JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - St. Catherine Girls' High School, Raikia in the district of Kandhamal represented by the Secretary of its Managing Committee has filed this writ application for declaration that the said St. Catherine Girls' High School (hereinafter referred to as "the School") is an educational institution established and administered by the Christians, a minority based on religion and is entitled to get the benefit of the rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and for setting aside the order No. 5048 dated September 20, 1999 issued by the Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer, Office of the Inspector of Schools, B. K. Circle, Phulbani (Annexure-13 on the basis that the School is a general direct-payment institution and its Managing Committee and become defunct. 2. Admittedly a Primary School for girls was opened in Raikia in 1952 by the Cuttack Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, which is a Roman Catholic Mission (hereinafter referred to as "Catholic Mission"). From July 1, 1961 the said Primary School was upgraded to an M.E. School. By Resolution No. 6 dated May 17, 1975 the Managing Committee of the said St. Catherine Girls' M.E. School took a decision to upgrade the existing M.E. School into a High School. The Arch Bishop, Chairman of the Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation by a deed of gift donated Ac. 1.51 decimals of land for the purpose of setting up the proposed High School. It has been specifically mentioned in the said deed that if the property donated for the purpose of establishing a Girls' High School is at any point of time used contrary to the interest of the aforesaid Roman Catholic Mission, the gift would stand revoked and the property would revert to the donor. The State Government was duly moved for recognition of the said High School. By letter dated September 22, 1976 the Director of Public Instructions, School & Mass accorded permission to open Class VIM in the Catherine Girls' High School from Academic Session, 1976-77 (Annexure-25). It was mentioned in the said letter that the School was opened in the year 1975-76. The recognition was granted with the conditions that the Management would not demand any grant-in-aid from Government for 5 years, that the School would be housed in pucca building and that the other conditions prescribed in the Orissa Education Code and Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education would be fulfilled. The recognition was granted with the conditions that the Management would not demand any grant-in-aid from Government for 5 years, that the School would be housed in pucca building and that the other conditions prescribed in the Orissa Education Code and Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education would be fulfilled. By letter dated July 15, 1977 the departmental recognition was accorded to the School subject to fulfilment of the terms and conditions contained in the Orissa Education Code. The Classes IX & X were recognised by the Board of Secondary Education by its letter dated December 18, 1978. 3. The Managing Committee of the School was being reconstituted and such reconstitution was sent for approval of the Inspector of Schools. The Inspector of Schools also approved the constitution and reconstitution of the Managing Committee under Article 308 of the Orissa Education Code. Last approval was given by the Inspector of Schools on October 10, 1980. Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "Private Management Rules, 1980") were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and brought into effect from August 27, 1980. Section 2 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, expressly provided that nothing contained in the said Act would apply to education institutions established and administered by minorities having rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Department of Education and Youth Services, Government of Orissa, issued letter No. 40296-EYS dated November 11, 1982 to the Directorate of Schools making it clear that the Private Management Rules, 1980 would not apply to the minority institutions. Relevant extract from the aforesaid letter was forwarded to the Secretary of the School by the Inspector of Schools by Memo No. 7053 dated December 18, 1982 (Annexure-4). After communication of the said clarification from Department of Education and Youth Services, the Management of the School stopped seeking approval to the reconstitution of the Managing Committee. It is pointed out that the Orissa Education Code was a pre-constitution Code and naturally did not expressly exclude the minority institutions from its operation. There was some confusion till Private Management Rules, 1980 came into force and the State Government issued clarification dated November 19,1982. 4. It is pointed out that the Orissa Education Code was a pre-constitution Code and naturally did not expressly exclude the minority institutions from its operation. There was some confusion till Private Management Rules, 1980 came into force and the State Government issued clarification dated November 19,1982. 4. In or around 1991 some questions cropped up regarding the rights of the Management of the School vis-a-vis the extent of control of the State Government over management of the School. The Catholic Mission and the Management of the School put forward the specific plea that the School being a Minority School, interference of the Officers of the State with its Management was not warranted. While the said claim of the School as a minority institution was under consideration of the State Government, one Sri Simachal Patra, Secretary of one Adivasi Samiti, Raikia, submitted an application before the Department of School and Mass Education requesting the State Government not to declare the School as minority institution. By letter No. 15522(2) SAE dated May 25, 1993, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of School and Mass Education intimated the Inspector of Schools that there was no provision in any Act or Rules to declare an institution as a minority institution. By his letter No. 3348 dated June 8, 1993 (Annexure-10) the Inspector of Schools sought for specific instructions in view of the fact that the name of the School was not included in list of Recognized Minority Community Educational Institutions. As no clarification was received from the Directorate, the Inspector of Schools by his letter dated August 24, 1993 informed the Secretary of the School that in absence of any clarification it was decided to release the funds in favour of In-Charge-Headmistress of the School for payment of salary to the staff until further orders. By letter No. 9260 dated March 9, 1999 (Annexure-12), the Deputy Director of the Secondary Education asked the Inspector of Schools to pay grant to the School like other minority Schools. On or about May 19, 1999 the staff of the School submitted a representation in the Department of School and Mass Education objecting to the State Government's reference to the School as a minority institution and requesting the authorities to consider and determine whether the School can be granted status of a minority School and to continue the payment of salaries to the Headmistresses. Thereafter, the Inspector of Schools, issued the impugned letter No. 5048 dated September 20 1999 (Annexure-13). The content of the letter is reproduced below: "It is found from the bill statement of St. Catherine Girls High School, Raikia that same is countersigned by the Secretary on the bill statement from the month of 3/99 and 4/99 I like to direct you that St. Catherine Girls' High School, Raikia is a general direct payment institution. The Managing Committee of the School is now defunct and the Headmaster is the only person to submit monthly bill as per direct payment Rule. Refer Letter No. 4560 dt. 12.8.97 of the Inspectorate on this regard. If the bill statement will be countersigned by the . Secretary that will not be entertained any more. So the Bill Statement is returned herewith for re-submission with the signature of the Headmaster only, through special messenger immediately for taking further action at this level." 5. In this writ application some teaching and non-teaching staff of the School have filed Misc. Case No. 13784 of 1999 for being added as opposite parties. Some persons (Sudhir Pradhan and 4 others) have filed Misc. Case No. 13605 of 2001 for being added as opposite parties. They have claimed that they were associated with the establishment of the School, Another group of persons (Rajendra Kumar Panda and 14 others) claiming to be the parents and guardians of students have filed another Misc. Case No. 14044 of 2001 for being added as opp. parties. 6. The applicants in Misc. Case No. 13605 of 2001 have claimed that they had contributions to the establishment of the School but no material has been disclosed in support of the said claim. It appears that they intend to support the State Government's stand that the School is a general School. We do not think that every person of the locality has a right to be heard in a matter like this, particularly when, they have failed to show any special interest which is likely to be adversely affected. We are not inclined to allow this application for being added. Similarly, the applicant in Misc. Case No. 14044 of 2001 want to be added to support the claim of the School. We are also not inclined to allow this application. 7. We are not inclined to allow this application for being added. Similarly, the applicant in Misc. Case No. 14044 of 2001 want to be added to support the claim of the School. We are also not inclined to allow this application. 7. The teaching and non-teaching staff of the School, however, have direct interest in the out-come of this writ application as their service conditions are dependent on the character of the School. So we allow this Misc. Case No. 13784 of 1999 and add them as opposite parties. We have heard the learned Advocate for the said staff of the School on the questions involved in the main writ application. 8. To resolve the dissolute involved in this case it is necessary to find out who established the School. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court the original records relating to the permission/ recognition of the School have been produced. In spite of repeated opportunities given to the Department of School & Mass Education they could not produce the original application/representation/proposal for recognition of the High School. However, in the Enquiry Report dated November 9, 2000 submitted by the Director, Secondary Education in pursuance of the order of this Court (Annexure-A/2) disclosed by the State it has been expressly mentioned in paragraph-2 thereof that Sister Celine Avaraw, Secretary, St. Catherine Girls' M.E. School was the applicant for according permission and recognition to St. Catherine Girls' High School and that the Management of the St. Catherine M. E, School in its meeting held on May 17. 