Transfer cannot be included in appointment itself.

M.S. LIBERHAN, C.J.:

1. The pristine questions referred to this Full Bench for consideration by the Division Bench run thus:

(1) Whether transfer is an incident of service when it is neither specifically provided nor prohibited under the Rules or Regulations of conditions of Service applicable to teachers and others in private schools.

(2) Is not the School Committee in respect of a non-minority institution entitled to stipulate conditions of service for teachers and others employed in private schools, which are not in conflict with Sec. 19 read with Rule 15 and Form VII-A.

(3) Is not a minority corporate management entitled to effect transfers of those employed in the Schools established and administered by the Educational Agency, when the rules framed by the Government do not touch upon the power of transfer.

(4) Would not the expression “administer” in Art.30(1) of the Constitution take within its fold the exercise of power of transfer as involved in this matter.

2. Proceedings originated from the facts, as culled out from the reference, writ appeals and writ petitions, run thus:

M.K.Syrian Catholic Diocese (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) runs different schools in different piaces, i.e., 13 schools in the District of Kanyakumari. Each School is an independent entity. The controlling correspondent for administration is one person. The Tamil Nadu Recognised Schools Regulations Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) were promulgated to provide the conditions of service of the employees and other matters relating to the admissions, etc. of the recognised private and aided schools. Recognition was granted to each school individually as a separate entity. Seniority list for each individual school as the unit is maintained by the society. There is no approved common seniority list for all the schools run by the Society. Vide letter dated with respect to teachers employed in each school under its management. Undisputedly, the teachers were appointed in the individual school/unit, as an entity in itself. It is a separate school run/established as an independent unit by the Society. Neither the Society nor its management was recognised or conferred with the status of a corporate. It does not fall within the definition of a ‘corporate management’ by the Educational Department, who refused to give its approval for the transfer of 40 teachers.

3. The school-teachers impugned the transfers as invalid, inter alia, claiming, transfer is neither provided under the provisions of the Act nor under the Rules governing the private schools run by the Society, nor there is any condition of service or contract of service for transfer. Thus, the Society cannot effect transfer.

4. The Society/appellants claimed that neither the Act nor the Rules apply to the educational institutions run by the Society, being the minority run schools. Transfer is an act of administration of management and is an incident of service. It is an internal managerial affair of the minority institutions and any interference would be violative of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. By transfer, neither the conditions of service were affected nor same are altered adversely to their interest. All these years, ones transfer was approved. The Society is competent to effect transfers. A writ of mandamus, directing the respondent-State to release the aid to the respective schools against the post of the transferred teachers in order to enable the Society to pay their salaries with effect from 2.6.1989, i.e., from the date they were transferred was sought for. It was further claimed that the respondent, apart from claiming the protection under the umbrella provided by Art.30(l) of the Constitution of India with respect to minority schools, half-heartedly raised the plea of estoppel in view of the fact that some of the teachers having accepted the transfer by joining the