Radhakrishnan, J.

Writ petition was preferred by the first respondent herein seeking a declaration that he is entitled to be appointed as Principal of St Joseph’s higher Secondary School, Kozhikode in view of the declaration of law made by the Full Bench of this court in Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association v. State of Kerala (2005 (1) KLT 94) and also for a direction to the third respondent to forthwith revert the fourth respondent from the post of Principal of St Joseph’s Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode and appoint the petitioner as Principal in charge of the school in accordance with the Special Rules and also for other consequential relief’s. Learned single judge disposed of the writ petition with the following directions.

(i) The third respondent is directed to revert the fourth respondent to the post of HSST in S.S. Higher Secondary School, Moorkanad.

(ii) The third respondent will initiate selection process for the selection and appointment of a regular Principal in S.S. Higher Secondary School, Moorkanad and finalise the selection and appointment, within four months of his receiving a copy of this judgment.

(iii) Till selection process is completed and regular Principal is selected and appointed, the third respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as Principal in charge (as Adhoc Principal) for S.S. Higher Secondary School, Moorkanad on the basis of Exts. P1 and P2 G.O. This he will do at the earliest and at any rate within one month of his receiving a copy of this judgment. Parties shall suffer their respective costs.

Management has come up with this appeal aggrieved by the above mentioned directions.

2. Sri M.M. Abdul Aziz, Senior Counsel, appearing for the Management submitted that learned single judge was not justified in giving the above mentioned directions since petitioner’s school is a minority institution entitled to protection guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. Counsel submitted that even for appointment of Principal In-charge of the school right of the minority community cannot be overlooked. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner does not belong to the minority community to which the school belongs. Fourth respondent, it is submitted, belongs to minority community and hence he was rightly preferred to the post of Principal In-charge. In support of this contention considerable reliance was placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Kurian Lizy v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 264) and submitted that the Management of a minority institution has got the freedom to appoint an unqualified teacher of the community as Principal In-charge till regular appointment is made.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the appeal submitted that there is no justification to interfere with the directions given by the learned single judge. Counsel submitted that the fourth respondent in the writ petition is none other than the son-in-law of the Manager and is unqualified to hold the post of Principal or Principal In-charge while admittedly petitioner is the only senior most qualified person to hold the post of Principal In-charge even though he does not belong to that community. Learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Aided Higher Secondary School Teachers Association’s case, supra and submitted that appointment can be made only on the basis of the qualifications prescribed by the Special Rules. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in Kurian Lizy’s case and submitted that on the basis of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India would not be a licence to act arbitrarily and against the Special Rules.

4. Indisputedly the fourth respondent is not qualified to hold the post of Principal or to hold the post of Principal In-charge. Under such circumstances, learned single judge directed the third respondent to revert the fourth respondent from the post of Principa