ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. Heard counsel. 3. It appears that a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by the petitioner-institution challenging the vires of the Amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetno Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, on the plea that the petitioner-institution being a minority institution was entitled to the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. The fact of the petitioner-institution being a minority institution is not admitted and may, if the pleadings so demand, require adjudication. The question whether the aforesaid Amendment made in the Act is violative of Article 30 of the Constitution will have to be decided if the institution is found to be a minority institution. Unfortunately, the High Court did not go into this question which is of vital importance to the institution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the matter should be remitted to the High Court to decide the vital question regarding the validity of the amendment and related rules. 4. So far as Respondent 2 Smt Avtar Rooprah is concerned, it is her case that after the order of the High Court she was granted reinstatement as Principal of the School by the order dated 20/30-12-1993 (Annexure at page 66 of the paperbook). She has also filed an affidavit stating that she took charge as Principal of the School on 31-12-1993. This fact is, however, disputed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the status quo will have to be maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in any case the said Respondent 2 would have retired in December 1994 and that they are ready and willing to pay the salary and allowances to her for the period up to the date of retirement irrespective of the result of the petition if she is willing to avail of that opportunity. We have taken note of that statement but Mr Bagga, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2, states that his clients husband is not inclined to accept that proposal. However, we would leave it to Respondent 2 to consider the offer and accept or reject the proposal and communicate her decision to the institution. 5. We have taken note of that statement but Mr Bagga, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2, states that his clients husband is not inclined to accept that proposal. However, we would leave it to Respondent 2 to consider the offer and accept or reject the proposal and communicate her decision to the institution. 5. Having regard to the fact that the matter is pending since long the High Court will accord priority to the matter. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. For citation:  1995 Supp (2) SCC 152