JUDGMENT S. N. Jha, J. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order of the State Government dated 15th September 1993 rejecting their representation In the matter of recognition of the institution in question namely, Siddharth Mahila Mahavidalya, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') as a religious minority institution and for consequential direction. They have also prayed for a restraint order against the respondents from interfering in the management and administration of the said institution. 2. Vishwa Buddha Parishad (called parishad in short), petitioner no. 2 in this case, is said to be a registered society of persons subscribing to Buddhism. According to the petitioners schools established and administered by the parishad namely St. M. C High School and St. M. C. Middle School at Patna have been recognised as religious minority institution. In 1979 the Parishad decided to establish a woman's college to protect and to spread ideas and principles of Lord Buddha". The College so established in the name or Siddharth Mahila Mahavidyalya in course of time after usual inspection etc. by the University was granted affiliation on 20th November 1982. An application was thereafter filed to declare the college as minority institution entitled to the protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. The officials of the University again head inspection to determine the minority character of the College but no decision was taken. In the meantime the affiliation granted to the Collage earlier on 20th November, 1982 was encoded from time to time However, on 10th September 1991 an Ag Hoc Committee to manage the administration of the College was constituted for the first time by the Magadh University (in short the University). The petitioners challenged the constitution or the Ad Hoc Committee as constituting interference and infringement upon their fundamental right to run and administer the College in C.W.J.C. No. 455 of 1992 By Order dated 23rd March 1992 this Court quashed notification and directed the Commissioner Human Resources Development Department of the State Government to decide the minority character of the College on representation, which the petitioners were asked to make, after affording them a reasonable opportunity of hearing and producing materials in support of their claim. According to the petitioners, the then Commissioner in his order dated 11th August 1992 took the view that the College deserved recognition as a minority institution. According to the petitioners, the then Commissioner in his order dated 11th August 1992 took the view that the College deserved recognition as a minority institution. While a final decision in the matter was yet to be taken the State Government took a decision on 9th September 1992 to reject the proposal for grant/extension of new affiliation on the ground that the College does not fulfill the requisite conditions. The petitioners challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 9613 of 1992. Soon thereafter the State Government also decided to reject the aforesaid representation in the matter of recognition of the College as a minority institution. The decision was communicated by the Commissioner of the Human Resources Development Department by his letter dated 2nd December 1992. The petitioners challenged the said decision too in the pending writ petition namely C.W.J.C. No. 9613 of 1992 by suitably amending the relief’s. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18th March 1993. This Court did not find any infirmity in the aforesaid order dated 9th September 1992 rejecting request for grant/extension of affiliation. However, having regard to the fact that students in large number were prosecuting their studies in the College which had been granted affiliation from time to time in the past and they had also appeared in the University examinations, the Court took the view that ban on admission of students in the current session was arbitrary and also made an observation regarding desirability of take over of the College or fixing some reasonable time limit for fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the Statutes for the purpose of affiliation. As regards the aforesaid order dated 2nd December 1992 rejecting the petitioners representation to declare the College as a minority institution, this Court held : “I therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this College had been established by the Bodh minority community to conserve their distinct language, culture and religion '" ...... I, therefore, on the materials placed before this Court, find that the College In question cannot be held to have been established by the Bodh minority community or that it was/is being managed by them and, thus, even if the contention of Mr. I, therefore, on the materials placed before this Court, find that the College In question cannot be held to have been established by the Bodh minority community or that it was/is being managed by them and, thus, even if the contention of Mr. Singh that the present Secretary of the department did not hear the matter him self is accepted to be correct, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order contained to Annexure 19 to writ application.” However after, thus, rejecting the challenge to the validity of the order dated 2nd December 1992 this Court permitted the petitioners to move the State Government "placing full materials, if any, for declaration that the institution is a minority Institution", The petitioners accordingly made fresh representation in the light of the aforesaid observations which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 15th September 1993, a copy whereof has been marked Annexure-31 to the writ petition. 3. In the meantime, it appears, the State Government issued two orders on 5th June 1993 extending the period of affiliation upto the Session 1993.94 and constituting an adhoc Committee for the management and administration of the College. The petitioners challenged the latter order constituting the adhoc Committee which, according to them was for extraneous consideration in C.W.J.C. No. 5587 of 1993. However, the controversy in that writ petition being separate end distinct, it is not necessary to go into the details of that matter. The only question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned order dated 15th September 1993 is in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the College having been established by the Vishwa Buddhe Parishad which has been held to be religious minority organization in the State of Bihar by this Court in the case of Bishwa Budha Parishad & anr v. The Ranchi University & ors (1987 PLJR 568), the minority character of the College cannot be questioned. According to the counsel the fact that the College has been established by the Vishwa Buddha Parishad has not been controverted nor any counter claim has been put forward by any other organization of having established the College Counsel pointed out that the State Government has laid down the guidelines for recognition of an institution as a religious or linguistic minority institution in the letter of the Education Department dated 16th January 1978 (Annexure 33) and therefore, the question or recognition of any College as minority institution has to be considered with reference to those guidelines. It was submitted that the College fulfills the criteria and, therefore the decision is not correct Counsel also urged that the materials in support of the claim which the petitioners had furnished as per the observation of this court have not been considered and the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. 5. Mr. S. Rafat Alam, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the claim of the petitioner already stands rejected by this Court in C.W.J.C No 9613 of 1992 (supra) According to him the representation filed by the petitioners was mere reiteration without any fresh material, of the previous representation which had been rejected earlier by the Government on 2nd December 1992 which order was not interfered with by this Court in the said writ petition. Counsel accordingly contended that as no fresh material has been produced in support of the claim it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the correctness of the order Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, who appeared for the intervenors in opposition to the writ petition, submitted that the materials relied upon by the petitioners for substantiating their claim about the minority character of the Collage are concocted and manufactured many of them after disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 9613 of 1992, for laying bogus claim. In this connection it was pointed out that affidavits, Annexure 32 series, said to have been sworn by some lecturers of tile College professing to be Budhists were secured under threat of their removal from service. He endeavored to show that the College is a pocket organization of petitioner no. 2 Shri Ram Avtar Singh, now Shri Ram avtar Vatsayayan, Secretary of the alleged Governing Body of the College. He endeavored to show that the College is a pocket organization of petitioner no. 2 Shri Ram Avtar Singh, now Shri Ram avtar Vatsayayan, Secretary of the alleged Governing Body of the College. It may be stated that these averments find support from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent State as well. 6. One can take notice of the fact that in recent times education, one of the noblest professions, has become a commerce and how in order to derive the advantage emanating from the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution unscrupulous elements of the society have established educational institutions in the name of minority for their own selfish gain Therefore, simply because the institution is said to have been established by minority whether individually or as body-cannot be said to be conclusive We can do no better than to quote the following passage From A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr. (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1490), to make home the point:- "It was seriously contended before us that any minority, even a single Individual belonging to a minority, could found a minority institution and had the right so to do under the Constitution and neither the Government nor the University could deny that society's right to establish a minority institution, at the very threshold as it were, howsoever they may impose regulatory measures in the interest of uniformity, efficiency and excellence of education The fallacy of the argument in so far as the instant case is concerned lies in thinking that neither the Govern meat nor the University has the right to go behind the claim that the institution is a minority institution and to investigate and satisfy itself whether the claim is well founded or ill founded. The Government the University and ultimately the court have the undoubted right to pierce the minority veil with due apologies to the Corporate Lawyers and discover whether there is lurking behind it no minority at all and in any case, no minority institution. The Government the University and ultimately the court have the undoubted right to pierce the minority veil with due apologies to the Corporate Lawyers and discover whether there is lurking behind it no minority at all and in any case, no minority institution. The object of Art 30(1) is not to allow bogies to be raised by pretenders but to give the minorities a sense of security and a feeling of confidence not merely by guaranteeing the right to profess, practice and propagate religion to religious minorities and the right to conserve their language script and culture to linguistic minorities but also to enable all minorities religious or linguistic, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. These institutions must be educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked phantoms......... What is important and what is imperative is that there must exist some real positive index to enable the institution to be identified as an educational institution of the minorities. 7 The observations of the Apex Court leave no room for doubt that the claim regarding minority character of the institution, even if is comes from a person, who admittedly belongs to the minority community cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the authority whether the Government or the University to pierce the veil to identity the genuine and the bogus. 8. In view of the findings and observations of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 9613 of 1992, perhaps, the only the thing to be seen in this writ petition is whether fresh materials were produced before the State Government in support of the claim of minority character. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit the respondents have asserted that no material was produced by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the reply affidavit the petitioners have denied the aforesaid assertion as totally false. According to them the facts stated in the present writ petition and the documents annexed thereto had been produced before the State Government but none of them has been taken into account. So far as the documents are governed, the petitioners have produced Annexures 32 series as fresh materials in support of the claim. Annexure 32 series. According to them the facts stated in the present writ petition and the documents annexed thereto had been produced before the State Government but none of them has been taken into account. So far as the documents are governed, the petitioners have produced Annexures 32 series as fresh materials in support of the claim. Annexure 32 series. numbering 12 in all are membership applications/affidavits of certain employees of the Collage to the effect that they have sought membership of the Vishwa Buddha Parishad and have full faith in Buddhism. As indicated above the veracity of these documents has been seriously challenged by the Intervenors as well as the State saying that the documents have been procured in 1992-93 to create by putting the persons concerned in fear of their losing job in the College. As a matter of fact the intervenors have annexed documents some of them by the same persons who have subscribed the affidavits (Annexure 32 series) stating that they continued to be Hindus. The intervanors have also alleged forgery in certain documents. On those premises counsel for the respondents contended that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be properly adjudicated in 11 proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 9. It appears from the impugned order that the representation of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that there is no material showing that the College is engaged in the teaching; of Buddhism. dissemination of knowledge relating to the Buddhism, no Bnddhist was studying in the College or employed as teaching or non teaching staff On these findings, It has been concluded that the College is a general educational institution having no element of minority character. In the background or facts which Were shrouded in disputes and controversies, it is not possible to upset the conclusion. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution the writ Court cannot go into sufficiency of the materials of reasons. All that can be Seen is whether reasons or grounds assigned are germane and relevant to the issue or not. It is not possible to sit over the judgment of the State Government as court of appeal and upset the finding or remit the matter for further consideration. All that can be Seen is whether reasons or grounds assigned are germane and relevant to the issue or not. It is not possible to sit over the judgment of the State Government as court of appeal and upset the finding or remit the matter for further consideration. The claim of the petitioners already stands rejected by this Court and the documents which they claim to have filed as fresh materials are not of such quality as to inspire us to take an, other view. 10. During course of hearing heavy reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Bishwa Budha Parishad (supra). According to the counsel for the petitioners, if the parishad has already been held to be a religious minority institution in the State of Bihar, any institution established by it must necessarily be held to be a minority institution. The submission has no substance The point for consideration in the abovementioned case was whether having regard to the Explanation II to Clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution, an institution established by persons professing Buddhist religion can be said to be a minority institution for the purpose of Article 30 of the Constitution. It was held that the extended meaning given to the words 'Hindu' and Hindu Religion therein was for the purpose of Article 25 alone and so far as Article 30 is concerned, Buddhists In all respects qualify as a religion other than Hindus and are entitled to protection provided under that Article. The question as to whether the College is minority institution or not was not issue in that case. The vishwa Buddba parishad may be a religious minority organization however, in order to quality for protection under Article 30 of that Constitution, what is to be seen, is the minority character of particular institution and not of its founder. The case of A. P. Christiens Medical Educational Society is a settler on the point. The minority character of the founder is conclusive. The minority character of the Institution can be determined on the basis of the parameters such as the nature of the teaching or training imparted to the students the nature of the activities in which the institution and its students are engaged, the composition of the staff and the students at large and so on. The minority character of the Institution can be determined on the basis of the parameters such as the nature of the teaching or training imparted to the students the nature of the activities in which the institution and its students are engaged, the composition of the staff and the students at large and so on. If on the basis or these parameters the institution does not qualify as a minority institution, it cannot claim the protection of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. 11. For the reasons stated above. I am unable to find any error or infirmity in the decision of the State Government as contained in the letter of the Human Resorces Development Department dated 15th September 1993 (Annexure-31) This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. I. P. Singh. J. I agree Application dismissed.