JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. - These two writ petitions raise a common question and can be disposed of together under a common order. W.P. No. 53 of 1977 is filed by parents or students, students and ex-students of Jai Narain Inter College, Varanasi, questioning the validity of an order dated 18-9-1976 passed by the Director of Education, U. P., declaring the said educational institution to be a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. W. P. No. 18398 of 1988 is filed by a teacher working in the said,,College, who was appointed as ad-hoc Principal oi the said College, questioning the validity of an advertisement published by the Authorised Controller of the College. Under this advertisement, applications are invited for appointment to the post of Principal of the College, but it says that only members belonging to Christian Community are eligible to apply. The petitioner in this writ petition does not belong to Christian community. He is questioning the exclusion of non-Christians from applying for the said post. 2. The order dated 18-9-1976 made by the Director of Education, U.P. is a one line order, It is in Hindi. Translated into English, it reads as follows :- "Under Section 16-FF of the Intermediate Education Act, Jai Narain Inter College, Varanasi is declared as minority institution because it has been established and is being maintained by a minority within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution." The order purports to have been made in pursuance of a statutory provision i,e., S. 16FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. S. 16-FF provides a saving in the case of a minority institution : certain provisions of the Act are modified in their application to minority institutions. For a proper appreciation of the import of the said saving, it is necessary to examine broadly the scheme of the enactment. 3. The U. P. Intermediate Education Act was enacted in 1921 and has been amended from time to time since then. One of its main purposes was to establish a Board to lake the place of the Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in the then United Provinces and to prescribe course therefor. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution and composition of the Board, while Section 7 deals with its powers. One of its main purposes was to establish a Board to lake the place of the Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in the then United Provinces and to prescribe course therefor. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution and composition of the Board, while Section 7 deals with its powers. The powers of the Board include the power to conduct examinations at the end of High School and Intermediate courses, to recognise institutions for the purposes of these examinations and to do all such other acts and things as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the Board as a body constituted for regulating and supervising High School and Intermediate education. Section 15 confers upon the Board the power to make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Inter alia, the Regulations may provide for conditions of recognition of institutions courses of study to be followed therein, conduct of examinations, conditions under which grant-in-aid shall be given to recognised institutions. Sections 16-A to 16-1 were introduced by an amendment Act (U. P. Act No. 35 of 1958). These provisions provide for more intense regulation of educational institution. It is sufficient for our purposes to note that Section 16-A prescribes a particular procedure for selection of teachers and heads of Institutions. The education Department is substantially involved in the matter of appointments. These provisions provide for more intense regulation of educational institution. It is sufficient for our purposes to note that Section 16-A prescribes a particular procedure for selection of teachers and heads of Institutions. The education Department is substantially involved in the matter of appointments. For the appointment of Head of the Institution a selection committee is to be constituted in the manner prescribed in Section 16-F. Section 16-FF, which was introduced by amendment Act No. 26 of 1975, then says : "Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teaches of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management : Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall - (a) In the case of the appointment of the Head of an Institution, be an expert selected by the Committee of Management from a penal of experts proposed by the Director : (b) in the case of appointment of a teacher, be the Head of Institution concerned." It may be mentioned that according to sub-section (4) of Section 16-E, every application for appointment as Head of Institution or teacher in pursuance of an advertisement shall be made to the Inspector, who shall first award quality point marks to each of the applicants in accordance with the prescribed procedure and forward the same to the Committee of Management. The applicant shall then be called for interview by the Selection Committee, which shall prepare a list of selected candidates. Appointment has to be made in the order in which the candidates are mentioned in the said list. More important is the provision contained in Section 16-F, which prescribed the manner in which the Selection Committee is to be constituted of the five members constituting the Selection Committee, three shall be experts nominated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education from persons not belonging to the District in which the institution is situated, out of the panel of names prepared under the said Section. All these provisions are made in applicable to a minority institution by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16-FF. All these provisions are made in applicable to a minority institution by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16-FF. It is evidently to avail of the benefit of the said exemption that the said institution made an application to the Director of Education for declaring it to be a minority educational institution. The record produced before us does not show that any inquiry was made by the Director before granting the said declaration. The declaration appears to have been granted only on the basis of information furnished by the institution in its application and the accompanying proforma. 