M. G. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE State of West Bengal and the Director of Secondary Education are the appellants before us impugning a judgement and order dt. 17th Jan. 1984 passed by P. C. Borooah J. in Matter No. 614/83 whereby it was held inter alia that Central Model School is a minority institution and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education has no authority to appoint an administrator, the trial Judge quashed an order dt. May 3, 1983 issued by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education appointing one Sri Ananda Mohan Roy, Assistant Inspector of Schools, as the administrator of the said school. ( 2 ) THE case of the writ petitioners inter alia was that Central Model School was established by petitioner No. 3 Mrs. Kuldip Harbans Singh in or about the year 1955 on her own initiative with the blessings of her late father Raghunath Singh Bir, a Sikh nationalist leader and social worker. The said school was established by the petitioner No. 3 a Sikh by faith, with the co-operation of a few other renowned Sikh families residing in Calcutta with the primary object that Punjabis outside Punjab being almost a floating community to whom proper knowledge of English was essential, it was necessary that the children of the said community should have the opportunity of learning Punjabi language as well as get themselves acquainted with Punjabi culture and heritage even during their school years. In or about April 1970 a registered Trust was created by the name of Guru Nanak Education Trust by the writ petitioner No. 3. The object of the said trust was set out in paragraph 3 of the writ application which included inter alia an emphasis on universal brotherhood of mankind and catering to the needs of all communities, creeds and religions, particularly of the Sikh Community and Punjabi speaking people and teaching Punjabi as one of the subjects amongst others in the said school. The petitioner No. 3 was the Managing Trustee of the Trust as well as the Secretary of the School. She is also the Rector of the said school by virtue of the Deed of Trust dt. April 22,1970. After the school came under the direct control and management of the Trust, the Managing Committee has been constituted from time to time in terms of the said Trust deed. She is also the Rector of the said school by virtue of the Deed of Trust dt. April 22,1970. After the school came under the direct control and management of the Trust, the Managing Committee has been constituted from time to time in terms of the said Trust deed. The school authorities have informed the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education about the reconstitution of the Managing Committee from time to time. The last reconstitution took place on or about February 16, 1982. The petitioners claimed that the school was established by the members of the minority Sikh community and is being run and administered, since its takeover by the Trust, by the members of the Sikh community through the said Guru Nanak Educational Trust. On 4-3-71 the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Education Department, by a letter addressed to the school was pleased to confirm that the school was entitled to special constitution for its management committee in terms of R. 33 of the Rules on the ground that it was a minority institution. The school authorities made further representation for having a special constitution but the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, despite representations made on 4-5-70 and 16-3-74 as well as an assurance given in the letter of the Education Department dt. 4-3-71, did not give out any candid reply. Guru Nanak Trust as well as school management committee were under the impression that since the Govt. of West Bengal had recognised the school as minority institution, there was no necessity for making any application over again for framing special constitution. It was contended that the Trust deed made provisions for the constitution of the management committee in respect of the said minority institution. In or about 1978, the school authorities terminated the service of one Mr. S. D. Sukla an Assistant temporary teacher. Mr. Sukla moved before the Appeal Committee of the Board against the said termination of his service. The Appeal Committee directed reinstatement of Mr. Sukla which the school authorities challenged by way of a writ application. In the said writ application it was contended by the school authorities that it was a minority institution managed under the provisions of Guru Nanak Educational Trust. The Appeal Committee directed reinstatement of Mr. Sukla which the school authorities challenged by way of a writ application. In the said writ application it was contended by the school authorities that it was a minority institution managed under the provisions of Guru Nanak Educational Trust. It was the contention of the writ petitioners that it is because of the filing of the writ application that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Officials took a vindictive attitude against the writ petitioners and their school. The Assistant Inspector of Schools, South East Calcutta, Mr. Ananda Mohan Roy came to the school on 14th December, 1982 and again in the first week of January 1983 and met the Rector of the Institution. He asked for certain information with regard to the scale of salary of the teachers, in answer to which the school authorities ultimately agreed to furnish the said information provided it was sought officially in writing. The Assistant Inspector of Schools thereafter kept silent. In the month of April 1983 it was noticed that the dearness allowance due for the quarter ending 31st March, 1983 in respect of eligible teachers of the school was not remitted to the school but, the Assistant Inspector of Schools instead purported to disburse the money as Disbursing Officer on or about 18th April, 1983. The writ petitioners contended that the said action was arbitrary and a mala fide one. On 7th May 1983 the Assistant Inspector of Schools A. M. Roy came to the school when examinations were going on in the school. He went to the Cashier-cum-Clerk of the school and apprised that he had been appointed by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as the Administrator of the school by virtue of an order dt. 7th May 1983 and as such he would henceforth carry on the day to