IMPORTANT POINTS
Right of minority institutions to appoint of headmaster or principal of their choice is absolute. There is no obligation to appoint the available senior qualified member from the same community.
Declaration of minority status of an institution recognizes only an existing status. It does not give such status only from the date of declaration.
National Commission has jurisdiction to issue certificate regarding the status of a minority educational institution.

JUDGMENT

Kurian, J.

The appellants-minority educational institutions chose to appoint a teacher of their choice belonging to their respective community to the post of Headmaster, ignoring the available senior teachers from the same community. The High Court interfered and thus aggrieved, the appeals.

2. In the case of the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 826-827 of 2017, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was in favour of the appellant, but in the case of the other, being Civil Appeal No. 828 of 2017, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held against them.

3. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has taken the view that the Management of a minority educational institution has no absolute freedom to appoint a person of their choice, and they cannot overlook the qualified and senior teachers belonging to the same community. It has also been held that declaration of minority status in the case of the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 826-827 of 2017 by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions is of no avail since the appellant was an already existing institution and that the certificate of the Commission is meant for minority educational institutions to be newly established. Still further, the court has taken the view that the declaration contained in the certificate of the Authority cannot have any retrospective effect.

4. We are afraid, the stand taken by the High Court cannot be appreciated. On all the three points, the position is well settled by the Judgments of this Court.

5. As far as the selection and appointment of the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, is concerned, this Court in Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and Others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 386, after referring to all the celebrated cases on minority rights, viz. T M A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537], State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial [(1970) 2 SCC 417], The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717], Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India [(1986) 4 SCC 707], Rev.Sidhajbhai v. State of Bombay [(1963) 3 SCR 837], D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab [(1971) 2 SCC 269], All Saints High School v. Government of A.P. [(1980) 2 SCC 478], St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558], N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School [(1998) 6 SCC 674], Board of Secondary Education & Teachers Training v. Joint 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 its 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 :-

"27. 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 the educational institution. This has not been, in any way, diluted or altered by TMA Pai. 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