JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - Both these cross petitions are being disposed of b) this common order as these are connected with each other. It was laid in writ petition 301 of I. that petitioner is a recognised Educational Institution which has been established by a religious and linguistic minority namely the Siks residents of Harjinder Nagar Colony. Kanpur. 2. A certificate was issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools. Allahabad. under S. I6-FFT. I P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921. declaring the petitioner to be an educational institution established by a religious and linguistic minority under Article 1II of the Constitution. 3. Snit. Sushila 'Tewari, respondent 4. had been appointed as a principal of the petitioner's School in 1973 4. In Oct. 197o she hurled fifthy language at an employee of the School and made vile and baseless insinuation against a clerk and manager which resulted in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against her resulting in her removal from services on 3.2-19" '. 5. Respite her removal from service the petitioner received a letter from Regional Inspectress of girls' school. respondent I alleging that the suspension of the principal had been disapproved anther letter was recce ed I runt respondent I on Ps-2-19- that she should he allowed to join her dimes. it was further mentioned in another letter dated 1- l-1977 sent by respondent 4 that she had joined her duties in presence of respondent. District Inspectress of girls School. Kanpur. on 1-3-1977.it was further given out that in case of obstruction methods were to be employed by the District Slagistratc. Kanpur. respondent 4 for her reinstatement and lur appointment 0.1 and administrator over the school and the removal of the management. 6. Thus it was prayed that suitable directions be issued to respondents to refrain from employing any force or taking any coercive action in connection with the removal of respondent 4 from her service as principal. Costs of the petition were also claimed. 7. Annexures I to 10 were annexed by the petitioner to substantiate these allegations. The counter version as put forward in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 1121 of 1977. and in the counter affidavit was that respondent 4 who was petitioner in the cross writ petition was confirmed as principal of this Higher Secondary School on 7-10-1974: her service record was excellent. Khalsa Girls Higher Secondary School. Harjinder Nagar. Kanpur. The counter version as put forward in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 1121 of 1977. and in the counter affidavit was that respondent 4 who was petitioner in the cross writ petition was confirmed as principal of this Higher Secondary School on 7-10-1974: her service record was excellent. Khalsa Girls Higher Secondary School. Harjinder Nagar. Kanpur. is no minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of Constitution: Sri Balwant Singh. respondent 2 in the cross writ petition. was appointed as manager of respondent (petitioner) No. 2 and began to harass the Principal: a false complaint was procured from Smt. Bhagwati. sweepress of the institution and without any legal enquiry the petitioner was suspended on 27-I-1077. without affording any reasonable opportunity to her she has been removed from service on -27-11-1977. She was not permitted to resume her duties despite specific orders of Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools vide Annexure- 7. she submitted explanation of the charge levelled against her: her removal from service as principal was wholly unjustified as no prior approval in writing of the Inspectress was obtained it, was obligatory under Regn. 16 G (i) (a) U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. 8. So the prayer was to issue a writ of certiorari or order in the nature of a certiorari and thereby quashing the impugned order Annexure-10). Any other suitable order or direction was also solicited. Sim. Sushila Tewari filed ten Annexures in support of her petition. 9. We have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra Agrawal and Sri P. N. Saxena. learned counsel for the parties and carefull perused the record. 10. The main contention put forward on behalf of Sim. Sushila Tewari was that Khalsa Girls' Higher Secondary School inner. was not a minority institution In this connection reliance was placed on Azeez Basha v. Union of India.AIR 1965 SC 662 where it was observed at p. 67(1, : ''The words "establish and administer" in Article 3(1111 must be read conjunctively and so read it clearly shows that the minority will have the right to administer educational institutions of their choice provided they have established them. but not otherwise. '[he Article cannot he read to mean that even it the educational institution has been established by somebody else. any religious minority would have the right to administer it because. for some reason or other it might have been administering it before the Constitution came into force." 