1975 took the decision to open a Girls' High School. It is further mentioned in the said Report (Annexure-A/2) that educational agency of St. Catherine Girls' M.E. School resolved to upgrade the M.E. School to a Girls' High School in their meeting held on July 15,1975. Although the initial proposal and/or the application for permission and/or recognition of the High School are not available, the records of the State Govt. contain a copy of resolution adopted in a meeting held on February 18, 1997 for the purpose of constituting the Managing Committee of the School. It appears from the said copy that a Managing Committee for the School was constituted comprising 11 members including 3 members from the Management, 2 members from the staff of the School, 3 members from the guardians and 3 members from the local residents. It appears from the said copy that a Managing Committee for the School was constituted comprising 11 members including 3 members from the Management, 2 members from the staff of the School, 3 members from the guardians and 3 members from the local residents. The said meeting was presided over by Arch Bishop Henry D. Souza. It further appears that the persons who attended the meeting excepting one or two persons were all Christians. In the Managing Committee of the School constituted in the said meeting dated February 18, 1977 all the representatives of the management and most of the other members were Christians. It appears from the minutes that the Cuttack Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation was referred to as the "Management". It further appears from the copy of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting held on February 18, 1977 that the land and money required to be deposited were actually given by the Catholic Mission and the Headmistress of the M.E. School was appointed the Headmistress of the High School. It has been claimed by the School and Mass Education Department that money was raised from the local inhabitants for the purpose of construction of building and other infrastructure, but nothing has been produced to support such claim. Although several persons including staff of the School have applied for being impleaded in this writ petition, none has come forward with any document or proof that any private person or public at large has donated anything for construction of the building of the School or for any other purpose connected with establishment of the School. 9. The writ petitioner has annexed the receipts and payment accounts in respect of the project titled Extension of St. Catherine Girls' High School at Raikia to show that the necessary funds came from other sources (IGSSS) through the Catholic Mission. There is no material on record to show that any grant was given by the State Government or any financial contribution was made by any person or persons of the locality. The materials on record conclusively prove that the School was established by the Catholic Mission and the Christians of Raikia although in the process a few local non-Christian persons might have supported the move. 10. Mr. The materials on record conclusively prove that the School was established by the Catholic Mission and the Christians of Raikia although in the process a few local non-Christian persons might have supported the move. 10. Mr. Misra, appearing for the Department of School & Mass Education has referred to the following facts to buttress his assertion that the School has never been treated as a minority institution and it has always been administered as a general educational institution. (i) Permission and recognition granted by the State Government contained express condition that the rules and regulations issued by the State were to be complied with. The Management of the School accepted the said conditions without any protest or murmur. (ii) The Managing Committee of the School was constituted in accordance with the then Education Code and sent for approval by the appropriate authority. There was no question of seeking approval in case of a minority institution. (iii) Even after introduction of the Orissa Education (Management of Private High Schools) Rules, 1980 Managing Committee of the School was reconstituted and sent for approval of the appropriate authority under the Rules. (iv) The Inspector of Schools was issuing directions for convening the first meeting of the Managing Committee to select its President and Secretary and the said direction was accepted and complied with by the Managing Committee of the School. The proposal for amalgamation of the School with the St. Catherine M. E. School was submitted before the authorities of the State and the Government ultimately be memo dated December 7, 1990 approved the proposal for amalgamation with effect from November 13, 1990 subject to certain specific conditions relating to adjustment of teachers from the M.E. School in the High School. The said conditions were accepted and duly complied with the Management. (v) The salaries of the staff of the School were being released through the direct payment system which was not followed in case of minority institutions. For minority institution, the State Government releases the entire salary amount in favour of the Secretary of the School, who remains responsible and accountable for due disbursement of the salary to the members of the staff. (vi) In case of minority institution Government Provident Fund Contribution of the staff are not deducted at the time of release of salaries by the Government. (vi) In case of minority institution Government Provident Fund Contribution of the staff are not deducted at the time of release of salaries by the Government. Necessary fund for the entire salary including G.P.F. contribution is released in favour of the Secretary of minority institution. In the present School the G.P.F. contributions were always being deducted and transmitted to the Comptroller of Accounts. In case of Bijaya High School which is admitted a minority institution, such practice is not there and the entire salary including the G.P.F. contribution is released in favour of the Secretary of