Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court is working as LT grade teacher in Maulana Azad Intermediate College, Anjansheed, Azamgarh. By means of the present writ petition she has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.9.2009 where under the Joint Director of Education has rejected the proposal submitted by the Committee of Management of the institution for promotion of the petitioner, on the ground that in the institution, there are 6 sanctioned posts of lecturers and having regard to Regulation 5(2) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act only 50% posts are required to be filled up by promotion. Since three persons by way of promotion are already working on the post of lecturers, no further promotion can be provided. She has also challenged the advertisement dated 27.3.2010 published by the institution for making direct recruitment on the post.

2. Sr. I.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute that against six sanctioned posts of lecturer three persons are already working which is 50% of the total sanctioned strength of lecturer cadre. It is further not in dispute that under Regulation 5 (2) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 50% of the posts alone are required to be filled by promotion. He, however, contends that Regulation 5 of Chapter II violates Article 30 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as minority institutions, have a right to administer the minority institutions which within its ambit includes the right to make appointment on the posts in the manner the management decides. Only restrictions regarding the qualifications may be prescribed under the Regulations. He submits that State has no authority to restrict the right of appointment by promotion to 50% of the total cadre strength in respect of minority institutions. For the purpose reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Ahmad v. Manager, Emjay High School and others, 1998 (6) SCC 674, specifically paragraph 15, 20, 21 are quoted herein below:

“15. A Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re has examined the constitutional validity of the Bill which was the precursor to the Act when the President of India had sought the advice of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. One of the propositions laid down by the said Constitution Bench in the said decision is this: the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is a right that is absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the substance of that right is void to the extent of infringement. But the absolute character of the right will not preclude making of regulations in the true interests of efficiency or instructions, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like, as such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

16. The aforesaid proposition was approved by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Sidhrajbhai Sabbai v. State of Gujarat and also by a nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat.

20. The importance of the key role which a Headmaster plays in the school cannot be better delineated than that. The nine-Judge Bench in the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society has highlighted the importance of the role of the Principal of a College. In support of majority view in that decision. K.K. Mathew, J. has observed thus: (SCC pp. 815-16, para 182)

“182. It is upon the principal and teachers of a college that the tone and temper of an educational institution depend. On them would depend its reputation, the maintenance of discipline and its efficiency in teaching. The right to choose the principal and to have the teaching conducted by teachers appointed by the management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps