The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the school's establishment and administration by the minority community under Art.30 and the limitations of regulatory measures in interfering with the management's freedom to appoint the Headmistress.

1. This original petition is directed against the orders Exts. P8, P10, P13 and P14 passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Tellicherry South. The 1st petitioner is the Bishop of Catholic Diocese, Calicut, and the 2nd petitioner is the Manager of St. Peter's U. P. School, Chalil, Tellicherry. The permanent Headmistress of the school retired on 31-3-1969. The 4th respondent was then ordered to be the Headmaster-in-charge of the said school. The 3rd respondent who is the seniormost teacher in the school questioned the action of the 2nd petitioner in putting the 4th respondent in charge of the office of the Headmaster. The Assistant Educational Officer upheld her objection and directed the 2nd petitioner to appoint the 3rd respondent as the Headmistress. Though this order of the Assistant Educational Officer was taken up in appeal and revision by the 2nd petitioner, be did not succeed. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner filed O. P. No. 2506 of 1972 challenging the orders passed by the educational authorities. In that petition the 2nd petitioner alleged that the St. Peter's U. P. School is one established by a religious minority community and therefore the 2nd petitioner is entitled to administer the said school in the best way considering the interests of the minority community. It was contended that it was in exercise of such a right that the 4th respondent was put in charge of the post of the Headmaster until a permanent Headmaster is appointed. As the averments and pleadings made in that case were found to be inadequate to enter a decision whether the school is established and administered by a minority community and since the orders challenged related only to the entrustment of the charge of the Headmaster to the 4th respondent, without prejudice to the petitioner's claim that the said school is a school established and administered by a minority community the original petition was dismissed. It is thereafter that the 2nd respondent appointed the 5th respondent as the Headmistress and directed the 4th respondent to hand over charge to her. When this order of appointment was communicated to the Assistant Educational Officer, he refused to approve the same. According to him, the appointment was highly irregular and contrary to the rules of the K. E. R. The 2nd petitioner's representation claiming protection and right under Art.30 of the Constitution in making the appointment of the 5th respondent as the Headmistress of the school was not accepted by the Educational Officer and he threatened to take further action against the 2nd petitioner if the 3rd respondent is not appointed Headmistress and charge handed over to her immediately. This is challenged in this original petition.

2. The District Educational Officer and Respondents 3 and 4 have filed counter-affidavits disputing the claim of the petitioners that the St. Peter's U. P. School is established and administered by a minority community. They also contend that even if the school comes under the scope of Art.30 (1) of the Constitution, R.44 and 45 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules framed under the Kerala Education Act are only regulatory measures framed in the interests of educational institution and the teaching staff and they must be obeyed. They do not violate the fundamental rights claimed by the petitioners.

3. In the light of these contentions two questions arise for determination, namely, whether St. Pater's U. P. School managed by the 2nd petitioner is one established and administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calicut, and secondly, whether the 2nd petitioner can ignore R.44 and 45 of Chapter XIV-A in appointing the 5th respondent as the Headmistress of the said school. I shall consider these questions one by one.

4. In order that the petitioners may claim protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution they will have to show that the school is established and administered by a religious minority. It is not disputed that Roman Catholics