The impugned provision did not violate the fundamental right of minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution and consequently was applicable to the petitioner.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, an aided minority educational institution, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs: (a) A declaration that Clause 7 (4a) of Ordinance XVIII of delhi University is ultra vires and unconstitutional; (b) A declaration that amended Clause 7 (4a) of Ordinance xviii of Delhi University does not apply to the Petitioner; (c) A writ of certiorari to quash an Order dated 13. 2. 2006 passed by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions

( 2 ) THE main issue that arises for determination in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is obliged to constitute a Selection committee for filling up the post of Lecturer in different subjects, in accordance with the amended Clause 7 (4a) of Chapter XVIII of the Delhi university Ordinance. Background Facts

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner issued an advertisement in the newspapers on 21. 6. 2005 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in different subjects. The petitioner constituted a Selection Committee and finalized a list of the selected candidates. However, the University of Delhi, respondent No. 1, to which the petitioner is affiliated, objected to the constitution of the Selection Committee as it was not in conformity with the requirement of the amended Clause 7 (4a) of Chapter XVIII of the Delhi University ordinance. The petitioner filed a petition before the National Commission for minority Educational Institutions, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 13. 2. 2006. Thereafter, the present petition was filed.

( 4 ) UNDER the amended Clause 7 (4a) of Chapter XVIII of the Delhi University ordinance the Selection Committee should consist of the following persons: (i) The Chairperson of the Governing Body. (ii) The Principal of the concerned college. (iii) Two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor, of whom one should be a subject expert. (iv) Two subject experts not connected with the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of the governing out of a panel approved by the Vice Chancellor. (v) One senior teacher/head of the Department of the concerned subject. Submissions of Counsel

( 5 ) MR. Romy Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being an aided minority institution, it cannot be compelled to constitute a selection Committee in accordance with the amended Clause 7 (4a) and that such a restriction is violative of its fundamental right to administer its institution under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier"s Society v. State of Gujarat 1974 (1) SCC 717 he submits that that the right to administer amongst other things consists of the right to choose the teachers. Reliance is placed upon the observation made in para 182 of that judgment to contend that the right to choose the Principal and to have the teaching conducted by the teachers appointed by the Management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy are perhaps the most important facets of the right to administer an educational institution. He submitted that in the circumstances, the requirement of having two nominees of the Vice Chancellor on the Selection Committee was legally unsustainable. Reliance has also been placed in the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School (1998) 6 SCC 674 to contend that it is for the management of a minority educational institution to choose the modality for selecting teachers of the institution even if the institution is an aided one. It is further submitted that the judgment in St. Xaviers College has been followed by a 11 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481. Finally, it is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in brahmo Samaj Educational Society v. State of West Bengal (2004) 6 SCC 224, the mere fact that the institution rece