JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - One of the questions raised in this writ petition arising out of an order extending ex-parte injunction till a particular date in a civil suit pending in the Court of Munsif South, Lucknow in availability of benefit of Article 30 of the Constitution in the matter of admission to an institution averred to be minority institution. The subject matter of the suit in denial of admission of a student belonging to a community known in this court as a minority community that is Muslim, constitution said to have been established and managed by another minority community that is Christian community. The petitioner, St. Francis College, Lucknow, a recognised institution by U.P. Government but not recipient of any aid and grant from it and said to be affiliated to the Council of Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi. The admission form of the institution requires the student seeking admission to mention the religions denomination to which he belongs. The institution was established by a registered Society named as "The Catholic Discrete of Lucknow" which owns and manages several institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh including the petitioner institution. The membership of this Society is open for only Catholic Priests and religious brothers, approved by the Governing Body. Rule 15 of the Society provides that every school, college or any other educational institution, established, aimed/and or administered by the Society shall be in the category of minority institution as contemplated by Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiff having failed to get admission in Class-I in the session beginning from July, 1980 filed a suit for declaration and injunction through his father and guardian alleging that the plaintiff applied for admission on the prescribed form at the appropriate stage and as required also deposited Rs. 10/-As tuition fee. The plaintiff also appeared in the entrance test and according to him he fared well, yet his name was not published in the list of students qualifying for the second stage, that is, for the interview. According to the plaintiff the defendants who were also making admissions by charging illegal gratification unfairly and illegally deprived the plaintiff for admission and thereby also practised discrimination in the matter of admission. According to the plaintiff the defendants who were also making admissions by charging illegal gratification unfairly and illegally deprived the plaintiff for admission and thereby also practised discrimination in the matter of admission. The plaintiff also averred forgery and fabrication by the defendants in the answer - books which if perused, would reveal that plaintiff has fared better than several boys which have been admitted. The defendants in their objection pleaded that admissions were made in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of Catholic Diseases of Lucknow keeping in view the religious, cultural and linguistic needs and circumstances of the Christian minority. The deposit of Rs. 10/- made on behalf of plaintiff, according to them was registration fee which by itself did not entitle any one for admission which is to be made after success in written test and interview and according to them, tuition fee in the institution was Rs. 65/- per month. The averments made by the plaintiff regarding his good performance at written test and fabrication, forgery, favouritism and making admission by charging illegal gratification or under influence were denied. It was pleaded that institution was established by a religious minority and has absolute right recognised and matter of admission too in view of rights recognised and protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and no injunction against it can be granted and it further had no jurisdiction to grant any injunction also in view of proviso to Sub-rule 2 of Order XXXIX, Rule 2, C. P. C. barring interference in the internal matter of an educational institution. 3. The trial court earlier granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining defendants from declaring the result or admitting students in the class in question. The defendants subsequently filed objection to it and the Link Officer, the Presiding Officer of the Court being on leave, vide impugned order continued for few days the interim order and fixed a date in the case. The Court also passed an order requiring the defendants to produce the answer - books which is also contained in the impugned order. It is against the said order the instant writ petition was filed in which the entire proceedings have been challenged to be without jurisdiction. The Court also passed an order requiring the defendants to produce the answer - books which is also contained in the impugned order. It is against the said order the instant writ petition was filed in which the entire proceedings have been challenged to be without jurisdiction. This Court vide order dated 22-3-1985 directed the petition to be listed for admission but allowed the institution to fill in all the seats except one seat on the basis of test and interview The seat was reserved for opposite party No. 2, that is, the plaintiff to the suit. It appears that all the other admissions were made and now two years have elapsed but the opposite party No. 2, that is plaintiff to the suit who still aspires to join Class-I could not get admission It appears that no proceedings in the suit have been taken since then though there is no interim order by this Court staying further proceedings in the suit. 4. The impugned order was passed by the Link Officer and the petitioners could have waited for few days in that very month that is till the date fixed and pursue their objection before the court concerned which was not deprived of its jurisdiction to consider the injunction matter. The petitioners did not file appeal against an ex-parte injunction order and filed the instant writ petition against the extension order. 5. The educational session in which the admission of plaintiff was made was to commence from July, 1985. One seat which was left under the orders of the Court cannot now be filled after the expiry of the said session with the result that so far as the relief for admission in that session is concerned, the same has become infructuous. Whether the plaintiff can get admission in any subsequent year cannot be looked into in this writ petition, the scope of which is limited. Whether the plaintiff can get admission in any subsequent year cannot be looked into in this writ petition, the scope of which is limited. On behalf of the petitioner great stress was laid on the fundamental rights of minorities safeguarded and protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and consequently on the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain suit against it and grant any injunction even without considering the bar of proviso to U.P. Amendment to Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. At the close of arguments in was stated on behalf of the petitioners that the law laid down in Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India, (1986) 4 SCC 707 which has somewhat limited the scope of Article 30 of the Constitution of India has been reconsidered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is under judgment with the result that judgment in this writ petition was reserved and on a date fixed in the case it was stated that judgment has not yet been delivered' It appears that reference was made to the subsequently reported case of Mrs. Y. The Clamma v. Union of India and others, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 516 (may 15 Part). In this case the view taken in Frank Anthony School case was affirmed and it was held that the same was not in conflict with earlier Supreme Court decisions. It was observed by the Court that the endeavour of the Court in all the cases has been to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation to protect what is secured to the minorities under Article 30 (1) of the Social necessity to protect the members of the staff against the arbitrariness and victimisation. The Court thus reaffirmed that rights under Article 30 were not absolute free from any control and regulations by the State for achieving certain objects and protecting certain rights and standard. It is true that after the amendment of the Constitution of India by 42nd Amendment and addition of words Secular, Unity and integrity of India the same have not yet been specifically deaf with in any case under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is true that after the amendment of the Constitution of India by 42nd Amendment and addition of words Secular, Unity and integrity of India the same have not yet been specifically deaf with in any case under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In some of the cases it has yet been considered whether the continuance of the use of word-minority in this Article is or is not in conflict with the words Secular and Unity and integrity of India and whether the continuance of word minority of India and whether the continuance of word minority perpetrates the feeling of separate identity, segregation and separation amongst some of soil for all times to come and is an unwarrantable hurdle towards cohesion what to say of unison notwithstanding following different faith and religion. It is for the Parliament to consider this question. As the question does not consider this question. As the question does not directly arise in this case at this stage, we refrain from making any observations. A part of the order against which the writ petition is directed has exhausted and the question of grant of interim relief and the courts power to do so is yet to be considered by the court below which obviously will consider the propriety and permissibility of examining itself the answer - books and that too for two years. So far as challenge to entire proceedings on the ground of jurisdiction and competence or legal bar is concerned the trial court is yet to decide it. 6. In view of the fact that matter is old and the student failed to get admission in 1985 and the institution too had to keep one post vacant and career of a student and important question of law are involved in the case, it is desirable that the case itself may be disposed of within three months. 7. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.