appointed as the Headmaster and none else. He relied on Rule 44A of
the Kerala Education Rules which provided that appointment of
Headmaster shall ordinarily be according to seniority, from the
seniority list prepared and maintained under clauses (a) and (b) of
Rule 34. This Court held:
“18. Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a
school (or Principal of a college) are of prime
importance in administration of that educational
institution. The 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 and he is the focal point on which outsiders
look at the school. A bad Headmaster can spoil the entireSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1397915 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
institution, an efficient and honest Headmaster can
improve it by leaps and bounds. The functional efficacy
of a school very much depends upon the efficiency and
dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine precept
remains unchanged despite many changes taking place in
the structural patterns of education over the years.
19. 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 Maria Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan (AIR
1965 Ker 75). Chief Justice M.S. Menon has, in a style
which is inimitable, stated thus :
“The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in
the life of a school. Around him wheels the tone and
temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity
of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the
efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the
headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the
right to administer a school, and we must hold that the
imposition of any trammel thereon except to the extent
of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience
cannot but be considered as a violation of the right
guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. To hold
otherwise will be to make the right ‘a teasing illusion, a
promise of unreality’.” Thereafter, this Court concluded
that the management of minority institution is free to
find out a qualified person either from the staff of the
same institution or from outside, to fill up the vacancy;
and that the management’s right to choose a qualified
person as the 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; and
that any such statutory or executive feat would be
violative of the fundamental right enshrined in ArticleSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1397916 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
30(1) and would therefore be void. This Court further
observed that if the management of the school is not
given the wide freedom to choose the person for holding
the key-post of Principal subject, of course, to the
restriction regarding qualifications to be prescribed by
the State, the right to administer the School would get
much diminished.
26. In Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training (supra),
this Court held :
“3. The decisions of this Court make it clear that in the
matter of appointment of the Principal, the management
of a minority educational institution has a choice. It has
been held that one of the incidents of the right to
administer a minority educational institution is the
selection of the Principal Any rules which takes away
this right of the management have been held to be
interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the
Constitution. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by
the management and the third respondent are qualified
and eligible for appointment as Principal according to
rules. The question is whether the management is not
entitled to select a person of their choice. The decisions
of this court including the decision in State of Kerala v.
Very Rev. Mother Provincial [1970 (2) SCC 417] and
Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of
Gujarat make it clear that this right of the minority
educational institution cannot be taken away by any rules
or regulations or by any enactment made by the State.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was
not right in holding otherwise. The State has undoubtedly
the power to regulate the affairs of the minority
educational institutions also in the interest of discipline
and excellence. But in that process, the aforesaid right ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1397917 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
the management cannot be taken away, even if the
Government is giving hundred per cent grant.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of James Mathew (supra), has
held as under:
5. As far as the selection and appointment of the Headmaster or the
Principal, as the case may be, is concerned, this Court in Malankara
Syrian Catholic College v.T. Jose [Malankara Syrian Catholic
College v.T. Jose, (2007) 1 SCC 386 : 5 SCEC 728] after referring to
all the celebrated cases on minority rights, viz. T.M.A. Pai Foundation
v. State of Karnataka [T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481 : 2 SCEC 1] ,P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
[P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 : 2 SCEC
745] , State of Kerala v.Very Rev. Mother Provincial [State of Kerala
v.Very Rev. Mother Provincial, (1970) 2 SCC 417] ,Ahmedabad St.
Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat[Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s
College Society v.State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717 : 1 SCEC
125] ,Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Assn. v.Union of India
[Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Assn.v. Union of India,
(1986) 4 SCC 707] , Sidhrajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujarat
[Sidhrajbhai Sabhai v.State of Gujarat, (1963) 3 SCR 837 : AIR 1963
SC 540] , D.A.V. College v.State of Punjab [D.A.V. College v. State of
Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 269] , All Saints High School v. State of
A.P. [All Saints High School v. State of A.P., (1980) 2 SCC 478] , St.
Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi [St. Stephen’s
College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC 558 : 1 SCEC 404] , N.
Ammad v. Emjay High School [N. Ammad v. Emjay High School,
(1998) 6 SCC 674 : 1 SCEC 732] , Board of Secondary Education &
Teachers Training v. Director of Public Instructions [Board of
Secondary Education & Teachers Training v. Director of Public
Instructions, (1998) 8 SCC 555] has held in Paras 27 to 29 that the
management of a minority aided educational institution is free to
appoint the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, of itsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1397918 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
own choice and has no obligation to appoint the available senior
qualified member from the same community. Paras 27, 28 and 29
are quoted hereunder: (Malankara Syrian case [Malankara Syrian
Catholic College v. T. Jose, (2007) 1 SCC 386 : 5 SCEC 728] , SCC p.
404)
“27. It is thus clear that the freedom to choose the person to
be appointed as Principal has always been recognised as a
vital facet of the right to administer the educational
institution. This has not been, in any way, diluted or altered
by T.M.A. Pai [T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 8 SCC 481 : 2 SCEC 1] . Having regard to the key role
played by the Principal in the management and administration
of the educational institution, there can be no doubt that the
right to choose the Principal is an important part of the right of
administration and even if the institution is aided, there can
be no interference with the said right. The fact that the post
of the Principal/Headmaster is also covered by State aid will
make no difference.
28. The appellant contends that the protection extended by
Article 30(1) cannot be used against a member of the teaching
staff who belongs to the same minority community. It is
contended that a minority institution cannot ignore the rights of
eligible lecturers belonging to the same community, senior to
the person proposed to be selected, merely because the
institution has the right to select a Principal of its choice. But
this contention ignores the position that the right of the minority
to select a Principal of its choice is with reference to the
assessment of the person’s outlook and philosophy and ability to
implement its objects. The management is entitled to appoint
the person, who according to them is most suited to head the
institution, provided he possesses the qualificationsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1397919 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
prescribed for the posts. The career advancement prospects of
the teaching staff, even those belonging to the same community,
should have to yield to the right of the management under
Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational
institutions.
29. Section 57(3) of the Act provides that the post of
Principal when filled by promotion is to be made on the basis of
seniority-cum-fitness. Section 57(3) trammels the right of the
management to take note of merit of the candidate or the
outlook and philosophy of the candidate which will determine
whether he is supportive of the objects of the institution. Such a
provision clearly interferes with the right of the minority
management to have a person of their choice as head of the
institution and thus violates Article 30(1). Section 57(3) of the
Act cannot therefore apply to minority-run educational
institutions even if they are aided.
(emphasis supplied)
6. The emerging position is that, once the management of a
minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a
qualified person from the minority community to lead the
institution, either as the Headmaster or Principal, the court
cannot go into the merits of the choice or the rationality or
propriety of the process of choice. In that regard, the right under
Article 30(1) is absolute.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Action Committee
(supra), has held as under:
26. The contention was raised before the High Court that the Circular
dated 29-5-2008 has been issued by the authority having no
competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal propositionSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1397920 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
that the authority which has been conferred with the competence
under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a
superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory
authority. In a democratic set-up like ours, persons occupying key
positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and
decision-making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out
commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken
by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person
who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently
illegal. (Vide Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar [(1969) 1
SCC 308 : AIR 1970 SC 1896] , Chandrika Jha v. State of
Bihar [(1984) 2 SCC 41 : AIR 1984 SC 322] , Tarlochan Dev
Sharma v. State of Punjab [(2001) 6 SCC 260 : AIR 2001 SC 2524]
and Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen [(2010) 11 SCC 557 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Civ) 524 : AIR 2010 SC 2210] .)
27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commr. of
Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC
16] , Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M.
Kamalia [(2004) 2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159] and Pancham
Chand v. State of H.P. [(2008) 7 SCC 117 : AIR 2008 SC 1888]
observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the
statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure
prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon
whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly
unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme.
28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority
who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone
can pass the order. Even a senior official cannot provide for any
guideline or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a
particular manner.
13. Article 30 of the Constitution which relates to rights of minorities to
establish and administer educational institutions is quoted below for ready
reference and convenience:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
21 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
“Right of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions.–(1) All minorities,
whether based on religion or language, shall have
the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.”
14. The management of a minority aided educational institution is free to
appoint the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, of its own choice
and is under no obligation to appoint the available senior-most qualified member
from the same community. It is thus clear that the freedom to choose the person
to be appointed as Principal has always been recognized as a vital facet of the
right to administer an educational institution. Even if the institution is aided,
there can be no interference with this right. The fact that the post of
Principal/Headmaster is also supported by State-aid makes no difference. The
management is entitled to appoint the person who, in its opinion, is most suitable
to head the institution, provided such person possesses the prescribed
qualifications for the post. Any restriction on the right of the minority
management to appoint a person of its choice as the head of the institution
would amount to a violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified 08/09/2021) cannot be made
applicable to minority-run educational institutions, even if they are aided.
The settled legal position is that once the management of a minority educational
institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority
community to lead the institution, either as Headmaster or Principal, the Court
cannot examine the merits of such choice or the rationality or propriety of
the decision-making process. In this regard, the right under Article 30(1) is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
22 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
absolute. Accordingly, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the
behest of, or on the suggestion of, a person who has no statutory role to play, the
same would be patently illegal.
15. In view of the settled legal position adumbrated by the Supreme Court in
plethora of decisions dealing directly with the issue of appointment on the post of
Principal, in the considered opinion of this Court, the executive
instructions /circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified 08/09/2021) restricting the
choice of minority institution to give current charge assignment of the office of
Principal only to senior most teacher is clearly violative of Article 30 (1) of the
Constitution of India, as it completely takes away the right of the minority
institution to choose a person whom it considers to be more suitable for the said
appointment. The two circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified dated 08/09/2021),
therefore, to the extent they are intended to be made applicable to the minority
institution are violative of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution and declared
unconstitutional to that extent. It cannot be made applicable to minority
institution in the matter of choice to appoint the Principal. Right of the minority
institution guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India would
prevail on any such administrative instructions and minority institution would not
be bound to give in-charge assignment only to the senior most one. The emerging
position is that, once the management of a minority educational institution makes
a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority community to lead the
institution, either as the Headmaster or Principal, the court cannot go into the
merits of the choice or the rationality or propriety of the process of choice. In that
regard, the right under Article 30(1) is absolute.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979
23 WA. 2405 of 2025 & WA.2416 of 2025
16. In view of the above considerations, the order dated 5.8.2025 passed in
writ petition No.21032/2025 by the learned Single Bench directing the Regional
Additional Director, Higher Education Department to pass a fresh order keeping
into account the recommendation made by Chairman Governing Body, S.S.L.
Jain, PG College and Principal Rajmata Vijay Raje Scindia Girls (Leading) PG
College is hereby set aside and these writ appeals are allowed.
17. Consequently, order dated 27.2.2025 passed by appellants giving in-charge
of Principal to Dr. S.K. Upadhyay is hereby upheld.
18. No orders as to costs.
(Anand Pathak) (Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 4/30/2026
6:52:36 PM
