Hon'ble D. K. Arora, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel. 2. Rafi Memorial Girls Higher Secondary School, Masauli, District Barabanki is one of the Schools run and managed by a registered society known as the 'The Managing Committee of Rafi Memorial Schools'. The Schools run by the said society, namely, (i)Rafi Memorial Boys Primary School, Masauli, District Barabanki (ii) Rafi Memorial Girls Primary School, Masauli, District Barabanki and Rafi Memorial Boys Junior High School, Masauli, District Barabanki have been declared as minority education institutions by the State Government vide Government Order dated 21st August, 2006. After the declaration of the aforesaid Institutions as minority educational institution, the State Government recognized and gave the institutions the rights which are available to a minority education institution including the right to make appointment on the posts of the teachers available in the Schools. 3. After the establishment of Rafi Memorial Girls Higher Secondary School, Masauli, District Barabanki, the Managing Committee passed a resolution dated 5.11.2004 for getting the institution declared as a minority institution and submitted the same to the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki. The District Inspector of schools vide its letter dated 31.5.2005 while recommending the grant of minority status, forwarded the same to the State Government for necessary approval. On the enforcement of The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 the petitioner-institution made an application for declaring the petitioner institution as a minority educational institution as it being run and managed by a community which has been declared as a minority community by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. The National Commission for Minority Educational Institution after scrutinizing the documents and being satisfied that it fulfills all the requisite conditions, declared the petitioner institution as a minority educational institution. Even after declaration of the institution as a minority educational institution by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions vide order dated 14.12.2006 and recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki the State Government is not treating the petitioner institution as a minority institution. 4. Even after declaration of the institution as a minority educational institution by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions vide order dated 14.12.2006 and recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki the State Government is not treating the petitioner institution as a minority institution. 4. Being dissatisfied by the action/inaction of the State Government the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia on the ground that the action of the State Government in not treating the Institution is highly arbitrary and unjustified and that too when the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution has declared the institution as a minority educational Institution. In other words, it is an interference in the administration of the School, as being the minority institution it is entitled to make appointment of teachers under the provisions of Section 16-FF of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 but the respondents are not allowing the petitioner institution to proceed and make appointment of teachers under the aforementioned provisions of the Act, 1921 as a result thereof the teaching is highly affected, which is a great concern. On 12.6.2007, the Manager of the petitioner institution apprised the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki that three posts of Assistant Teachers are vacant and as such permission may be granted for making selection after issuing an advertisement in the newspapers. The Petitioner-institution was compelled to wrote a letter to the state Government for passing necessary order clarifying the position of the institution as a minority institution as the Director and other educational authorities had orally informed the petitioner no.2 that its status as a minority educational institution would only be recognised if any appropriate orders in this regard are issued by the State Government. 5. Sri Mansoor Ahmad, Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Government of India vide its notification dated 23.10.1993 had declared Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis as minority communities in exercise of power conferred by Clause 2(C) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The State Government has also declared the above communities as minority communities vide notification dated 7.10.1994. The institution in question has been established by the members of the society, who belong to Muslims minority and therefore, the action of the respondents in not treating the institution as a minority institution is wholly illegal and is an infringement of rights conferred by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. The institution in question has been established by the members of the society, who belong to Muslims minority and therefore, the action of the respondents in not treating the institution as a minority institution is wholly illegal and is an infringement of rights conferred by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. The action of the State Government in not treating the petitioner-institution as a minority educational institution is per se bad and non est for the reason that three other institutions run by the same society have already been declared as a minority educational Institution by the State Government vide order dated 21.8.2006 and there was no impediment whatsoever in treating the instant institution as a minority institution. 6. Refuting the allegations, learned Standing Counsel submitted that it is not appropriate and proper for the State Government to declare any educational institution as Minority Institution only on the ground that it has been declared as minority institution by National Commission for Minority Educational Institution, rather in this regard the decision is used to be taken by the Committee constituted at State Level. He further submitted that in a decision rendered in Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006 by a Division Bench of this Court, the State Government has been restrained to declare any educational institution as Minority Institution and as such no decision could be taken on representation preferred by the petitioners. Lastly, it has been argued that unless and until the petitioner's institution is declared as a Minority Institution by the State Government, it is not entitled to get benefit of Section 16-FF of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 7. Before dealing with the controversy involved in the present writ petition, it would be apt to refer to relevant provisions of the Rule and the decisions rendered by the Apex Court on the subject. 8. In exercise of powers conferred under clause (C) of Section- 2 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, the Government of India issued a notification dated 23.10.1993 recognising and declaring Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsees as minorities. Above minorities were divided in three groups i.e. A, B, and C as mentioned in the schedule prepared by a Committee on Minority Rights. 9. Above minorities were divided in three groups i.e. A, B, and C as mentioned in the schedule prepared by a Committee on Minority Rights. 