11. but not otherwise. '[he Article cannot he read to mean that even it the educational institution has been established by somebody else. any religious minority would have the right to administer it because. for some reason or other it might have been administering it before the Constitution came into force." 11. That case related to Aligarh Muslim University which was established by Central Legislature through an Act passed in 1920. Obviously Khalsa Girls' Higher Secondary School, Harjinder Nagar. Kanpur. was not established by am Central or provincial Act. Counter affidavit of Sri Ajit Singh in writ pets. 1121 of 1977 shall go to disclose that the aforesaid institution was started by it registered society: memorandum of the association of the society. it copy of which was attached to the writ petition as Annexure-l was incorrect. It was condition for enrolment for member of society that ever member must be Sikh and must be residing in Harjinder Nagar locality. This school was established and administered by the Sikhs which is a minority community in U.P. There is also a supplementary rejoinder affidavit of Sri Ajit Singh in civil misc. writ petition 310 of 1977. dated 5-1- 1978. showing the circumstances under hitch this institution was started by Sikh minority residing in the colony in Harjinder Nagar. Kanpur and a Gurdwara was also located in the room of the School where Gurmukhi language was also taught. the society consisted of 114 members and every member of that society was a Sikh residing in Harjinder Nagar: executive committee of the society consisted of II members who were elected from amongst the members of the society and each one of them was a Sikh. The Khalsa Girls' Higher Secondary School was a society belonging to the Sikhs of Harjinder Nagar. Knapur. 12. In her rejoinder affidavit dated 22-7-1978 it was maintained by Snit. Sushila Fewari that she had no knowledge about the change in the name of society; she filed memorandum of association of the society as Annexure-l. It was also pointed out on her behalf that the secular education is being imparted in the institution and the management simply tried to conceal its misdeeds taking shelter under the plea that it was it minority institution. This institution was in receipt of grant in aid and the management was hound by t'. P. Intermediate Education Act. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. This institution was in receipt of grant in aid and the management was hound by t'. P. Intermediate Education Act. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. 14. Article 311 of the Constitution guarantees to all minorities whether based on religion or language the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It declares further that the State shall not in granting aid to educational institutions discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority whether based on religion or language. This right is given to the minorities as such and not to an individual member of the minority. 'I he minorities have the right to establish an educational institution of their choice. See Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat. AIR 1974 SC 1389 ). Recently in Samuel v. District Educational Officer.AIR 1982 Andh-Pra 64 the meaning of 'minority institution' was explained in following terms tat P. 68) : "Where an educational institution is established and maintained exclusively or predominantly for teaching or promoting the religious tenets of a given religious minority. or for promoting and developing the language and literature of a given linguistic minority. there can he little doubt that it is an educational institution serving and promoting the interests of such minority, and hence a minority institution....." We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations : it was also pointed out that there should be sonic nexus between the institution and the minority as such. It is correct that it is not possible to go by name of the School or by the fact that majority of the members of the society are Sikhs. The main point to be considered is whether the institution does in any manner serve or promote the interest of the minority to which it claims to belong. In the exercise of our writ jurisdiction we could not have investigated such question of facts but for the simple reason that facts admitted need not be proved. Smt. Sushila Tewari herself admitted in her letter dated 27-11.197h. Annexure-CA I0 A filed in writ petition. 310 of 1977 : ..........it is a fact and you too admit that the institution is a minority institution and therefore it is all the more your responsibility to protect our interests in the institution This admission has not been explained away by Sint. Annexure-CA I0 A filed in writ petition. 