The right of minority institutions to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution is not an absolute right and is subject to regulations that satisfy the test of reasonableness and do not seriously curtail or destroy the right of minorities to administer their educational institutions.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2014, who thereby dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant, which is the Management Committee of St. Anselm's Senior Secondary School, filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, by the aforesaid order, allowed the application filed by the respondent and set aside the order of his retirement dated 30.06.2014 and declared that he shall be deemed to be continued in service from 01.07.2014 and would be entitled to all consequential benefits. This however would not preclude the appellant Management Committee to get him subjected to medical examination.

3. Bone of the contentions between the parties is about the applicability of Rule 30.1 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws amended by Circular dated 18.02.2014 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education "Shiksha Kendra". The unamended Rule 30.1 provided that every employee including Head of the Institution shall retire from service on attaining the age of sixty with the proviso that if such employee is a recipient of National/State/CBSE Teachers Award, he may be considered for a further extension of service for two years after attaining the age of superannuation provided he is medically fit and is prepared to serve the school. However, proviso to amended Rule 30.1 provides that if such employee is a recipient of National/State/CBSE Teachers Award, he/she shall superannuate from service on attaining the age of 65 subject to meritorious service, good health and good conduct.

4. The respondent, who was about to attain the age of 60 on 30.06.2014, submitted an application on 28.04.2014 to the Principal of the appellant school stating that in view of the aforesaid amendment made in the Affiliation Bye Laws by the CBSE, the age of superannuation for the employees, who are recipient of National/State/CBSE Teachers Award, has been extended to 65 years. Since he was recipient of the National Award for teaching from the Ministry of Human Resources Development on 05.09.2009, his age of superannuation be extended accordingly. The Principal of the school forwarded his application to the appellant Management Committee, which in its meeting held on 23.06.2014, decided not to extend the age of superannuation of the respondent. It was this decision of the appellant Management Committee which the respondent assailed before the Tribunal by filing the application. The Tribunal allowed the application.

5. In the writ petition filed by the appellant Management Committee, its learned counsel before the learned Single Judge fairly submitted that the Management in their reply before the Tribunal admitted that the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws are applicable to the school and that none of the grounds as contemplated in Rule 30.1 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions, etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, 'the Rules of 1993') have been mentioned in the reply filed before the Tribunal. However, learned counsel before the learned Single Judge prayed for liberty to the petitioner/appellant to take appropriate decision in the light of the amended Rule 30.1 of the said Rules, if anything adverse recorded against him. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, observed that such liberty is always there and appropriate decision could always be taken by the petitioner, if any of the grounds as contemplated in proviso to the amended Rule 30.1 of the said Rules is found in future. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal.

6. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for appellant, has argued that the respondent for the first