JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. Many a time, litigations are launched accepting the minority status of Educational Institutions when attempts are made by it, to either appoint its Headmaster/Principal from among qualified teachers without adverting to their inter se seniority; or when admissions are sought to be made to the community quota, asserting their rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 2. Going by the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, starting from In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 ( AIR 1958 SC 956 ), it has been well settled that Minority Educational Institutions have the right to appoint their own Heads of Institution, provided the incumbent is qualified as per the Rules, without having to adhere to the inter se seniority among such persons. This privilege is given to a Minority Institution in variation to the normative Rule that the senior most teacher should always be preferred for such appointment and this has its hypostasis on the inviolable right of such Institutions to manage their own affairs under the constitutional imperative of Article 30(1). 3. The case at hand is no different because the petitioner herein is stated to be the senior most teacher of the St. Peter’s Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kolencherry (‘School’ for short) and she says that she had been working as its Principal-in-charge for several years; but that when it came to the appointment of a regular Principal, her claims have been jettisoned, while the fifth respondent, Smt. Honey John Thenumgal, who is a junior HSST in Botany, has been preferred. 4. The petitioner says that the Management of the school could not have appointed Smt. Honey John Thenumgal as the Principal since, going by Rules 4 and 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (‘KER’ for short), only the senior most qualified Higher Secondary School Teacher is eligible to be appointed as such, in addition to appointment by transfer from qualified Headmasters of aided High Schools under the respective Educational Agency. 5. The petitioner, pointing out to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, further asserts that a teacher is eligible to be appointed as Principal, inter-alia, if he or she acquires twelve years of approved teaching experience with the same Educational Agency; and that the senior most among them will thereafter be entitled to be appointed to such post. 5. The petitioner, pointing out to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the KER, further asserts that a teacher is eligible to be appointed as Principal, inter-alia, if he or she acquires twelve years of approved teaching experience with the same Educational Agency; and that the senior most among them will thereafter be entitled to be appointed to such post. The petitioner says that since no teacher in the school had requisite experience until now, she was continuing as the Principal-in-charge and that during this period she acquired qualification of twelve years of teaching experience. She thus claims full eligibility and entitlement to be appointed as a regular Principal of the school and accuses the management of not considering her, but in attempting to appoint the fifth respondent- Smt. Honey Rose Thenumgal, in blatant violation of the statutory requirements. 6. Sri. Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, predicated that the sole reason that appears to be banked upon by the management of the school in denying his client’s rightful position as a Principal and in choosing a junior teacher, namely the fifth respondent, to be appointed to such post, is that they assert to be a Minority Institution, thus being entitled to appoint a person of their choice, without being constrained by the rigor of the requirement of seniority under the afore Rules. Sri. Elvin Peter submits that the school cannot be allowed to do so, unless they are either recognised to be a Minority Educational Institution by the Government or until they are able to obtain a certificate to such effect from the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (for short ‘the Commission’). 7. Sri. Elvin Peter further vehemently submits that the school in question is neither declared as a Minority Educational Institution by the Government, nor have they obtained any certificate from the Commission until now and therefore, that they can only appoint his client as the Principal of the school and no one else. 8. In substantiation of his afore contentions, Sri. Elvin Peter shows me Ext.P15 judgment of this Court, wherein, while considering the admission of students in the school in the minority quota, it had been made clear that they would be allowed to do so only if they are able to produce a certificate from the Commission, declaring their status as a Minority Educational Institution. Sri. Elvin Peter shows me Ext.P15 judgment of this Court, wherein, while considering the admission of students in the school in the minority quota, it had been made clear that they would be allowed to do so only if they are able to produce a certificate from the Commission, declaring their status as a Minority Educational Institution. Sri. Elvin Peter thus argues that it is ineluctable from the afore that the school is yet to be declared as a Minority Educational Institution and that in the absence of the same, they cannot be allowed to flout the unequivocal provisions of Rules 4 and 6 of Chapter XXXII of the KER. He thus prays that the fourth respondent-Manager of the school be directed to appoint his client as the Principal of the school forthwith, with effect from 07.01.2010, when she had been first given the charge of the Principal, with all consequential benefits. 9. The afore assertions of Sri. Elvin Peter is opposed by Sri. George Poonthottam, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri. Arun Chandran, learned counsel for the fourth respondent-Manager of the school, with equal vehemence by contending that, as has been declared affirmatively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Ammad vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 674 , the management of a Minority Aided School obtains unrestricted freedom to appoint any person as its Head and that statutory provisions to the contrary would not apply to them. The learned senior counsel, thereafter, submitted that the status of an Institution as the Minority Educational Institution is not created for the first time when there is a declaration by the Government or when a certificate from the Commission is obtained, but that it is a fact which continues and which merely obtains a reiteration, either through such declaration or the issuance of the said certificate. 