Restriction On Minority Educational Institutions' Right To Choose Institute Head Violates Article 30(1): MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the right of minority aided educational institutions to choose the head of their institute cannot be restricted, as the same would amount to a violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed;
"Any restriction on the right of the minority management to appoint a person of its choice as the head of the institution would amount to a violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified 08/09/2021) cannot be made applicable to minority-run educational institutions, even if they are aided. The settled legal 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 Headmaster or Principal, the Court cannot examine the merits of such choice or the rationality or propriety of the decision-making process. In this regard, the right under Article 30(1) is absolute. Accordingly, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest of, or on the suggestion of, a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal".
This appeal was filed by the Chairman of S.S.L. Jain P.G. College, Vidisha, challenging the order of the Single Judge of August 5, 2025, disposing of his writ petition. Another appeal was also filed by the current Principal of the college, SK Upadhyay, but the court considered the facts of the primary petition.
The dispute arose from the appointment of the Principal of the college. Dr Archana Jain, respondent no 4, the senior-most Assistant Professor, was recommended for the charge. Acting on Jain's representation, the Secretary of Higher Education directed relevant authorities to process the appointment in accordance with the rules. Consequently, the Regional Additional Director issued an order assigning the charge to Archana Jain.
However, later, a resolution was passed by the Governing Body of the college on January 28, 2025, assigning the charge to SK Upadhyay. The resolution cited earlier disciplinary action against Jain as a reason for her exclusion.
Challenging this decision, Jain filed a writ petition before a single judge, which, upon reviewing the records, held that the authority to grant the current charge of Principal in aided colleges rests with the Regional Additional Director. Thus, the Single Judge quashed the order to the extent it conflicted with this authority and directed the matter to be reconsidered within 45 days. Meanwhile, the arrangement in favour of SK Upadhyay was allowed to continue temporarily.
The court noted that the college was a minority aided educational institution and emphasized that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of a minority institution to appoint the Principal or Head of their choice as a fundamental right under Article 30(1).
The court noted that even state aid does not justify interference with this right. Management is entitled to select the person it considers most suitable, provided the candidate meets the prescribed qualifications. Any restriction on this choice, such as limiting appointments to the senior-most teacher as per the 2021 circular, violates the constitutional protection granted to minority institutions.
The bench reiterated 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 Headmaster or Principal, the Court cannot examine the merits of such choice or the rationality or propriety of the decision-making process".
The court further highlighted the Supreme Court's settled position 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 Article 30(1) is absolute".
Therefore, the court held that the order of the Single Judge directing the Regional Additional Director to pass fresh orders was set aside and the appeals were allowed. Additionally, the order granting charge to SK Upadhyay was upheld.
Case Title: Chairman v State of Madhya Pradesh, WA. 2405 of 2025, SK Upadhyay v State of Madhya Pradesh, WA.2416 of 2025
For Chairman: Senior Advocate MPS Raghuvanshi with Advocate Amir Khan
For SK Upadhyay: Advocate Narottam Sharma
For State: Additional Advocate General Ankur Modi
For Archana Jain: Advocates Prashant Sharma and Pawan Raghuvanshi