JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner claims to be a (minority institution in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India 19 (in short, the 'Constitution'), and questions authority of the Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur (opp. party no. 3) to constitute a managing committee in-terms of the provisions of Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Schools) Rues, 1991 (in short, the 'Rules'). According to the petitioner-institution which is represented through Sri Chandan Sigh Negi stated to be its President, is a Hindi medium school, and therefore, the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, the 'Act') has no application. Stand of the State is that institution is not a minority institution. Some members of staff of the institution have prayed to be impleaded as parties. 2. Facts necessary to render the decision are as follows : It is the case of the petitioner that managing committee of the institution was re-constituted by order dated 13-11-1990 (Annexure-3) to the writ application) and is to operate for five years with effect from 15-10-1990 i. e . the date of approval. The Rules have no application because the petitioner is a minority institution, and even if by mistake there was no challenge to re-constituted of the managing committee by Annexure-3, that cannot be treated to be a concession or acquiescence to surrender to the jurisdiction of Inspector of Schools in the matter of constitution of the managing committee, according to the Rules. It is pleadad that the institution was established to impart education to students in Hindi medium and therefore, is a linguistically minority institution. A counter affidavit has bean filed by the State and its functionaries taking stands that the petitioner is not a minority institution; the medium of instruction in the institution is in several languages, like Oriya, Hindi and English; Hindi is taught as one of the Mordern Indian Language subjects, as revealed from the forms submitted by the institution on several occasions. It is not correct as claimed by the petitioned that the institution is a Hindi medium institution. The school in question was neither established as a minority institution, nor had recognition been granted as such, in terms of Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education Orissa in respect of Classes IX and X. There was never any claim that the institution is a minority institution. The school in question was neither established as a minority institution, nor had recognition been granted as such, in terms of Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education Orissa in respect of Classes IX and X. There was never any claim that the institution is a minority institution. After promulgation of the Rules, Secretaries of all Non-Government Private High Schools were instructed to re-constitute the managing committees of their schools in terms of the aforesaid Rules. Instructions in this regard were imparted to all the schools by the Inspectorate by memo No. 352 dated 10-1 1392. Since recognition was granted in the year 1986 up to Class X, the institution became eligible to receive minimum grant-in-aid with effect from 1-3-1990 as set out in Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1933, and schools eligible to come under the fold of minimum grant-in-aid arrangement were also treated as aided educational institution. Interestingly Sri C. "S. Negi, President of the institution submitted proposal for approval of services of members of staff to receive minimum grant-in-aid vids his letter dated 30-10-1931 on the basis of which staff position of the school was approved, and the school was held to be entitled to receive minimun grant in-aid vids order No. 1503 dated 25 12 1992. Since the institution has become eligible to receive minimum grant-in-aid with effect from 1-3-1990, reconstitution is to be made in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules, and not under Rule 15 as claimed in the writ application. The managing committes of various institutions caused to continue in office on reconstitution of the committees in terms of the Rules within the time stipulated i.e. up to 17-4-1992. Therefore, the question of continuance of the managing committee up to 16-10-1995 as claimed is misconceived. According to members of staff. who have prayed to be impleaded, the institution is not minority institution as claimed, and on the contrary it is an aided educational institution and with oblique motives the writ application has been filed. 3. The word minority is not defined in the Constitution. According to members of staff. who have prayed to be impleaded, the institution is not minority institution as claimed, and on the contrary it is an aided educational institution and with oblique motives the writ application has been filed. 3. The word minority is not defined in the Constitution. According to the popular sense of the term, therefore, it should refer t0 any community which is numerically less than 60 per cent of the population of the State concerned, when the law which is Impugned as violating Article 30 is a State law, applicable to the territory of the State as a whole, and not any particular region thereof. Conversely if it is a State law, a minority community of the State would be entitled to the protection of Article 30(1), even though it may not constitute a minority in relation to the whole of India. The 'minority' referred to in Article 30 must be a minority based either on religion or language. The expression 'the right to establish and administer' has to be interpreted in harmony with the substance of the right conferred by. the Article. While Act. 29(1) gives a cultucal or linguistic minority community the right to conserve its language or culture Article 30(1) confers on religious or linguistic minorities, the right to establish educational institutions of their own choice, for, it is through the education of the children that the group culture can be maintained. The word 'establish' in this context means to bring into existence an educational institution, while the word 'administer' means the right to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. The right to administer may be said to consist of the right to choose its managing or governing body. Though Article 30 itself does not lay down any limitations upon the right of a minority to administer its educational institutions this right is subject to. reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institution as the vehicle of education for the minority community consistent with the national interest, These aspects were highlighted by the apex Court in Ahmed St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat AIR 1374 SC. 139. Since the right to 'administer' confers upon the minority institutions the right to manage the institution, and the right conferred by Clause (1) is absolute, no restriction can be . Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat AIR 1374 SC. 139. Since the right to 'administer' confers upon the minority institutions the right to manage the institution, and the right conferred by Clause (1) is absolute, no restriction can be . imposed by the State on the right of the minority community to manage the institution. But at the same time the right to administer cannot include the right to administer. (See Ningawwa Vs. Byrappa and Others. Hence, under the guise of exclusive right of management a minority institution cannot be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions, or to resist regulations which are conducive to maintain that standard; such regulations do not bear directly upon the management though they may indirectly affect it Such regulations are however, permissible only in so far as they do not restrict the right of administration of the minority community but facilitate and ensure better and more effective exercise of the right for the benefit of the institution. They must allow the institution to retain its minority character. Neither Article 30(1) nor any other provision in the Constitution confers any right upon the minority to obtain recognition Or aid from the State. It follows that in consideration for granting aid or recognition to an institution coming under Article 30(1), the State may impose reasonable regulations for the purpose of ensuring maintenance of discipline, conditions of service etc. (See Frank' Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (1986) 4 SC 707 Manohar v. B M. H. S C. : (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 301. In case of aid, the State may also make regulations to ensure that the aid is utilised for the purpose of which it is granted. But the regulation cannot go to the extent of virtually annihilating the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) by introducing regulations which are not related to the interests of the institution as an educational institution, even though they may be in the interests of the general public. In order to be consonant with Article 30(1), a regulation imposed by the State upon a minority institution must be (a) reasonable and must also be (b) regulative in the educational character of the institution and conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for this minority community or other persons who resort to it. In order to be consonant with Article 30(1), a regulation imposed by the State upon a minority institution must be (a) reasonable and must also be (b) regulative in the educational character of the institution and conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for this minority community or other persons who resort to it. The right guaranteed to religious and linguistic minorities by Article 30(1) is two-fold to establish and to administer educational institutions of their choice. The key to the Article lies in the words 'of their own choice. These words indicate that the extent of the right is to be determined not with reference to any concept of State necessity and general secietal interest but with reference of the educational institutions themselves. The question in each case is whether the particular measure is in the ultimate analysis designed to achieve such goal without of course nullifying any part if the right of management is substantial measure, [See. Prank Anthony Public School Employees' Association's case (supra). A linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30(1) is one which must at least have a separate spoken language. It is not necessary that, that language should also have a distinct script for those who speak it. (See. D.A.V. College, Jullundur etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 191 SC 1737. A minority institution must be so in spirit and form and must not be just commercial institution. The Government and ultimately the Court have undoubted right to pierce fie minority veil and discover whether there is making behind it no minority at all and in any case no minority institution. Hindi is the official language of the Union of India and the Constitution contemplates that it should gradually replace English. It is not the case of the petitioner that 200 to 300 families who came from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are settled at Bamara and nearby villages As there was no Hindi medium school from lower primary to matriculation level, for imparting education in their own language to their children, the Hindi speaking people in the locality decided to open a Hindi medium school. - The moot question is whether the linguistic minority has to be determined only on the basis of language spoken by the minority or in respect of any other language. As was illuminatingly stated in Jugal Kishsra kedia and Ors. - The moot question is whether the linguistic minority has to be determined only on the basis of language spoken by the minority or in respect of any other language. As was illuminatingly stated in Jugal Kishsra kedia and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. AIR 1933 Gau 8 if a group of persons belonging to Muslim minority establishes an English medium school it would be fallacious to call it a minority school. If a group of people belonging to Bengali minority establishes a Hindi medium school, it cannot be equally called to be a minority school. The answer is very obvious The right is for conservation. The very basis of the minority being a religion or language the right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice has necessarily to be understood in that contest and not outside. Otherwise, it will not result in the protection of any cultural or educational right. That the community wants to impart general or secular education is of course a different matter. As was observed in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another. the object of Article 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 practise 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 linguistiic 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. The right guaranteed by Article 30(1) gives the minority the full liberty to establish educational institutions of its own choice. If the minority community expresses its choice and opts to join the scheme of national educational policy, it must naturally abide by the terms of that policy; unless the terms require the surrender of the right under Article 30(1). The rights under Article 30(1) have to be understood as distinguished from the obligation of the State to provide for education of the children in the State. The rights under Article 30(1) have to be understood as distinguished from the obligation of the State to provide for education of the children in the State. In far as the measure is wholly within the State's obligation, and a school though set up by minority wants nothing else than that there would be no justification in depriving the State of any regulatory power over it. A minority school will naturally include some aspect or characteristic which is outside the State's general scheme to provide education. In St. Xavier's College's case (supra) it was analysed that Article 30(1) covers institution imparting general secular' education. The object of Article 30 is to enable children of minorities to go out in the world fully equipped. It would be wrong to read Article 30(1) as restricting the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institution of their choice only to cases where such institutions are concerned with language, script or culture of the minorities. If other characteristics are present, the fact that the petitioner institution is for imparting general education only in Hindi medium will not disqualify it for being treated as a minority schools. 