day administration of the school. He also took away a few books and records of the school and started intermeddling with the affairs of the school without any due authority even with regard to the deposit of the cash in hand. He went to Mrs. Nanda Ghose Dastidar and showed her the purported order appointing him as Administrator of the school. He called the members of the teaching staff and assured them that he would be able to increase their salary by at least Rs. He went to Mrs. Nanda Ghose Dastidar and showed her the purported order appointing him as Administrator of the school. He called the members of the teaching staff and assured them that he would be able to increase their salary by at least Rs. 100 to 200/- per month, if they would work under him and cooperate with him. He directed Mrs. Ghosh Dastidar to remain in the school till 9 p. m. on 7-5-1983 along with members of the staff. In the evening Mr. S. D. Sukla was found to be moving with Mr. Roy in the school. The writ petitioners contended that the appointment itself of an Administrator amounted to interference in the administration of the school. ( 3 ) THE trial Judge stayed the operation of the order dt. May 7, 1983 as passed by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education which appointed Mr. A. M. Roy as administrator of the school. The said interim order was passed by the learned Judge along with issuance of a Rule Nisi on the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The teachers of the school however preferred an appeal against the said order and made an application praying for stay of operation of the order passed by the learned trial Judge on May 10, 1983. A Division Bench of this Court heard the appeal and passed a judgement which has been reported in AIR 1984 Cal 40 , Smt. Nanda Ghosh Dastidar v. Guru Nanak Education Trust. The Division Bench prima facie found the school to be a minority institution and the Board had no authority to interfere with the management of the school by appointing an administrator. The Division Bench held inter alia that the Board can lay down certain regulatory measures which are to be followed by the school for the proper running of the school (as held in the decision of the Supreme Court in All Saints High School v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1042 ). It was further held by the Division Bench that such regulatory powers could be taken only if the Board was satisfied about the alleged mismanagement, after giving the management of the school an opportunity of being heard. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1042 ). It was further held by the Division Bench that such regulatory powers could be taken only if the Board was satisfied about the alleged mismanagement, after giving the management of the school an opportunity of being heard. The Board could not however, under any circumstances, interfere with the management of the school by superseding the Managing Committee and appointing an administrator to take charge of the school and administer the same. It was found to be significant, that in the impugned order of supersession, no allegation was made as to the mismanagement of the school. The Appeal Court found the trial judge perfectly justified in passing the interim order by way of stay of operation of the order impugned passed by the Board which had the effect in superseding the Managing Committee and appointing an administrator. ( 4 ) THERE was however an observation made by the Appeal Court that the question whether the school is a minority school or not, would be decided by the learned trial Judge at the hearing of the Rule Nisi and it was not desirable that the Appeal Court should finally decide the said question, though however with the concurrence of both the parties the Division Bench prima facie considered the question for the purpose of the interlocutory application. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed before the Appellate Court affirmed by one Dr. Hiralal Chopra who is admittedly a distinguished educationist and is the President of Guru Nanak Trust as well as President of the Managing Committee of the Central Model School. In the said affidavit which was also placed before us and used by both the parties, we find the history as to how the school came to be established. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition it has been specifically stated that on April 13, 1955 there was a big congregation of Gurudwara Jagat Sudhir at Kalighat in a commemoration of the birth of Khalsa Panth by Guru Gobind Singh. In that congregation dr. Chupa had the privilege to announce an behalf of the promoters of the school that the Punjabis, particularly the Sikhs, were going to have a school of their own where their children would get the education through English medium preserving their own linguistic and cultural heritage. The responsibility to establish the school was entrusted to Mrs. In that congregation dr. Chupa had the privilege to announce an behalf of the promoters of the school that the Punjabis, particularly the Sikhs, were going to have a school of their own where their children would get the education through English medium preserving their own linguistic and cultural heritage. The responsibility to establish the school was entrusted to Mrs. Kuldip Harbans Singh who in spite of her preoccupation agreed to shoulder the same. She did not accept any remuneration for rendering her service from the inception of the school as its Principal/rector. On the other hand, she had spent a large sum of her own money for starting and developing the institution. Dr. Chopra as a member of the Punjabi Community and as an educationist by profession has been associated with the school since its inception. In the affidavit-in-opposition, a list of distinguished members of the Sikh Community of Calcutta who were involved or associated with the starting of the school has been given. The Appeal Court was prima facie satisfied about the credibility of the averment of Dr. Chopra as made in the said affidavit-in-opposition. We also have no reason to come to a contrary finding in this regard. We also come, on an analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the pleadings made inter partes, that the school was established and administered by the members of the Sikh Community even though a private individual started the school through her personal efforts and sacrifice