JUDGMENT : This writ petition raises a question as to the meaning of word 'establish and administer' educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 2. Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School was established in the year 1951 by late N.K. Kunjikrishnan Nair. He was a member of Kerala State Legislative Assembly. The School was purchased by the Jesuit Educational and Charitable Society of Wayanad in the year 1990. They appear to have invested money in infrastructure and development of the School. Thus, the aforesaid Society became a corporate educational agency. By an order of Government of India dated 21.07.2001, the Sarvodaya High School administered by the Society was declared as a minority educational institution within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. 3. The present dispute leading to filing of the writ petition has arisen in the context of appointment of a Headmaster. Petitioner, Sri.Francis C.V., joined the School as HSA in the year 1987. Manager has chosen to appoint Father Wilson T.A., the 9th respondent as the Headmaster of the School with effect from 01.04.2015. Admittedly, Fr.Wilson is junior to the petitioner. 4. There can't be any dispute as to the right of the manager of the minority institute to choose Head of an Institution. The challenge made by the petitioner before the departmental hierarchy ended in rejection. Taking note of the rights of minority educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has now confined his attack on the decision of the Government of India declaring minority status to the School. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out to the fact that the School wasestablished by late N.K. Kunjikrishnan Nair, the individual belong to non-minority community, argue that minority status can be claimed only if both conditions referred under Article 30(1) are established. The argument is that the words “establish and administer” in Article 30(1) must be read conjunctively to gain protection. Since the School was brought into existence by a non-minority individual, it was argued that merely based on right to administer school, the institution cannot claim protection under Article 30(1). The learned counsel has placed reliance on S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India[ AIR 1968 SC 662 ]. 6. Apex Court in Azeez Basha's case had occasioned to consider amplitude of Article 30(1). The learned counsel has placed reliance on S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India[ AIR 1968 SC 662 ]. 6. Apex Court in Azeez Basha's case had occasioned to consider amplitude of Article 30(1). It was held that words “establish and administer” in Article 30(1) must be read conjunctively. It was a case challenging an enactment relating to Aligarh Muslim University. Facts would go on to show that Muslim minority had established M.A.O. College and voluntarily surrendered the property, including the college building to the corporate body created under Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. It is in that context the Apex Court referred to the meaning of establish and administer under Article 30(1). After referring to Azeez Basha's case, in similar fact situation to this case, a Single Judge of this Court in Rt.Rev.Dr.Aldo Maria Patroni S.J. and another v. the Assistant Educational Officer (AIR 1974 Kerala 197) held as follows: “even if an institution previously run by some other organisation is subsequently taken over by a minority community and run by it, it must be held that it was established by that minority community.” 7. The above judgment was also followed by Karnataka High Court in Dr.T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [ILR 1985 Karnataka 1056] and further elaborated opining that expression established in Article 30 includes not only the founding of institution, but also securing the ownership of an already founded institution, which means re-establishment of the institution under the new management and owner. 8. In etymological sense, the word “establish” means founding or creation. However, it can have a different meaning in constitutional context, which is not just limited to bringing into existence through founding. The Constitution is a living document. It must be capable to encompass all situation in which rights are intend to be protected. The word establish cannot be understood in isolation of the object and purpose of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The main object of the Article is to accord protection to minority and to create the sense of feeling that they have equal rights with the majority and to bring up institutions to compete with any other institution of excellence. Thus an educational institution purchased by minority and dedicated for the cause of minority would also fall within the meaning of establish. Thus establish would embrace giving life and soul to any existing institution through dedication. Thus an educational institution purchased by minority and dedicated for the cause of minority would also fall within the meaning of establish. Thus establish would embrace giving life and soul to any existing institution through dedication. Merely because an institution was originally brought into existence or founded by a non-minority individual itself will not take the institution out of the ambit of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Purchase of an institution by a minority or dedicating an institution to minority would amount to bringing such institution within the folds of “establish” as referred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Thus challenge to the minority status must fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.