4. Does a minority institution waive its rights by receiving Government grants-in aid is another question. The relationship between Government grant-in-aid and the minority rights is relevant in determining Infringement of those rights For this purpose the educational institutions established or administered by the minorities or to be so established or administered by them in exercise of the rights conferred by that article may be classified into four categories namely, (I) those which do not seek either aid or recognition from the State; (2) those which want aid, (3) those which want only recognition but not grant -in-aid; and (4) those which want both recognition and grant-in-aid. 5. In the case at hand, the petitioner institution belongs to the fourth category. In the present state of affairs, no educational institution may afford to function efficiently without some State aid to continue their institution. They have to seek it. Recognition is a statutory requirement. If administrative conditions or regulations are attached to the aid the concerned institutions shall virtually have to surrender their constitutional right of administering educational institution of their choice. In Rashid Ahmed Vs. The Municipal Board, Kairana, ; Mohammad Yasin Vs. The Town Area Committee, Jalalabad and Another, and The State of Bombay Vs. Recognition is a statutory requirement. If administrative conditions or regulations are attached to the aid the concerned institutions shall virtually have to surrender their constitutional right of administering educational institution of their choice. In Rashid Ahmed Vs. The Municipal Board, Kairana, ; Mohammad Yasin Vs. The Town Area Committee, Jalalabad and Another, and The State of Bombay Vs. Bombay Education Society and Others it was observed that the State while grantig aid may prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the aided educational institutions. 6. The controversy would have been unnecessary had it been accepted by the State and its functionaries that the institution is a Hindi medium institution. From the counter affidavit it appears that it is not so. On the contrary, it is asserted that Hindi is taught a one of the Morden Indian Languages and the medium of instruction is Qriya. English and Hindi. As observed by the apex Court in Mrs. Y. Theclamn v. Union of India AIR 1937 SC 1210. the provisions which were permissible restrictions and were intended and meant to prevent maladministration of the educational institution cannot be said to infringe Article 30(1). where a provision is eminently reasonably and just designed to afford some measure or protection to the employees, without interfering with the management's right to take disciplinary action. Article 30(1) is not a charter for maladministration. Regulation ensuring that the right to administration may be batter exercised for the benefit of the institution is permissible. The setting up of a Managing Committee by itself cannot be objectionable. What is permissible is to scrutinise the (I) composition and functioning of the Managing Committee of the school While the State or any other statutory authority has no right to interfere with the internal administration or managemsit of the minority institution, the State can take regulatory measures to promote the efficiency and excellence of educational standards and issue guidelines for the purposes of ensuring the security of the services of the teachers or other employees of the institution but it cannot under the cover or garb of adopting regulatory measures tend to destroy the administrative autonomy of the institution or start Interfering willy-nilly with the core of the management of the institution so as to render the tight of the administration of the management of the institution concerned nugatory or illusory. Such a blatant Interference would be violative of Article 30(1) and would be wholly inapplicable to the institution concerned. 7. Section 2 of the Act provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to educational institutions of their choice established and administered by minorities having the right under Clause of Article 30 of the Constitution. The question whether the medium of education was Hindi is a disputed question of fact. The parties have relied on certain documents in support of their stands. One thing that strikes us is undisputed. A Managing Committee was constituted by the Inspector of Schools vide Annexure-3 in 1990. No dispute was raised regarding competency of the authorities to constitute the Managing Committee at that stage. It has been only stated by the petitioners that since there was no apprehension of any problem from the side of the authorities, the petitioner did not question competency of the Inspector. In paragraph 7 of the writ application, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner had raised certain dispute, and it was verbally conveyed by the Inspector that there would be no problem for approval. 8. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that there is no proof of any dispute having been raised by the petitioner as asserted in paragraph 7 of the writ application The question whether an institution is a minority institution or not, involves appraisal of fact situation. In view of the stand taken by the opposite parties that Hindi is one of the subjects taught and the medium of teaching is not Hindi we do not think it to be a fit case for deciding that factual controversy in the present application. We find that there has been no re-constitution of the Managing Committee after promulgation of the Rules with effect from 18-12-1991. It has been simply asserted in the writ application that the petitioner made a request to the Inspector of Schools on 13-5-1992 for a discussion which was refused by the latter on the ground that after enactment of the Rules, the Managing Committee was non-existent then. The documents filed in the case are somewhat confusing. At some places, the institution has been described as Bhagirathi Vidyapitha and some places as Bhagirathi Hindi Vidyapitha his inconsistency has not been classified by the parties 9. The documents filed in the case are somewhat confusing. At some places, the institution has been described as Bhagirathi Vidyapitha and some places as Bhagirathi Hindi Vidyapitha his inconsistency has not been classified by the parties 9. If a controversy is raised as to whether the institution is a minority institution, same should be resolved by the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa. In the circumstances, we direct that the claim of the petitioner that it is a minority institution shall be decided by the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa. We shall permit the parties to, place materials in support of their respective stands. We shall notify the petitioner institution, the Inspector of Schools concerned and the intervenors requiring them to place materials in support of their respective claims, and on consideration thereof shall take a decision, and communicate the result to the parties. The writ application is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. No costs. S.K. Mohanty, J. 10. I agree.