4. It is the case of the petitioners in W. P. No. 53 of 1977 that Jai Narain Inter College has not been established by a minority community. According to them, the said institution was initially started as a school by Maharaja Jai Narain Ghoshal and only much later was it handed over to certain members of Christian community for its efficient administration. It is also submitted that education being imparted in the said school or college is purely secular in character and is in no member related to Christian religion or its culture. It is submitted on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Aziz Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662 , that for availing the right conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution, the educational institution must not only be administered by a minority community but must also have been established by it. It is contended that the institution in question was established as a school in the first instance and its subsequent growth, both in number of students and in the courses of study, does not make it a separate institution. It is the very same institution, which was established by Maharaja Jai Narain Ghoshal as a school and the fact that it was subsequently upgraded to college does not make it a different institution. It is also submitted on the basis of certain decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, AIR 1982 AP 64 and AIR 1988 AP 256 , that since the said institution is in receipt of substantial grant-in-aid and is also performing a public function, it is liable to be treated as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, in which case it cannot be treated as a minority educational institution. 5. 5. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the school founded by Maharaja Jai Narain Ghoshal in 1814 was donated to the Church Mission Society, Calcutta in 1818 permanently and since then it has been administered by trustees of C.M.S. and now by the Church of Northern India, which is the successor. It is contended that the school has been shifted from its. original location and has been vastly developed and expanded and improved upon by the Christion Community and it has been administering it throughout. It is submitted that an educational institution can be established in more than one way. It can be established either by starting an institution or by taking over an existing institution. It is submitted that the Diocesan Education Board, which is a body established by the Church of Northern of India, is a charitable and religious organisation and that it is imparting secular education to students of all communities without making any distinction among them on tire basis of religion, language, race or community. 6. The case of the petitioner in W. P. No. 18398 of 1988 is that limiting the field of eligibility to members of Christian community alone for appointment to the post of Principal of the College is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner denies that the said institution is a minority educational institution. Reliance is placed upon findings recorded in O. S. No. 197 of 1968, Sachindra Nath Bakshi and others v. Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association, Allahabad and others. Wherein it has been held that the aforesaid institution is not a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Though the said judgment has been reversed in appeal by this Court, the reversal is based exclusively upon a technical ground and not on merits. The petitioner says that the said technical reversal does not takeaway the relevance of the finding recorded by the trial Court that the said institution is not a minority educational institution. He says that he has been appointed as ad-hoc Principal of the College and is entitled, to complete for the said post along with others. The petitioner says that the said technical reversal does not takeaway the relevance of the finding recorded by the trial Court that the said institution is not a minority educational institution. He says that he has been appointed as ad-hoc Principal of the College and is entitled, to complete for the said post along with others. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the educational institution, however, it is submitted that the institution being a minority educational institution, as recognised by the Director of Education, the impugned advertisement has been validly issued and the petitioner has no right to question the same. 7. It is evident that these two writ petitions raise questions of serious import. It cannot be said that the petitioners in W. P. No. 53 of 1977 have no locus standi to question the order of the Director of Education declaring the institution to be a minority educational institution. A minority institution enjoy, several benefits arid is exempt from the operation of several regulatory provisions contained in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Students and their parents are vitality interested in the character of the institution where the students are studying. The very fact that the institution claims a right to say that it will appoint only a Christian as the Head of the Institution shows that the character of the institution is not irrelevant. Section 16-FF shows that in the matter of appointment of Head of Institution and in the matter of appointment of teachers, the constitution of the Selection Committee is entirely different in the case of a minority educational institution. It is wholly composed of the members nominated by the Management whereas in the case of non-minority educational institutions, a majority of the members are nominated by the Education Department. The manner of appointment of teachers and the manner in which they are selected for appointment reflects upon the quality and content of the education imparted in the institution. -So far as the petitioner in the other writ petition is concerned, there can, of course, be no question about his locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It must be remembered that the institution in question is in receipt of substantial grant-in-aid besides obtaining recognition from the Board. 