the School. (vii) The School was brought into the fold of grant-in-aid from the year 1982-83 under Scheme known as 7 Girls' High School Scheme. Before introducing the said Scheme there was another scheme known as 8 Missions Schools Scheme under which 8 minority managed school including Bijay High School, Raikia were brought within the fold of grant-in-aid. The 7 Girls' High School Scheme was meant for general Schools. If the present School was a minority institution, the same could not be included within the aforesaid scheme and the management would not have also accepted grant-in-aid under a Scheme for general educational institutions. (viii) In 1994 the State Government adopted a policy to take over 3000 Schools of different categories in the State. The said Schools were grouped under different categories according to their status. One group of the Schemes was General Scheme 785 under which 785 General School was proposed to be taken over. There was a different scheme for the Missionary School known as 11 Mission Managed Scheme. The petitioner-School was included in the General Scheme 785. The petitioner-School could not be taken over as there was no valid Managing Committee to give consent. Bijaya High School was not taken over because it is a minority institution. (ix) The Headmistress of the petitioner-School was absent for a period of 6 years (1991-97). She wanted to join her service and she could join because the Inspector of Schools directed her to join. Her joining was also approved by the Inspector of Schools. (x) In pursuance of an order of this Court an enquiry was conducted regarding the establishment of petitioner-School by the Director, Secondary Education. In his report dated July 24, 2000, the Director has reported that the School has not yet been declared by the Government as a minority institution. 11. Her joining was also approved by the Inspector of Schools. (x) In pursuance of an order of this Court an enquiry was conducted regarding the establishment of petitioner-School by the Director, Secondary Education. In his report dated July 24, 2000, the Director has reported that the School has not yet been declared by the Government as a minority institution. 11. On behalf of the petitioner-School it has been pointed out that the dispute regarding the status of the School came up only in 1993 when some local persons submitted an application before the State Government for not declaring the School as a minority institution. The State Government and its officers all along treated the present School as a minority institution and only from 1993 the State Government under some extaneous pressure denied minority status to the School. On behalf of the School attention of this Court has been drawn to several undisputed-documents supporting its minority status. It has been further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitipner-School that if it is found that the School was established and was being administered by the minorities based on religion voluntary submission to the control of the State Government or acceptance of any order or instructions are of no consequence and cannot take away the minority character of the institute. 12. From the materials disclosed before this Court it appears that the Inspector of Schools Boudh-Kandhamal Circle, Phulbani, visited the School on November 26, 1979 and submitted his report. In the said report which was submitted along before the present dispute arose it has been clearly mentioned that the School was being managed by Mission Authority (Annexure-14). By a memo dated October 31, 1977, the Inspector of Schools, Boudh-Kandhamal Circle forwarded the application of the School for opening Class-IX and X in the said School. In the said forwarding letter (Annexure-3) it has been expressly mentioned that the School was managed by the Mission Authority; that the management was constructing a three-room building for the accommodation of the School; that the land was given to the School by a registered deed in 1976 and that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited in the name of the School as security deposit. The Inspector of Schools, Boudh-Kandhamal Circle was always forwarding different instructions and circulars issued by the State Government regarding the minority institutions to the petitioner-School. 5,000/- was deposited in the name of the School as security deposit. The Inspector of Schools, Boudh-Kandhamal Circle was always forwarding different instructions and circulars issued by the State Government regarding the minority institutions to the petitioner-School. By a letter dated May 3, 1993 addressed to the Director of Secondary Education, the Inspector of Schools, Boudh-Kandhamal Circle recommended inclusion of the School in the list of recognised minority educational institution. In the said letter it has been expressly mentioned that Roman Catholic Mission of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar, Orissa provided funds and donated land for establishment and development of the School. The Deputy Secretary of the School and Mass Education Department by his letter No. 15522(2) SAE dated May 25, 1993 November, to the Inspector of Schools mentioned that there is no provision in any Act or Rules to declare and institution as a minority institution (vide Annexure-10). Even thereafter, the Inspector of Schools again sent a letter dated June 8, 1993 (Annexure-10) requesting the Director of Secondary Education to issue necessary instruction for inclusion of the School in the list of recognized minority educational institution. By letter dated August 25, 1993 the Inspector of Schools informed the Secretary of the School that as no clarification was still obtained from the