ivil Appeal No 3678 of 1984
From The Judgment and Order dated 511982 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 2923 of 1981
RB Dattar section Wasim Qadi for the Appellants
VC Mahajan KK Venugopal G Viswanatha lyer RB Mishra Ms A Subhashini Mrs Baby Krishnan CB Vaidya nathan KV Mohan Dilip Pillai P Kesava Pillai and N Sudhakaran for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
The two appellants SSh
Virendra Nath Gupta and Mohammad Aslam Kidwai are teachers in the Kerala Educa tion Society Senior Secondary School New Delhi
They chal lenged the appointment of TN Vishwanathan Nair respondent No 5 as VicePrincipal of the Institution by means of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
The High Court by its order dated January 5 1982 dismissed the petition in limine
Hence this appeal by special leave
The Kerala Education Society hereinafter referred to as the Society  is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1960
The Society is running the Kerala Education Society Senior Secondary School in New Delhi
The Delhi Administration as 808 well as the Education Authorities have recognised the Insti tution as a linguistic minority school
The Institution is aided and recognised by the Delhi Administration
The ob jects of the Society are i to provide facility for the education of children in the Union Territory of Delhi by making provision for suitable institutions ii to promote the study of Malayalam
A sizable number of persons belong ing to State of Kerala who speak Malayalam are residents in Delhi and they constitute a linguistic minority
The Ma layalees have their own language script and culture and in order to preserve the same they established the Institution which is administered by the linguistic minority with the primary purpose of promoting the study of Malayalam and also for preserving their culture dance music and other Kerala articles Teaching of Malayalam in the aforesaid Institution is compulsory from Classes I to V as the medium of instruction is Malayalam
However Malayalam is an optional subject in VI to XII standard
The school has 1700 students and more than 60 of parents and guardians belong to the lower income group of Malayalam speaking community
The Institution is regulated by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules framed thereunder namely Delhi School Education Rules 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Rules One post of Vice Principal was created in the Insti tution in the pay scale of Rs650 1200 with effect from 110 1980
In March 1981 a Departmental Promotion Commit tee hereinafter referred to as DPC was constituted to make selection for appointment to the post of Vice Principal in accordance with the recruitment rules made under Section 81 of the Act read with Rule 100 of the Rules issued on 252
1980 and published in the Delhi gazette Extraordinary dated 74
The DPC made selection from amongst the teachers of the Institution to fill up the post of Vice Principal by promotion in accordance with the aforesaid Rules
The DPC recommended the name of TN Vishwanathan Nair respondent No 5 for promotion to the post of Vice Principal although he did not fall within the zone of con sideration as he was junior to the appellants at Sl
No 10 in the seniority list
The Management of the Institution accepted the recommendation of the DPC and forwarded papers to the Director of Education for approval
Meanwhile the appellants made representation to the Director of Education against the selection and appointment of respondent No 5
The Director of Education rejected the Management s proposal and refused to approve the selection and appointment of respondent No 5 on the ground that he did not fall within the zone of consideration according to the Rules and further he did not possess the essential qualification of five years experience as 809 Post Graduate Teacher as required by the Recruitment Rules
Since no suitable candidate was available for promotion within the zone of consideration the Director of education permitted the Managing Committee to advertise the post for filling the same by direct recruitment
Thereafter adver tisement was published on 2491981 inviting applications for the post of Vice Principal
The advertisement stated the essential qualifications being Master s Degree with second division five years  teaching experience as Post Graduate Teacher or ten years  teaching experience as Trained Gradu ate Teacher and also ability to speak and write Malayalam
Since the knowledge of Malayalam was prescribed as an essen tial qualification the appellants were not eligible for selection or appointment as they could not speak or write Malayalam
On the recommendation of the Selection Committee respondent No 5 was appointed as a direct recruit to the post of Vice Principal and the Director of Education ap proved his appointment
Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the validity of the appointment of respondent No 5 on three grounds i since under the Rules post of Vice Principal was a promo tional post no direct recruitment was permissible ii respondent No 5 did not possess the essential qualification of Master s Degree in second division iii the Management malafide introduced knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification with a view to favour respondent No 5 and to oust the appellants even though the Rules did not permit knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification
We will deal with these submissions in seriatim