9. Group-A consists of population less than ½ percent in the Indian Dominion omitting States 1.Anglo-Indians 2.Parsees 3.Plain's tribesmen in Assam (Other than Tea Garden's tribesmen) Group-B population not more than 1 ½ per cent. 1. Indian Christian 2. Sikhs Group-C consists of population exceeding 1 ½ percent. 4.Muslims 10. It is relevant to point here that the Government of India in the Ministry of Minority Affairs while reiterating the notification dated 23.10.1993 communicated the Secretary to the U.P. Commission for Minorities by the letter dated 14th March, 2007 that Government of India have notified five religious communities viz. Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsees) as minority communities at national level. Not only this, the State of U.P. by the notification dated 7th October, 1994 while exercising powers under Section -2 (d) of the U.P. Minority Commission Act, 1994 has notified the following communities as minority communities:- 1-Muslim 2-Christian 3-Sikh 4-Buddhists 5-Parsees 11. The parliament enacted the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 by Act No. 2 of 2005. Section 2 is the definition Clause. Section 2(f) deals with the definition of "minority" and says that the minority for the purpose of this Act means a community notified as such by the Central Government. Section 2(g) defines "Minority Education Institution" and it means a college or institution (other than a University) established or maintained by a person or group of persons from amongst the minorities. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the functions and powers of Commission. Section 11(f) gives powers to the Commission to decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as a Minority Educational Institution and declare its status as such. 12. The submissions advanced by the Standing Counsel are to be examined in light of the aforesaid provisions and the case laws. 13. The State Government has taken a specific stand that it is not granting minority status to an Institution in view of the judgment dated 24.8.2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006; Committee of Management, Inter College Dharaon, District Chandauli vs. State of U.P. and others. 13. The State Government has taken a specific stand that it is not granting minority status to an Institution in view of the judgment dated 24.8.2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006; Committee of Management, Inter College Dharaon, District Chandauli vs. State of U.P. and others. Moreover, unless and until the petitioner-institution is declared as a Minority Institution, it is not entitled to get benefit of Section 16-FF of Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 14. Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006 arises out of the judgment and order dated 13.7.2006 passed in writ petition no. 40433 of 2004; Committee of Management Dharaon Intermediate College, Dharaon, vs. State of U.P. and others. From the perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, it comes out that in the year 1990 a managerial dispute arose in the management committee in between Sri Anmol Singh and Sri Jiyawan Yadav and the litigation started. One Suhail Ahmad claiming himself to be the Manager of the Institution moved an application on 18.11.2000 before the District Inspector of Schools for declaring the institution as a minority institution. The DIOS forwarded the recommendation to the Joint Director, who in turn forwarded the same to the State Government. The State Government vide order dated 9.6.2004 declared the institution as a minority institution. The order granting minority status was assailed by the Committee of Management inter-alia on the ground that the institution, in question, could not be declared as a minority institution as it was neither established by minority community nor was administered by it. The learned Single Judge vide its judgment order dated 13.7.2006 quashed the aforesaid order dated 9.6.2004 as the Court found that the institution was administered as a normal institution following the rules and regulations applicable to such normal institution. Against the said judgment, the Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006 was filed and the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal observed that it is not for any State Government to grant any minority status to any institution nor even the Parliament or State Legislature can do it. A minority institution has to grow by itself. Only a competent Court of law can declare such status. 15. A minority institution has to grow by itself. Only a competent Court of law can declare such status. 15. Having perused the judgment passed in writ petition and the Special Appeal, I am of the definite opinion that no benefits can be derived by the State Government from the aforesaid judgment passed in the Special Appeal as the facts and circumstances of the present case are altogether different as there is no managerial dispute. Dharaon Intermediate College was not established initially as minority institution. The members of Committee of management were both Hindus and Muslims. Later on, one faction of the Managing Committee by amending the Bye laws of the Society lead by Suhail Ahmad got the status altered of the institution as a minority institution. In the instant case, as averred above, there is no managerial dispute. The three other institutions run by the society have already been declared by the State Government itself as the minority institution. Therefore, the above stand of the State Government is wholly misconceived. A judgment given in a case is to be applied looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. No where it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the facts of the petitioner's case are identical to the facts as involved in the aforesaid Special Appeal. In ICICI Bank and another vs. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay and others (2005) 6 SCC 404 it has been held that the ratio of the judgment or the principle upon which the question before the Court is decided is alone binding as a precedent and this must be ascertained and determined by analyzing all the material facts and issues involved in the case. In the matter of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363 the Apex Court said that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Court, divorced from the context of the question upon consideration and treat it to be the complete "law" declared by the Court. 16. The judgment and order dated 24.8.2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006 cannot be uniformly applied in all the cases relating to grant of minority status as the ratio of the judgment has to be determined from the material facts and issues involved in the case and argued on both the sides. 16. The judgment and order dated 24.8.2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 903 of 2006 cannot be uniformly applied in all the cases relating to grant of minority status as the ratio of the judgment has to be determined from the material facts and issues involved in the case and argued on both the sides. In Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi (1999) 6 SCC 44 the Apex Court in paragraph 10 of the report held as under:- " Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law." 17. It would be important to mention here that it is unfortunate that the Counsel for the parties while arguing the Special Appeal did not bring to the notice of the learned Division Bench the existence of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 as also the decision rendered in Manager, ST. Thomas U.P. School Kerala and another vs. Commissioner & Secy. to General Education Deptt. and others (2002) 2 SCC 497 wherein the Apex Court observed that the issue of the status of the School should have been left to the fact-finding authorities whether executive or judicial for determination in jurisdictions equipped for the purpose. Had the Counsel brought it to the notice of the Court, such a situation would not have arisen. Otherwise also, the intention of the Court while passing the aforesaid order was not to put embargo on the powers of the State Government in relation to declaration of an institution as minority institution. In true sense, the intention of the Bench was that if there is a dispute as to whether the Institution is a minority Institution or not, it should be decided by the Court alone. 18. In Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T. Jose and others (2007) 1 SCC 386 the questions cropped up before the Hon'ble Supreme were as under:- (1) To what extent, the State can regulate the right of the minorities to administer their educational institutions, when such institutions received aid from the State? 18. In Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T. Jose and others (2007) 1 SCC 386 the questions cropped up before the Hon'ble Supreme were as under:- (1) To what extent, the State can regulate the right of the minorities to administer their educational institutions, when such institutions received aid from the State? (II) Whether the right to choose a Principal is part of the right of minorities under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. If so, would Section 57(3) of the Act violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India? 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if any regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority institutions. The Hon'ble Apex Court also summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of educational institution by minorities:- (1) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice comprises the following rights: (a)to choose its governing body in whom the founders of the institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution; (b)to appoint teaching staff ( teachers/lecturers and Headmasters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff, and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees; (c)to admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable fee structure; (d)to use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution. (i)The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the minorities in a more advantageous position vis-à-vis the majority. There is no reverse discrimination in favour of minorities. The general laws of the land relating to national interest, national security, social welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation etc. applicable to all, will equally apply to minority institutions also. (ii)The right to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute. Nor does it include the right to mal-administer. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. Nor does it include the right to mal-administer. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of service of employees ( both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1). (iii)Subject to the eligibility conditions/qualifications prescribed by the State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions will have the freedom to appoint teachers/lecturers by adopting any rational procedure of selection. (iv)Extension of aid by the State does not alter the nature and character of the minority educational institution. Conditions can be imposed by the State to ensure proper utilisation of the aid. Without however diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1). 20. Under Article 30(1), all minorities whether based on religion or language, have been guaranteed the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. A minority institution established by a minority community would continue to be so whether Government declared it as such or not. The extension of aid by the State does not alter the nature and character of the minority educational institution. No doubt, conditions can be imposed by the State to ensure proper utilization of the aid, without however diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. In P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Mahrasthra (2005) 6 SCC 537 the Apex Court in paragraph 97 of the report observed as under:- "The object underlying Article 30(1) is to see the desire of minorities being fulfilled that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and acquire eligibility for higher university education and go out in the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering public services, educational institutions imparting higher instructions including general secular education. Thus, the twin objects sought to be achieved by Article 30(1) in the interest of minorities are: (I) to enable such minority to conserve its religion and language, and (ii) to give a thorough, good, general education to children belong to such minority. So long as the institution retains its minority character by achieving and continuing to achieve the above said two objectives, the institution would remain a minority institution. 21. In view of the aforesaid reasons and legal position, the arguments advanced by the Standing Counsel are not tenable and it cannot be accepted for another reason too. They have taken the plea that the decision in the matter of the petitioner's institution could not be taken in view of the restraint order 24.8.2006 passed in Special Appeal. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has made an specific averment that even after the aforesaid order, the State Government has declared many institutions as minority educational institution. He has brought on record a copy of the notification dated 16th November, 2006 whereby in all 29 institutions were declared as Minority educational Institution. There is no denial of this fact by the Standing Counsel in any of the pleadings. Therefore, the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary, and unjustified but is also discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 22. The Petitioner-institution, as stated above, has already been granted minority educational institution by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, which is a creature of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 enacted by the Parliament. Needless to mention that after grant of certificate as per the Statute, the order to be passed by the State Government is merely a formality. Therefore, there was no occasion for the opposite parties nos. 5 to 8 in not treating the institution as minority educational institution and allowing the institution to fill up the sanctioned strength of posts. As the institution has been established by the minority and has also been declared as a minority educational institution by the Commission, referred to above, it is fully competent to appoint teachers staff as also non-teaching staff and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees as held in Syrian Catholic College (Supra). 23. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. 23. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to directing the opposite parties to treat the Institution as a minority educational institution in view of the certificate dated 14.12.2006 granted by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution and pass necessary orders on the recommendation of the District Inspector of School dated 31.5.2005 within a period of two months. 24. No order as to costs.