The conferral of a right of appeal to an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor under Ordinance 33(4) takes away the disciplinary power of a minority educational authority. The Vice-Chancellor has the power to veto its disciplinary control. There is a clear interference with the disciplinary power of the minority institution. The State may 'regulate' the exercise of the right of administration but it has no power to impose any 'restriction' which is destructive of the right itself. The conferral of such wide powers on the Vice-Chancellor amounts in reality, to a fetter on the right of administration under Art.30 (1).

1. These appeals by special leave directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated July 19, 1973, raise a question of far reaching importance. The question is whether an educational institution established and managed by a religious or linguistic minority is bound by the provisions of Ordinance 33(4), Chapter LVII of the Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the University of Kerala, under S.190) of the Kerala University Act, 1957.

2. Smt. Lily Kurien, the appellant herein, was appointed as Principal of the St. Joseph's Training College for Women, Ernakulam in the year 1957. The College was established by the Congregation of the Mothers of Carmel, which is a religious society of Nuns belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, and is affiliated to the University of Kerala. It is administered by a Managing Board, and the Provincial of the Congregation is its President.

3. On October 30, 1969, there was an unfortunate incident between the appellant and one P. K. Rajaretnam, a lecturer of the college, placed on deputation by the Government. On the basis of a complaint by Rajaretnam, the Managing Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and appointed a retired Principal of the Maharaja's College, Ernakulam, to be the Enquiry Officer. The appellant did not participate in the proceedings. The attitude adopted by the appellant unfortunately was one of the supreme indifference, taking the stand that the Managing Board had no competence whatsoever to initiate any such disciplinary action. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated November, 27,1969, held the appellant guilty of misconduct. The Secretary of the Managing Board accordingly served her with a notice dated December 2,1969 stating that a meeting of the Board was to be held on December 19,1969, to consider the representation, if any, made by her and also the punishment to be imposed, on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

4. In the wake of the disciplinary action, on December 18, 1969. the appellant filed a suit O. S. No. 819 of 1969 in the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, challenging the validity of the proceedings of the Managing Board. On December, 19,1969. the Munsiff issued an interim injunction restraining the Management from implementing the decision, if any, taken by it at the meeting to be held on that day. A meeting of the Board had, in tact, been held and a decision was taken to remove the appellant from service The Provincial of the Congregation by virtue of her office as the President of the Managing Board, by order dated January 2,1970, dismissed the appellant from service. It was stated that the Managing Board had after giving due notice to the appellant, and on a careful consideration of the enquiry report, and the findings thereon, found that the charges of misconduct were proved. The appellant was accordingly directed to hand over all papers, files, vouchers and documents connected with the College to Sr. Lewina, Professor, without further delay, stating that the order for her dismissal from service would be implemented immediately after the decision of the Munsiff on the application for temporary injunction.

5. On January 17,1970, the Munsiff held that the dismissal of the appellant was free from any infirmity and was by the competent authority, that is the Managing Board, and, therefore, she had no prima facie case The Munsiff accordingly vacated the injunction with a direction that temporary injunction already issued will remain in force for two weeks to enable the appellant, if she wanted to move the Vice-Chancellor and obtain from him a stay of the order of dismissal. The appellant had, in the meanwhile, on January 9,1970, already filed an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor under Ordinance 33(4), Chapter LVII of the Ordinance framed by the Syndicate, against the order of dismissal. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated January 24, 1970, stayed the operation of the order of dismissal The suit filed by t