There is no dispute that the recruitmentappointment to the post of Vice Principal in the Government aided schools and recognised schools in the Union Territory of Delhi is regulated by the Rules published on 741980 a copy of which has been placed before us farmed under Section 81 of the Act read with Rule 100
Since the Institution is an aided and recognised school the aforesaid Rules were ap plicable for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Vice Principal
According to the Rules recruitment to the post of Vice Principal is to be made by selection
The Rules prescribe educational and other qualifications
The Rules provide that the post of Vice Principal should be filled by promotion failing which by direct recruitment as stated in Col 8 of Annexure B to the Rules
As noticed earlier the Management made attempt to fill the post of promotion and the DPC had con 
sidered the case of teachers of the Insti tution for promotion to the post  of Vice Principal and it recommended respondent No 5 but the same was not approved by the Director of Education
The selection Com 810 mittee had considered the appellants also but it did not find them suitable for promotion instead it recommended respondent No 5 for promotion but the recommendation of the Selection Committee was not approved by the Director of Education
The Director of Education by his letter dated 251981 directed the Management of the Institution to fill the post by direct recruitment
Pursuant to that direction the Management issued advertisement for making the recruit ment
The Rules thus contain express provision for direct recruitment to the post of Vice Principal and as such we find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the appel lants
Admittedly respondent No 5 did not possess Master s Degree in second division which was an essential qualifica tion but Column No 5 to Annexure B to the Rules which prescribes essential qualifications states Condition of second division relaxable in case of candidates belonging to the same school and also in case of Scheduled CastesSched uled Tribes
 The Rules further contain a noteCompetent authority may relax the essential qualifications in excep tional cases of the candidates of the same school after recording reasons therefor
The Selection Committee as well as the competent authority granted relaxation to respondent No 5 as he belonged to the same school
Further he had ten years  experience as Trained Graduate Teacher and as such he was eligible for direct recruitment under the Rules
The appellant s plea that since the Management was interested in appointing respondent No 5 to the post of Vice Principal it manipulated to get his selection made for appointment to the said post is without any foundation
The Selection Committee consisted five members out of which three were representatives of the Education Department appointed by the Director of Education
The Selection Committee made the selection in accordance with the Rules and found respondent No 5 suitable for appointment to the said post
In this view there is no merit in the second submission made on behalf of the appellants
The third submission made on behalf of the appellants is that the additional essential qualification regarding knowl edge of Malayalam was prescribed in contravention of the Rules and this was done with a view to oust the appellants who were the senior teachers fully equipped with other essential qualifications for appointment to the post of police Principal
While considering this question we cannot over look fact that the Institution is a linguistic minority institution its object  to promote the study of Malayalam and to promote and preserve malayalee dance culture and article Article 29 of the Constitution of 811 India guarantees fight of linguistic minorities having a distinct language script and culture of their own and it also protects their fight to conserve the same
Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees the right of minorities whether based on religion or language to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
A linguistic minority has not only the right to establish and administer educational institution of its choice but in addition to that it has further constitutional right to conserve its language script and culture
In exercising this fight a linguistic minority may take steps for the purpose of promoting its language script or culture and in that process it may prescribe additional qualification for teachers employed in its institution
The rights conferred on linguistic minority under Artides 29 and 30 cannot be taken away by any law made by the Legislature or by rule made by executive authorities
However the Management of a minority institution has no right to mal administer the institution and it is permissible to the State to prescribe syllabus curriculum of study and to regulate the appoint ment and terms and conditions of teachers with a view to maintain a minimum standard of efficiency in the educational institutions
This is the consistent view of this Court as held in a number of decisions where the scope and extent of minority s fight to manage its institutions were considered
See In Re The Kerala Education Bill 1957
Reference under Article 143D of the Constitution of India 1959 SCR 995 The Ahmedabad St Xaviers College Society  Anr
vs State of Gujarat  Anr
   Lilly Kurian vs Sr
Lewina and Ors
