Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 2554/2005 was appointed as Headmaster of the Viswavidyalayam U. P. School, Chennara by the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 2938/2005, the Manager of the said school. In doing so, Sri. George George, who is the 5th respondent in W. P. (C) No. 2938/2005 (6th respondent in W. P. (C) No. 2554/2005) was proposed to be superseded.

2. The appointment of the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 2554/2005 in preference to Sri. George George as Headmaster will admittedly be against R.45 in Chap.14-A of the Kerala Education Rules (the 'Rules' for short), since Sri. George George, who is a graduate with B.Ed., is admittedly the candidate to be preferred in accordance with the Rules, over the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 2554/2005, whose qualification is S.S.L.C. with T.T.C. and, therefore, only a non graduate teacher (See Karunakaran v. D.E.O., Badagara & Ors. (1976 KLN 51) and Akkarishetty v. Manager, S. R. A. U. P. School (ILR 1978 (2) Ker.14)).

3. The Manager of the school (petitioner in W. P. (C) No.2938/2005) attempted to justify the preference he made on the ground that the institution is one to which the protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India applies and therefore, it has a right to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice and that the right to appoint Head Master of its choice is part of its such right to administer. In support thereof, the Manager appears to have pressed into service, the approved bye laws of the management, as sanctioned by the competent statutory authority. After adverting to and considering the terms of the said bye laws, the Government, by the impugned Order, G. O. (Rt) No. 5110/2004/G.Edn. dated 29.11.2004, held that the claim as to minority status is not established.

4. As already noticed, the Manager and the teacher, whose appointment as the headmaster is thus interfered with by the statutory authorities, including the Government, are challenging the said Government Order in these Writ Petitions. They are represented by same counsel.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader on notice.

6. In the realm of procedure, the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed two grounds.

7. Firstly, it is urged that Sri. Askar Ali (petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 2554/2005), the teacher, whose appointment has been interfered with, was not heard by the Government and this amounts to infraction of the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment dated 10.6.2004 issued by this Court in W. P. (C) No.17167/2004. In so far as this issue is concerned, it is to be noticed that the Government was deciding only the Revision Petition filed by the Manager challenging the decision of the A.E.O. and the D.E.O., refusing to approve the appointment of Sri. Askar Ali. Sri. Askar Ali had not carried any revision before the Government on the said issue. Ext.P6, the judgment in W. P. (C) No.17167/2004 was rendered by this Court on a Writ Petition filed by Sri. George George and the direction therein was that the revision shall be disposed of after hearing the affected parties. I am sure that the said direction, by itself is no sufficient ground for this Court to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner in W. P. (C) No.2554/2005 was not heard by the Government. This is more so because, the Management was heard by the Government and the only question that was in issue before the Government was as to whether the Management had the protection of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. Having heard the Manager and the issue having been considered and decided by the Government with reference to the relevant materials, the mere non hearing of the teacher, in relation to whose appointment the matter was heard, would not matter much. At any rate, in the realm of discretion, I am not inclined to issue a writ interfering with the impugned decision on this ground.

8. Secondly, it