Directorate, he had decided to make payment to the in-charge-Headmistress of the School until further order. Even in 1999 the Collector, Kandhamal has expressed his opinion that the School should remain under the direct management of the Roman Catholic Mission, (Annexure-17). Sri Nagarjuna Pradhan, the then M.L.A. from G. Udayagiri by his letter dated October 14, 1999 and Sri Ripunath Seth, Minister of State, School and Mass Education, Orissa by his letter dated October 15,1999 also recommended that the School be continued to be run by the Roman Catholic Mission (Annexure-18). In his letter the Member of the Legislative Assembly has mentioned that the School was receiving grant through the Secretary of the School, but from 1993, the mode of payment was suddenly changed because of the dispute raised by some persons including some staff members. The writ-petitioner has also enclosed a copy of the mass petition submitted in October, 1999 requesting the Hon'ble Minister, School and Mass Education Department to allow the Roman Catholic Mission to run the institution as minority institution. 13. The writ-petitioner has also enclosed a copy of the mass petition submitted in October, 1999 requesting the Hon'ble Minister, School and Mass Education Department to allow the Roman Catholic Mission to run the institution as minority institution. 13. It has been pointed out that in 1991 question was for the first time raised about the status of the School. Up to 1993 the grants for payment of salaries were being released in favour of the Secretary of the School and not in favour of the Headmistress as incorrectly alleged by the State. The Court's attention has been drawn to Memo No. 3477 dated May 20, 1991 (Annexure-9) which shows that an amount of Rs. 58,542/- for payment of salaries of the staff was released as advance grant in favour of the Secretary of the School. The decision to make payment to the in-charge-Headmistress of the School was taken by the Inspector of Schools on or about August 19, 1993 because he did not receive any advice or instruction from the Directorate. On behalf of the Management of the School, it has been emphasized that since promulgation of the Management of Private school Rules, 1980, no approval for reconstitution of the Managing Committee was sought for particularly after the State Government issued express clarification that the said Rules would not apply to minority institution. 14. Regarding the approval sought for from the Inspector of Schools to the appointments made by the Secretary of the Schools and to grant of higher pay scales to the staff, it has been submitted that it was necessary for the purpose of release of grant as the School was a fully aided School. Although the grant of approval of appointment of staff in a minority institution is outside the purview of the State control but before release of aid the concerned authorities are to be satisfied that the appointments are within the sanctioned strength and that the appointees possess the required minimum qualification. Such approvals do not signify that the School is not a minority institution. 15. Allegation of direct payment of salaries to the staff are release of salary in favour of the Headmistress appears to be post-dispute development. Even in 1991 (Annexure-9) grant for payment of salaries to the staff was released in favour of the Secretary of the School. 16. Such approvals do not signify that the School is not a minority institution. 15. Allegation of direct payment of salaries to the staff are release of salary in favour of the Headmistress appears to be post-dispute development. Even in 1991 (Annexure-9) grant for payment of salaries to the staff was released in favour of the Secretary of the School. 16. Moreover, those acts like direct payment of salaries, deduction of G.P.F. amount, inclusion of the School in the list of general Schools are all unilateral acts of the State Government and those never prejudicially affected the right of management of the minority School. These unilateral acts which did not in reality interfere with the constitutional freedom of management are not all relevant for the purpose of determining the real character of the School. 17. Article 30 of the Constitution finds place in Part-III as one of the fundamental rights of the minorities based on religion or language. It is well-known and well settled that there is no estoppel against a constitutional provision and more particularly against a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. A private statutory right can be waived under certain circumstances, but a constitutional guarantee of a fundamental right given to a particular Section of the community cannot be waived. So even assuming and/or accepting that the management of the School initially was following the provisions of the Orissa Education Code or the Rules relating to management of private educational institutions, the same cannot take away the minority character and/or status of an institution, if it is proved that the same has been established and is being administered by the minorities based on religion or language. In Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has pronounced : "...There can be no estoppel against the constitution, the Constitution is not only the paramount law of the land but, it is the source and sustenance of all laws. Its provisions are conceived in public interest and are intended to serve a public purpose. The doctrine of estoppel is based on the principle that consistency in word and action imparts certainty and honesty to human affairs. If a person makes a representation to another, on the faith of which the latter acts to his prejudice, the former cannot resile from the representation made by him. He must make it good. The doctrine of estoppel is based on the principle that consistency in word and action imparts certainty and honesty to human affairs. If a person makes a representation to another, on the faith of which the latter acts to his prejudice, the former cannot resile from the representation made by him. He must make it good. This principle can have no application to representations made regarding the assertion or enforcement of fundamental rights. For example, the concession made by a person that he does not possess and would not exercise his right to free speech and expression or the right to move freely throughout the territory of India cannot deprive him of those constitutional rights, any more than a concession that a person has no right of personal liberty can justify his detention contrary to the terms of Article 22 of the Constitution. Fundamental rights are undoubtedly conferred by the Constitution upon individuals which have to be asserted and enforced by them, if those rights are violated. But the high purpose which the Constitution seeks to achieve by conferment of fundamental rights is not only to benefit individuals but to secure the larger interests of the community. The preamble of the Constitution says that India is a Democratic Republic. It is in order to fulfil the promise of the Preamble that fundamental rights are conferred by the Constitution, some on citizens like those guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 21 and 29 and, some on citizens and non-citizens alike, like those guaranteed by Articles 14, 21, 22 and 25 of the Constitution; No individual can barter away the freedoms conferred upon him by the Constitution. A concession made by him in a proceeding, whether under a mistake of law or otherwise, that he does not possess or will not enforce any particular fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel against him in that or any subsequent proceeding. Such a concession, if enforced, would defeat the purpose of the Constitution. Were the argument of estoppel valid, an all powerful State could easily tempt an individual to forge his precious personal freedoms on promise of transitory, immediate benefits. **** **** **** The plea of estoppel is closely connected with the plea of waiver, the object of both being to ensure bona fides in day-to-day transactions. In Basheshwar Nath v. Commnr. of Income Tax, Delhi (1959) Sup. **** **** **** The plea of estoppel is closely connected with the plea of waiver, the object of both being to ensure bona fides in day-to-day transactions. In Basheshwar Nath v. Commnr. of Income Tax, Delhi (1959) Sup. (1) SCR 528 AIR 1959 SC 149 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered the question whether the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution can be waived. Two members of the Bench (Das C.J. and Kapoor, J.) held that there can be no waiver of the fundamental right founded on Article 14 of the Constitution. Two others (N.H. Bhagwati and Subba Rao, JJ.) held that not only could there by no waiver of the right conferred by Article 14, but there could be no waiver of any other fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Constitution makes no distinction, according to the learned Judges, between fundamental rights enacted for the benefit of an individual and those enacted in public interest or on grounds of public policy." In re The Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 , a seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has said that "there can be no loss of fundamental rights merely on the ground of non -exercise of it." The similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the Basheshar Nath Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and Another, and in The Gandhi Faiz-E-Am College, Shahjahanpur Vs. University of Agra and Another, 18. Thus it is wholly irrelevant whether at the initial stages the management of the School was voluntarily complying with some provisions of the Education Code or the Rules framed by the State Government and sending the constitution and reconstitution of the Managing Committee for approval of the appropriate authorities. Besides, a minority institution may on its own follow the principle or policy contained in any Statute, or Rules so long as the same does not clash with its right of freedom of management, Voluntary submission to certain general rules, regulations or restrictions is totally different from the state's insistence on compliance with the provisions of the Statute, Rules and Regulations interfering with the freedom of management guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. So constitution or reconstitution of the Managing Committee on the pattern laid down in the Education Code or any Rule and sending those for approval cannot affect the minority status of the School if it is otherwise found to be an institution established by the minorities within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution. Direct payment of salaries, to the teachers deduction of P.F amount etc. are all unilateral acts of the State Government and those are not at all relevant for the purpose of determination of the real character of the School. 19. As already pointed out that contemporaneous documents and records of the State Government and its authorities conclusively show that the School was established by the Catholic Mission and the land and the initial fund for establishment of the School were also provided by the Catholic Mission. Proposal for establishing the High School came from the said Catholic Mission and/or its part management of the St. Catherine M. E. School. Although the State Government has made a statement that the fund was provided by the local people, but no material has been placed before us in support of the said allegation. On the basis of the materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that the School was established by the Roman Catholic Mission, and organisation of a section of the Christians. 20. For the purpose of getting protection of Article 30 it is also to be seen whether institution is being administered by the minorities. It appears that the members of the Managing Committee of the School excepting one teacher's representatives were Christians by religion. Arch Bishop of Roman Catholic Diocesan of Cuttack was always the President and another member of the Mission was the Secretary of the Managing Committee. The School was being run in the building of the M. E. School. The Headmistress of the School was also a Christian. It appears to us that the School since its establishment is being administered by the minority through the Roman Catholic Mission till 1991 when for the first time the State Government for reasons best known to them doubted the minority status of the School. The Headmistress of the School was also a Christian. It appears to us that the School since its establishment is being administered by the minority through the Roman Catholic Mission till 1991 when for the first time the State Government for reasons best known to them doubted the minority status of the School. The Inspector of Schools unilaterally put himself in charge of the administration of the School on the plea that the term of the previous Managing Committee had long expired and there was no valid Governing body although State Government issued clarification that the Aided Private School Management Rules would not apply to minority institution. 21. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the State of Orissa, submits that subsequent amalgamation of the High School with the M. E. School shows that the M. E. School was not upgraded. There appears to be some confusion. In some of the letters and reports the officers of the State Government have stated that the M. E. School was upgraded to a High School. In any event, the fact of amalgamation strengthens the claim that the School is a minority institution. Undisputedly, St. Catherine M. E. School is a minority institution established and run by the Roman Catholic Mission. No group of minority will accept amalgamation of its minority institution with a general institution as it would lead to incompatible and anomalous situation. According to us, the State Government would not have agreed to the proposal for amalgamation unless both the institutions were established by the same Agency and were of the same nature. 22. Mr. Mishra has referred to the report of the Director of Secondary Education dated July 24, 2000. The said report does not contain any independent finding and has merely repeated the assertions made by the Inspector of Schools in his counter in the present case. He has also not expressed any opinion and merely concluded that the School has not been declared by the Government as a minority community school and the question is pending decision of the Government. There is no question of the State Government declaring an institution as a minority institution. It is a question of acceptance. If the State Government accepts the institution as a minority institution, there remains no disputes. There is no question of the State Government declaring an institution as a minority institution. It is a question of acceptance. If the State Government accepts the institution as a minority institution, there remains no disputes. If the Government does not accept and declines to extend the rights conferred under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, but remedy of the management of the School is to approach the Court for determination of the said dispute. Of course, it is open to the educational authorities to place all the relevant facts before the State Government and request for acceptance. Although no formal decision has been taken by the State Government, the stand taken by it in the affidavit makes it clear that the authorities of the State Government have already made up their mind and as such it is of no use asking the state Government to consider the claim of the management. 23. In this connection we should point out that some of the remarks or observations made by the high officials of the State Government in their report and even in the affidavit filed in connection with the present case indicate that even high officials looking after the Department or Directorate of the Education of the State have no clear idea about the criteria on the basis of which the minority character of an institution is to be determined. It has been mentioned by the Director of Secondary Education that an institution cannot be called as a minority institution because it has admitted students belonging to other communities. We are constrained to point out that such statement indicates that even the Director of Secondary Education did not have the elementary idea about the characteristics of a minority institution. It is not constitutionally permissible for a minority institution to deny admission to students of other communities or to refuse to appoint teachers of other communities. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record we hold that St. Catherine Girls' High School, Raikia is an institution established and administered by minority based on religion and in entitled to protection of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. We also set aside the impugned order of the Inspector of Schools dated September 20, 1999 (Annexure-13). The writ petition is allowed. P.K. Mohanty, J. 25. I agree. Final Result : Allowed