   Frank Anthony Public School Employees  Association vs Union of India  Ors   Mrs Y Theclamrna vs Union of India  Ors  and All Bihar Christian Schools Association vs State of Bihar  Though minority s right under Articles 29 and 30 is subject to the regulatory power of the State but regulatory power cannot be exercised to impair the minority s fight to conserve its language script or culture while administering the educational institutions
An institution set up by the religious or linguistic minori ty is free to manage its affairs without any interference by the State but it must maintain educational standards so that the students coming out of that institution do not suffer in their career
But if the recognised minority institution is recipient of Government aid it is subject to the regulatory provisions made by the State
But these regulatory provi sions cannot destroy the basic fight of minority institu tions as embodied under Article 29 and 30
The Kerala Education Society is a recognised and aided institution it is subject to the regulatory provisions contained in the Delhi 812 School Education Act 1973 and the Rules made thereunder
The question is whether the Management of the Institution could validly prescribe knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification for the post of Vice Principal
Admittedly the Institution is for promotion of Malayalam language and as Malayalam is compulsory for students upto Vth standard and it is one of the optional subjects from VIth to XIIth standard it is not only proper but desirable that the incumbent holding the office of Principal or Vice Principal being administrative in nature should have knowledge of speaking and writing Malayalam
The requirement of knoweldge of Malayalam is closely connected with the fight of the linquistic minority to subserve its script language and culture
The Management of the Institution acted within its fight in prescribing an additional essential qualification regarding knowledge of Malayalam and no exception can be taken to the same as it is the constitutional right of the linguistic minority to insist on the knowledge of the lan guage on the basis of which the linguistic minority is recognised
The provisions of the Act and the Rules are subject to the guarantees of constitutional rights of the minorities  institutions
In our opinion the Management acted within its constitutional right in insisting the knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification for the post of Vice Principal
The Education Department of Delhi Administration did not raise any objection to the Manage ment s action on the other hand the Selection Committee constituted by the Director of Education made its recommen dation on the basis of the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and the Director of Education approved the appointment of respondent No 5
In this view we find no merit in the appellants  submission that the knowledge of Malayalam was prescribed mala fide with a view to oust them from consideration
In view of the above discussion we find no legal infirm ity in the appointment of respondent No 5 as Vice Princi pal
It appears that during the pendency of the appeal a vacancy arose in the post of Principal to which respondent No 5 was promoted
Consequently there was a vacancy in the post of Vice Principal to which KD Antony another teacher of the School was appointed
The appellants filed an appli cation for impleading KD Antony to the appeal but no relief was claimed against him
The application for implead ing KD Antony is accordingly rejected
The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
Y Lal Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent was taken into custody in exercise of the powers under sub section
1 of section 3 of the with a view to preventing him from engaging in trans porting smuggled goods
In the special criminal application preferred by him the High Court held that the detenu s relatives were not informed about the detention order or about the place where the detenu was detained
Consequently the order of detention was quashed and the detenu was di rected to be set at liberty
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the Union of India that the detenu was already an undertrial prisoner and his relatives had visited him at the jail within two days and therefore the non communication of a written intimation about the fact of passing of the order of detention and of the place of detention in pursuance of the detention order had no significance and as such the order cannot be said to be invalidated on that ground
Allowing the appeal the Court HELD 1
The family members of the detenu should not be kept in darkness by withholding the information about the passing of the order of detention and the place of detention thereby preventing them from having any access and from rendering any help or assistance to the detenu and similarly the detenu should not be deprived of the privilege of meet ing their relations and getting any help or assistance
745C D AK Roy vs Union of India   followed
In the instant case however the family members of the detenu 743 had sufficient knowledge about his detention by virtue of the mittimus issued as well the place of detention
The High Court was therefore not justified in setting aside the order
745D E 2
The matter is remitted to the High Court for consid eration of the other contentions raised by the detenu
He shall not be taken into custody to serve the unexpired period of detention till the matter is finally disposed of
745F G