8. -So far as the petitioner in the other writ petition is concerned, there can, of course, be no question about his locus standi to maintain the writ petition. It must be remembered that the institution in question is in receipt of substantial grant-in-aid besides obtaining recognition from the Board. 8. It is true that there is no specific provision in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act conferring upon the Director of Education the power to declare an educational institution as a minority education, but in our opinion, such power is implicit in Section 16-FF. While constituting the Selection Committee it has to be decided whether the institution in question is a minority educational institution or not. If it is a minority educational institution, the composition of the Selection Committee is to be in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16-FF and where it is not so, the composition of the Selection Committee is to be in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16-E. It is also well know that by virtue of the several decisions of the Supreme Court, the minority educational institutions have come to acquire several rights and advantages which are not available to other educational institutions in the matter of appointment of teachers, Principals. Charging of fees, prescribing of syllabus, and so on. Indeed, the respondents claim that it is by virtue of these judgments that they are entitled to prescribe the condition that person to be appointed as Principal of the College shall necessarily be a Christian. While we do not say that such a claim is permissible even in a case of minority educational institution, we are only pointing out the significance of the character of the institution. In such a situation, granting of a declaration of a minority character without a proper inquiry and verification is not sustainable in law. Such a declaration affects the right of the teachers besides the right of the students. To illustrate our observation that the declaration was granted by the Director without proper inquiry and verification, we may refer to a circumstance. In the proforma accompanying the application filed by the institution, information is required to be furnished in respect of all the 11 columns, Column 7 reads, -'Name of the person or persons who established the. To illustrate our observation that the declaration was granted by the Director without proper inquiry and verification, we may refer to a circumstance. In the proforma accompanying the application filed by the institution, information is required to be furnished in respect of all the 11 columns, Column 7 reads, -'Name of the person or persons who established the. institution their numbers and religion." The institution's reply to this is, "The question does not apply." It cannot be said that column 7 in the proforma is antidle formality or a meaningless requirement. The said information is asked for with good reason because according to Article 30 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the decision aforementioned, an educational institution can be characterised as a minority educational institution only if it is not only administered by a minority but is also established by it. Evidently, the Director was not cognisant of this situation and for that reason did not insist upon the institution furnishing the information required by column 7. 9. We are aware that the question whether an institution is a minority educational institution can be decided only in a suit or a properly constituted writ petition. But as indicated herein above, this question can also be incidentally decided by the authorities under the Act by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 16-FF of course, any such decision by the authorities under the Act would be subject to a decision of the civil Court or of this Court in a writ petition. We are not ourselves undertaking the exercise because writ petition No. 53 of 1977 is mainly directed against the order of the Director of Education and the parties have not placed the entire material before us. We feel that for a proper determination of the character of the institution, it is necessary to examine the antecedent history of the institution right from its inception in the light of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In all the circumstances of the case, We think it proper to set aside the order of the Director of Education dated 18-9-1976 and to remit the matter to him to examine and determine the matter afresh in accordance with law. In all the circumstances of the case, We think it proper to set aside the order of the Director of Education dated 18-9-1976 and to remit the matter to him to examine and determine the matter afresh in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Director shall give individual notices to the petitioners in both the writ petitions and given them a reasonable opportunity to produce such material as they choose in support of their case. He shall also call upon the institution to produce all relevant material for determining the question whether Jai Narain Inter College is a minority educational institution within the meaning of Article 30. Of course, any decision given by the Director shall be subject to any decision or decree of the civil Court or any judgment and order of this Court, as the case may be, if and when obtained by any interested person. 10. Writ petition No. 53 of 1977 is accordingly allowed with the above direction for fresh determination. Writ petition No. 18398 of 1988 is also allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.