37. In Rev. Kuriakose and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1980 K.L.N. 443, the minority educational institutions challenged the validity of Rule 6 (viii) of Chapter v. of the KER. They contended that the agreements which they were compelled to execute were hit by Article30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench repelled the contention of the managements and held: It must be remembered that the form of application is common to minorities and non-minorities and there can be no case at all that in the case of nonminorities this would, in any way, be objectionable. If this did not apply to minorities or the minorities were not willing to absorb the protected teachers and they were not obliged to do so they could have very well stated so. It cannot be said that they answered this unsuspectingly in ignorance of their fundamental right under Article 30(1)assuming that such fundamental right would entitle them to obtain sanction for upgrading/opening schools without agreeing to absorb protected teachers and nonteaching staff. As we have already pointed out in this State there has been keen awareness of the rights of the minorities and the minorities have been approaching this Court whenever there has been a threat or invasion to their fundamental right. The Applicants executed agreements undertaking to absorb protected teachers and non-teaching staff. By this they gained an advantage in that their applications were sanctioned. Perhaps their applications might have been sanctioned even otherwise because of the need for opening or upgrading schools in that area. It is equally possible that the State might have opened schools in that area or the Petitioners might not have received preference in the matter of opening schools in that area. By reason of the order of the Government the Petitioners obtained the advantage of getting sanction for opening/upgrading schools. That advantage they are seeking to retain while they are seeking to escape from the obligations undertaken by them in the agreement. It is a situation where third party interests are affected. Teachers and non-teaching staff thrown out after a fairly reasonable period of service could be protected by the State opening new schools which would not be objectionable if there is justification for opening such schools in that area. It may be that non-minorities with equal claim might have been preferred had it not been for this condition. It is sufficient to say that having obtained advantage by reason of consenting to absorb the protected teachers and non-teaching staff it may not now be fair to seek relief from this Court to avoid the consequences of the agreement entered into by the Petitioners on the plea of viation of the minority rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 38. In Balan v. State of Kerala 1981 K.L.T. 242, it was held that Rule 6 of Chapter V, KER is mandatory. 39. In Sindhi Education Society and Anr. v. Cliief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. : (2010) 8 S.C.C. 49, the Supreme Court held that Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions which, inter alia, may be framed having regard to the public interest and national interest of the country. 40. The managements executed agreements as provided in Rule 6 of Chapter V, KER. They got the advantage of opening schools or upgrading the same. Having got the advantage, the managements are not entitled to contend that the Government Order in question, which is intended to give protection to the retrenched teachers, is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The minority managements cannot claim that they are immune from the provisions of the KER. They cannot be heard to say that the Government Orders issued from time to time, which apply to all the aided managements