Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. Sri K.P. Shukla is permitted to implead the affected teachers who are seeking promotion under the 25% quota, as respondents and necessary corrections be carried out accordingly.

3. Issue notice to the newly added respondents returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within ten days.

4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed for bringing on record the communication of the District Inspector of Schools, Agra.

5. On 19.10.2009, the petitioner-Committee has been threatened with action of supersession under Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. A further direction has been issued to cancel the interviews, which are proposed to be held for the purpose of selection in the institution.

6. Sri K.P. Shukla, relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Kund-Kund Jain Inter College, Muzaffarnagar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1528 contended that the District Inspector of Schools has no authority to interfere with the selection proceedings initiated by the petitioner-Committee on any ground, inasmuch as the institution is a minority institution. As such, any action taken by the District Inspector of Schools would amount to violating Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

7. The dispute relates to selection on the post of L.T. grade teachers in the institution. According to the management itself, there are 8 teachers working in the primary section of the institution, who are claiming promotion under the 25% quota as contemplated under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005, reference of which has been made in the letter of District Inspector of Schools dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure 9) to the writ petition. On a simple calculation, two of the teachers would be entitled for promotion out of eight and it appears that they have set their claim for promotion under the said quota. The management is proposing to fill up the post by direct recruitment without considering the claim of such promotion on the ground that the Institution is free to make appointments of its own choice and it is not bound to comply with any such regulation enforced by the State Government. It is not disputed that the posts, which are in dispute, are being aided by the State Government and the salary of such teachers are paid from State funds.

8. Sri K.K. Chand learned Standing Counsel, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra v. State of Gujrat and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7624-7625 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2000 contends that the provisions under the Regulations and Government Order in question are only regulatory measures and they do not prohibit the management from proceeding to make selections of their own choice. He submits that the Government order is necessarily to be observed as the institution is aided and is receiving aid from Government funds.

9. I have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the State counsel.

10. The fact that the institution is recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder and is a minority institution and the fact that it is receiving grant-in-aid is indisputable. So long as the status as a minority institution acknowledged by the State Government through its order dated 9.6.2004 is not annulled, the District Inspector of Schools would be bound by such declaration and he cannot violate the same unless and until a Court of competent jurisdiction or a competent authority recalls the minority status of the petitioner institution. It is also clear from sub-section (14) of Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act that the Committee of Management cannot be proceeded with under the aforesaid provisions for supersession.

11. The only question which now needs to be answered is as to whe