The right of a minority institution to appoint a Principal of their choice, as long as the appointee is duly qualified, is an essential aspect of the right to administer the institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to the appointment of Principal in P.K.Kunju Sahib Memorial Higher Secondary School, of which the fourth respondent is the Manager.

2. The institution in question is a minority institution. The petitioner is the senior most HSST in the school. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 5th respondent who is junior to him has been appointed as the Principal.

3. I have heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.George Poonthottam, learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent and Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4.The right of a minority institution to appoint Principal of their choice, has been recognised by the Apex Court and this court in a catena of decisions. In Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C.Kesavan ( AIR 1965 Ker. 75 ), a Full Bench of this Court held, “The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon – except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience- cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the constitution. To hold otherwise will be to make the right 'a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality'.” In Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew and others 2017 (15) SCC 595 , the Apex Court held, “As far as the selection and appointment of the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, is concerned, this Court in Secy, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and Others, reported in 2007 (1) SCC 386, after referring to all the celebrated cases on minority rights, viz. T. M. A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481, P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (6) SCC 537, State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, 1970 (2) SCC 417, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, 1974 (1) SCC 717, Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India, 1986 (4) SCC 707, Rev. Sidhajbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 540, D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, 1971 (2) SCC 269, All Saints High School v. Government of A.P, 1980 (2) SCC 478, St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, 1992 (1) SCC 558, N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School, 1998 (6) SCC 674, Board of Secondary Education & Teachers Training v. Joint Director of Public Instructions, 1998 (8) SCC 555, has held in Paras 27 to 29 that the Management of a minority aided educational institution is free to appoint the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be, of its own choice and has no obligation to appoint the available senior qualified member from the same community.”. The Court proceeded to hold, “The emerging position is that, once the Management of a minority educational institution makes a conscious choice of a qualified person from the minority community to lead the institution, either as the Headmaster or Principal, the Court cannot go into the merits of the choice or the rationality or propriety of the process of choice. In that regard, the right under Art. 30(1) is absolute.” The above proposition of law was reiterated by Division Bench of this Court in Minimol P.P v. State of Kerala and others (W.A.No.211 of 2021) and, The Manager St.Sebastian’s High School and others v. Xavier T.J and others (W.A.No.978 of 2023).

5. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ivy C. Da Conceicao v. State of Goa and others, 2017(3)SCC 619 , and of the Full Bench of this Court in Belsi M. v. The Corporate Management of Latin Catholic Schools and others, 2010 (2) KLT 134 (FB), the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, notwithstanding the r