Minority Educational Institution’s Choice Of Principal Cannot Be Tested On Merits Or Rationality Once Candidate Is Chosen: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Court held that the right of minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) to appoint a Principal or Headmaster of their choice is absolute, and executive instructions compelling the appointment of the senior-most teacher are unconstitutional to that extent.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that once the management of a minority educational institution consciously selects a qualified person from the minority community to head the institution, courts cannot examine the merits of such a choice or the rationality of the selection process.
The Court was hearing writ appeals arising from a dispute concerning the assignment of charge of the post of Principal in an aided minority educational institution after the retirement of the existing In-charge Principal.
The controversy centred around whether State circulars mandating the grant of current charge to the senior-most teacher could override the minority institution’s right to choose a person of its own preference for the post of Principal.
A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed, “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.”
Senior Advocate MPS Raghuvanshi appeared for the appellant. Additional Advocate General Ankur Modi appeared for the respondents.
Background
The dispute arose in relation to S.S.L. Jain P.G. College, Vidisha, an aided minority educational institution. Following the retirement of the existing In-Charge Principal on 28.02.2025, the Principal of the lead college recommended the name of a senior-most Assistant Professor for the assignment of charge of the post of Principal.
Pursuant to a communication issued by the Higher Education Department, the Regional Additional Director passed an order assigning charge of the post of Principal to the said Assistant Professor, who subsequently joined the post.
However, the Governing Body of the minority institution had earlier passed a resolution deciding to entrust the charge of Principal to another individual, citing prior allegations and punishment imposed upon the Assistant Professor whose name had been recommended on the basis of seniority.
The management thereafter requested cancellation of the Regional Additional Director’s order and issued another order assigning charge to the person selected by the Governing Body. This led to the filing of a writ petition before the Single Judge, who directed reconsideration of the matter by the Regional Additional Director. The said order was challenged in an appeal.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench held that the status of the appellant institution as a minority educational institution was undisputed and therefore the matter had to be examined in the backdrop of Article 30(1) jurisprudence governing minority institutions.
The Court extensively relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose (2007), T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial (1970), N. Ammad v. Emjay High School (1998) and Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew (2017).
Referring to Malankara Syrian Catholic College, the Court reiterated that the right to establish and administer educational institutions includes the right to appoint teaching staff, including Principals and Headmasters, and that such right forms a vital facet of Article 30(1).
The Bench observed that while the State may prescribe minimum qualifications, service conditions and regulatory measures to maintain educational standards, such regulations cannot interfere with the overall administrative control of minority institutions over their staff.
The Court emphasised the importance of the office of Principal in an educational institution and reproduced observations from earlier Supreme Court judgments highlighting that the Principal determines the tone, discipline, traditions and educational efficiency of the institution.
The Bench quoted with approval the observation that, “The right to choose the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school.”
The Court further held that the management of a minority institution has the freedom to select a qualified person either from within the institution or from outside, and such right cannot be diluted by statutory provisions or executive instructions compelling appointment solely based on seniority.
The Bench observed that State circulars dated 25.08.2021 and 08.09.2021 restricting assignment of the current charge of Principal only to the senior-most teacher directly interfered with the minority institution’s right under Article 30(1).
The Court held: “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.”
The Bench further held that the impugned circulars, insofar as they were sought to be applied to minority institutions, were unconstitutional.
The Court observed: “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.”
The Court also relied upon Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India v. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) to reiterate that statutory authorities alone must exercise powers vested in them, and decisions taken at the behest of persons having no statutory role would be patently illegal.
Conclusion
The Division Bench held that executive circulars requiring minority institutions to assign charge of Principal only to the senior-most teacher violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution insofar as they interfere with the institution’s right to select a qualified person of its choice to head the institution.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order passed by the Single Judge directing reconsideration of the matter and upheld the order assigning charge of Principal to the person chosen by the Governing Body of the minority institution.
Cause Title: The Chairman v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:13979)
Appearances
Appellants: Senior Advocate MPS Raghuvanshi with Advocate Amir Khan; Advocate Narottam Sharma
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Ankur Modi; Advocates Prashant Sharma, Pawan Raghuvanshi and Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi