Judgment : A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. Both these Writ Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule in both Writ Petitions made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 3. Writ petition no.2781 of 2013 has been preferred by the Muslim Education Society, Wardha being aggrieved by the deletion of its name from the list of Minority Institutions in Vidarbha. Consequentially, the communication dated 642013 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Wardha is also challenged as in said communication, the name of the petitioner Society has not been shown as running a Minority School. According to said Society, on 1-6-1994, the Dy. Director of Education – respondent No.4 had issued a communication recognizing the High School and Junior College run by said Society as a School run by the Minority Society and permission was, therefore, granted in terms of provisions of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) to fill in four posts as envisaged in said provision. According to the Society, since said date, the School run by the Society is being managed and administered as a minority Institution. According to the Society even in the list of Minority Institutes its name was shown as being such institute since said date and even thereafter as per communication dated 2-5-2012 issued by respondent No.5. However, for the first time by communication dated 6-4-2013, it was noticed that the name of the petitioner institute was not included in the list of minority institutes for Wardha District. Being aggrieved by the deletion of its name from the list of minority institutions the Society has preferred the above writ petitions. 4. Writ Petition No.2480 of 2013 has been preferred by an Assistant Teacher working in the High School and Junior College that is administered by the Muslim Education Society, Wardha. According to the petitioner, he being duly qualified and the senior most Assistant Teacher, he was entitled to be appointed as Head Master of said School. However, disregarding the seniority, the management had appointed respondent No.5 as the Head Master. According to the petitioner, he being duly qualified and the senior most Assistant Teacher, he was entitled to be appointed as Head Master of said School. However, disregarding the seniority, the management had appointed respondent No.5 as the Head Master. Initially, the present respondent No.5 had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4474 of 2012 being aggrieved by the rejection of the proposal for grant of approval to his appointment as the Head Master. This Court by the judgment dated 13-2-2013 remanded the matter to the Education Officer to reconsider the entire matter including the communication dated 1-6-1994 issued by the Dy. Director of Education holding said Institute entitled to benefit of provisions of Section 3(2) of the said Act. Pursuant to said order of remand, the Education Officer (Secondary) by communication dated 10-4-2013 held respondent No.5 eligible to hold the post of Head Master from 1-1-2012 in view of the minority status of the said Institute. This communication issued by respondent No.1 upholding the entitlement of respondent No.5 as Head Master is the subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition. 5. Shri S. S. Sanyal the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2781 of 2013 has submitted that the status of the petitioner Society as running minority School was recognized way back on 1-6-1994. The said status continued for all these years and by communication dated 6-4-2013, for the first time, the name of the petitioner's Institute was deleted from the list of minority institutions. This deletion was effected without any due notice to the petitioner Society and hence, the same was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the recognition as a minority institute conferred certain benefits to the petitioner Society in view of provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and the same could not be taken away without complying with the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that various Government Resolutions and Circulars were issued by the State in this regard and it was clear that the status of the petitioner Society as running a minority institute was never in doubt. The Government Resolutions dated 20-2-2002, 27-7-2006, 11-6-2007 and 4-7-2008 were referred in that regard. It was further submitted that various Government Resolutions and Circulars were issued by the State in this regard and it was clear that the status of the petitioner Society as running a minority institute was never in doubt. The Government Resolutions dated 20-2-2002, 27-7-2006, 11-6-2007 and 4-7-2008 were referred in that regard. In any event, it was submitted that if such minority status was required to be withdrawn, the same could have been done by giving due prior notice as stipulated in Circular dated 15-4-2002. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned action of deleting the name of the petitioner Society from the list of minority institutions was liable to be set aside. 6. The Dy. Director of Education, Nagpur and the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Wardha have filed their replies on record. The respondent No.4 – Dy. Director of Education in the reply has stated that in terms of Circular dated 15-4-2002 even if the School run by the petitioner Society was recognized as a minority institute, it was required to seek fresh recognition as per Government Resolution dated 20-2-2002. The Education Officer (Secondary) Wardha has, relying upon the same G. R. dated 20-2-2002, stated that it was necessary for the petitioner to have submitted a fresh proposal for getting the status as a Society running a minority institute. Said authorities, therefore, submitted that the deletion of name of the petitioner Society was valid as it had not obtained recognition as a minority institute as per Government Resolution dated 20-2-2002. 7. The fate of Writ Petition No.2480 of 2013 depends upon the outcome of Writ Petition No.2781 of 2013. If it is found that the petitioner Society continues to enjoy the status as a minority institute then in view of provisions of Section 3(2) of the said Act, it would be entitled to appoint a Head Master of its choice and the issue of seniority, which is the basis of claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2480/2013, would no longer be available. Hence, it would be necessary to first consider the issue as regards status of the petitioner Society of being one which is running a minority institute. 8. Hence, it would be necessary to first consider the issue as regards status of the petitioner Society of being one which is running a minority institute. 8. It is not in dispute that on 1-6-1994 respondent No.4 had granted permission to the petitioner Society to fill in four posts in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(2) of the said Act as the High School and Junior College in question was being administered by a minority institute. It is further not in dispute that till issuance of communication dated 6-4-2013, the name of the petitioner Society as running a minority Institute continued. The name of the petitioner Society was deleted from the list of such Societies without due notice to the petitioner Society. Perusal of various Government Resolutions and Circulars indicate that the same deal with the manner in which minority status is required to be accorded to any Society seeking the same. As per Government Resolution dated 20-2-2002, especially, Clause (4aa) thereof, it has been stated that with regard to those institutions that were already recognized as minority institutions prior to 29-1-2001, the said Government Resolution would not be applicable to such institutions. According to respondent nos.4 & 5, it is in view of this Government Resolution dated 20-2-2002 that the petitioner Society was required to apply for recognition of its minority status and it not having so applied was, therefore, not eligible for continuation as a minority institute. Similarly, the Circular dated 15-4-2002 specifically notes that those institutions that have been granted minority status either by the Dy. Director of Education or the Education Officer would have to apply pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 20-2-2002. Said circular, however, specifically directs that such status or certificate if granted by the Dy. Director of Education or the Education Officer should be cancelled after giving prior notice to such institution. 9. It is, therefore, clear from the documents on record that the petitioner Society was granted status as a minority institute by the Dy. Director of Education on 1-6-1994. If such status which was in operation since said date was required to be withdrawn then in terms of Circular dated 15-4-2002 the petitioner Society was entitled to prior notice in that regard. It is not in dispute that no such prior notice before withdrawal of minority status was given to the petitioner Society. Director of Education on 1-6-1994. If such status which was in operation since said date was required to be withdrawn then in terms of Circular dated 15-4-2002 the petitioner Society was entitled to prior notice in that regard. It is not in dispute that no such prior notice before withdrawal of minority status was given to the petitioner Society. The grant of minority status and the benefits flowing therefrom confer rights on the society to which such status is granted. The effect of provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India also cannot be ignored. Hence, the arbitrary deletion of the name of the petitioner Society from the list of minority institutions from Vidarbha Region is contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as Circular dated 15-4-2002. The status as granted by communication dated 1-6-1994 could not have been withdrawn in such a manner. Hence, we find that even in terms of circular dated 15-4-2002, the minority status as granted by communication dated 1-6-1994 cannot be withdrawn without giving prior notice in that regard. We, therefore, hold that deletion of the name of the petitioner Society from the list of minority Institutions for Vidarbha Region is bad in law as said action has been undertaken without any prior notice and in violation of Circular dated 15-4-2002. The respondent Nos.4 & 5 are, therefore, directed to include the name of the petitioner Institute in the list of Societies running minority Schools. The impugned action in that regard is, therefore, set aside. It is, however, clarified that the respondents are free to consider the applicability of Government Resolution dated 20-2-2002 as well as effect of clause (4aa) thereof. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms in Writ Petition No.2781 of 2013 with no orders as to costs. 10. As it has been found that the minority status of Muslim Education Society, Wardha has been wrongly withdrawn and said status continues, it is obvious that said Society would be entitled to the benefits flowing from the provisions of Section 3(2) of the said Act. The appointment of respondent No.5 as Head Master having been made in view of the rights conferred by Section 3(2) of the said Act, the claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2480 of 2013 on the post of Head Master on the basis of seniority cannot be accepted. The appointment of respondent No.5 as Head Master having been made in view of the rights conferred by Section 3(2) of the said Act, the claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2480 of 2013 on the post of Head Master on the basis of seniority cannot be accepted. His challenge to the post of Head Master on the basis of seniority, therefore, fails. Writ Petition No.2480 of 2013 is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged in that regard with no orders as to costs. By way of interim order dated 19-12-2013, it had been directed that respondent No.5 would draw the salary as an Assistant Teacher until further orders. As it has been found that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2480 of 2013 is not eligible to be appointed as Head Master, respondent No.5 is entitled to be paid salary as Head Master. The arrears in that regard be released in favour of respondent No.5 within a period of eight weeks from today.