and with her own money. The recitals made in the Trust Deed should be read and understood in the light of the facts disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by Dr. Chopra, as rightly pointed out by the Division Bench at the stage of interlocutory proceedings. The Court is concerned with the real fact as to the establishment of the school and if it is found that the school was established by the members of the minority community and at least run by a minority community and not by a private individual or trust all through, although an individual member of the minority community exerted efforts and made sacrifice and spent money in that behalf, the recital in the Trust Deed should not be taken as sacrosanct so as to give the Trust a private individual character. ( 5 ) MR. ( 5 ) MR. A. P. Chatterjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended before us with reference to the reported decision in the Azeez Basha v. Union of India reported in AIR 1968 SC 662 that in order to have the protective umbrella of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution, it must be an educational institution established and administered by the minority community. Mr. Chatterjee quoted with emphasis the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case to contend that Art. 30 which gives protection to a minority community to run its educational institution of its own choice, clearly envisages that the minority community shall have the right to run an educational institution provided it has established the same but not otherwise. The said Art. 30 (1) cannot be read to mean that even if an 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. The words "established and administered" in the Article must be read conjunctively and so read, it gives the right to the minority to administer an educational institution provided it has been established by it. The Supreme Court observed with reference to an earlier decision with regard to Kerala Education Bill 1957, reported in AIR 1958 SC 956 that nothing in that case justified the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the minorities would have the right to administer an educational institution, even though the institution may not have been established by them. The words must be read together and so read, Article 30 (1) gives the right to the minority to administer institutions established by it. If the educational institution has not been established by a minority it cannot be under the purview of Art. 30 (1 ). The words must be read together and so read, Article 30 (1) gives the right to the minority to administer institutions established by it. If the educational institution has not been established by a minority it cannot be under the purview of Art. 30 (1 ). The Supreme Court thus considered the question as to whether Aligarh University was established by the Muslim minority community and if it was administered by it, and ultimately rejected the contention raised by the petitioners Azeez Basha and other holding inter alia that Aligarh University was not established by the Muslim minority community but it was a University created by a statute under the Aligarh University Act 1920 and the Muslim Community cannot, after coming into force of the Constitution in 1950, lay claim to the property and say that they are deprived of right to administer the same by virtue of the amendment Act 1965. ( 6 ) HOWEVER a contrary view was taken by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala etc. v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial reported in AIR 1970 SC 2079 . At paragraph 8 of the said judgement, the Supreme Court comprising of a Bench of Six judges held that establishment means bringing into being of an institution and it must be by a minority community. It matters not if a single philanthropic individual with his own means, founds the institution or the community at large contributes the funds. The position in law is the same and the intention in either case must be to found an institution for the minority community by a member of that community. It is equally irrelevant that in addition to the minority community, others from other minority communities or even from the majority community can take advantage of these institutions. Such other communities bring in income and they do not have to be turned away to enjoy the protection. In paragraph 9 of the said judgement, their Lordships held that administration means management of the affairs of the institution. This management must be free of control so that the founders or their nominees can mould the institution as they think fit, and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution in particular will be best served. This management must be free of control so that the founders or their nominees can mould the institution as they think fit, and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution in particular will be best served. No part of the management can be taken away and vested in another body without an encroachment upon the guaranteed right. ( 7 ) REGARD being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Central Model School is a minority community institution and the West Bengal Board has no authority to appoint an administrator in the manner so done without any finding as to mismanagement and without affording the school management an opportunity to be heard, even if it is conceded that the State Government had powers to frame rules for such institution. Therefore, the ultimate finding as made by the learned Trial Judge in quashing the order dt. May 3, 1983 as issued by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education appointing Mr. Ananda Mohan Roy, Assistant Inspector of Schools, South East Calcutta, as an administrator and making the Rule absolute, stands affirmed. ( 8 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) SATISH CHANDRA, C. J. :- I agree. Prayer (c)*made in this application is really outside the purview of the writ petition or the appeal. This application is accordingly dismissed. The matter is left open. It will be open to the writ petitioner to raise the dispute with regard to prayer (c) in appropriate proceeding if they so desire. Prayer (c) was in respect of a prayer for disbursement of the salaries to teachers by the School authorities without the intervention of a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Appeal dismissed.