310 of 1977 : ..........it is a fact and you too admit that the institution is a minority institution and therefore it is all the more your responsibility to protect our interests in the institution This admission has not been explained away by Sint. Sushila Tewari who is held fast by it and attracts the principle of estoppel vide S. 31. Evidence Act. Smt. Sushila Tewari is the main party who raised this controversy. Thus after the aforesaid admission it does not lie in the mouth of Snit. Sushila Tewari to urge that it is not an. educational institution run by minority institution. Moreover the authority concerned to determine this point was Regional Inspectress of ("iris School IV Range. Allahabad, who issued certificate dated 94)- 197b. Annexure-I. recognising this institution as a minority institution. Such recognition by the Regional Inspectress who exercises supervisory control over the same clinches the issue and thus having regard to the facts that Sikhs are minority community in Kanpur and are running this institution as a religious and linguistic minority to teach Gurmukhi for serving and promoting their interest and facts aforesaid we hold that Khalsa Girls' Higher Secondary School, Harjinder Nager. Kanpur. is a minority Institution. 15. We have carefully perused the record of the disciplinary proceedings, copies of which are on record as annexures 2. 3, 4. i, 6 and 7. Obviously, it is not for us to sit over decision of the committee of management as an appellate court but a perusal of the record shows that a full opportunity was afforded to Sint. Sushila Tewari to contest those proceedings. There is noting on record to show any mala fides on the part of managing committee. No illegality or impropriety in those proceedings was shown to our satisfaction. 16. Four charges were levelled against Sint. Sushila Tewar who had full opportunity to contest them and submitted her detailed explanation on 23-12-1976 vide Annexure CA S. After perusal of her explanation and evidence on record the enquiring authority submitted this proceeding before managing committee who again informed Snit. Sushila Tewari on 1-2-1977 and after perusal of the record found charges of gross misconduct and insubordination proved against her. She was again afforded an opportunity at the stage of penalty awarded to her about the removal from service of the institution. 17. Sushila Tewari on 1-2-1977 and after perusal of the record found charges of gross misconduct and insubordination proved against her. She was again afforded an opportunity at the stage of penalty awarded to her about the removal from service of the institution. 17. In the written arguments submitted at a belated stage by Smt. Sushila Tewari some procedural irregularities were pointed out in disciplinary proceedings. However, in the writ petition no averment was made to the effect that full opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses was not afforded to her or she was prejudiced as minimum period of three days was not allowed to her in the notice under Regn. 37 and so no proposal could have been validly passed by the managing committee against her. Had all these averments been made, the managing committee could have refuted them. We have pointed out above that perusal of annexures 2. 3. 4. 5, 6 and 7 does not reveal any procedural flow to vitiate those proceedings nor reveal any procedural flaw to vitiate those proceedings nor there is any cogent evidence on record to show that Sri Balwant Singh harboured any malice towards principal or he could have dominated the will of the enquiring authority and Managing Committee both. So these contentions are repelled. 18. The order of removal was mainly attacked on the ground that prior approval of District Inspectress of Girls' School was not obtained before termination of service of Smt. Sushila Tewari which was violative of S. 16-G (3) (a), U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Obviously this provision is not applicable to a minority institution vide Jain Shvatamber Maha Sabha U. P. v. The District Inspector of Schools, Meerut.1979 All U 1070. 19. On behalf of Smt. Sushila Tewari last contention put forward was that this view requires reconsideration in view of All Saints High Schools v. Government of A. P.. AIR 1980 SC 1042 . Having carefully perused the facts of the case we find that such contention is not borne out by the said authority. That case related to S. 3 (1 I of Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institution Control Act (Act Xl of 1975). Section 1b-G (3) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act relating to the provision of approval by DIOS was not in point in that case. That case related to S. 3 (1 I of Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institution Control Act (Act Xl of 1975). Section 1b-G (3) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act relating to the provision of approval by DIOS was not in point in that case. Moreover administrative autonomy of managing committee of a minority institution was reaffirmed in that case also. So. this contention also fails. It must, therefore, be held that the impugned order of removal in Writ Petn. 1 121 of 1977 is unassilable under Article 226 of the Constitution. No other point was pressed before us. 20. In the result. Writ Petn. 1121 of 1977 is dismissed. Writ Petn. 310 of 1977 is allowed. The respondents are restrained from using any physical force for the purpose of reinstatement of respondent 4 Sint. Sushila Tewari as principal in Khalsa Girls' Higher. Secondary School, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur. Under these circumstances we direct the parties to bear their own costs of these proceedings.