10. 10. The learned senior counsel then submitted that, in the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency vs. James Mathew, (2017) 4 KHC 83 , these aspects have been restated and ingeminated and therefore, that the contention of the petitioner - that unless the school is either declared as a Minority Educational Institution by the Government or until they are able to obtain certificate to such effect from the Commission, it cannot claim to be a Minority Educational Institution - is untenable and that once such a declaration or certificate is obtained, it only restates a pre-existing fact and nothing more. 11. Sri. George Poonthottam added to his afore submissions saying that a counter affidavit has been filed on record by his client, wherein, it has been crystally averred that the school is owned by the St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Kolenchery and managed by the St. Peter’s High School and Training School Corporate Management. He explained that school has been established and managed by the St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Kolenchery, as a Minority Educational Institution, guaranteed all rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution; and that the school has a century of history, being managed and administered by the aforementioned Church. 12. To fortify his case, the learned senior counsel then said that, in fact, there was a dispute regarding the management of the school, which travelled all the way up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, finally being settled by its judgment, dated 19.11.2018, in SLP (C) No. 25733-25736/2014, which is often cited as K.S. Varghese and Others vs. St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Syrian Orthodox and Others, 2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC), wherein it has been conclusively affirmed that the management of the School can only be done as per the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and by no other; consequently, making it ineluctable that it is a Minority Educational Institution for all purposes, notwithstanding whether there is a declaration by the Government or whether a certificate has been issued by the Commission. 13. The learned senior counsel concluded his arguments by saying that, as a matter of fact, as early as in the year 1992, when the issue as to the status of the St. 13. The learned senior counsel concluded his arguments by saying that, as a matter of fact, as early as in the year 1992, when the issue as to the status of the St. Peter’s T.T.I. Kolencherry - which is one managed by the same corporate management - arose before this Court, it was conceded by the Government that they do not contest such status and that O.P. No. 5834/1992 had been disposed of on such terms, as is evident from Ext.R4(d) judgment. The learned senior counsel, therefore, insisted that the petitioner cannot now assert that she has a statutory right to be appointed as a Principal, especially when she does not even whisper that the school is not a Minority Educational Institution. 14. The learned senior Government Pleader, Smt. Nisha Bose, made submissions virtually in favour of the petitioner, but not to the extent that she should be appointed as the Principal; however, contending that the School cannot claim to be a Minority Educational Institution until they are either declared so by the Government or until they obtain a competent certificate from the Commission. According to her, it is not sufficient for an Educational Institution to maintain that they are a Minority Educational Institution, but that it will have to be supported and validated by them by obtaining either the declaration from the Government or the certificate from the Commission and that the judgment of this Court in Corporate Manager, St. Roch’s HS/TTI/LPS and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, ILR 2019 (2) Ker. 333, has declared decisively that merely because one of the Institutions under a corporate management has been either declared by the Government or certified by the Commission to be a Minority Institution, it will not automatically inure to the other institutions under it, without they having obtained separate declarations/certificates. The learned senior Government Pleader also, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed to such extent. 15. Sri. N. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, submitted that his client is wholly qualified to be the Principal of the School and was so validly appointed by order, dated 12.10.2020, produced as Exhibit R4(b), since the School is owned by the St. Peters and St. Pauls Orthodox Syrian Church, thus being competent to appoint a person of their choice de hors the rigor of seniority among the teachers. Peters and St. Pauls Orthodox Syrian Church, thus being competent to appoint a person of their choice de hors the rigor of seniority among the teachers. He thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed. 16. As is limpid from the afore narration of the un-expendable facts and contentions/ assertions of the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the parties, the singular question for my consideration is whether the school can claim to be a Minority Educational Institution, without it being specifically declared so by the Government or without it obtaining a certification to that effect from the Commission. This is the lone issue which is at the heart of this case and it would decide the fate of the petitioner, since if this Court is to find in favour of this proposition, then she would certainly be entitled to be appointed as the Principal; while if it is to the contrary, then the School will be entitled to appoint any qualified teacher, including the fifth respondent, as its Principal, without having to follow the rule of seniority under Chapter XXXII of the KER. 17. As has been already seen above, Sri. Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader, Smt. Nisha Bose, rely upon St. Roch’s HS (supra) to assert that only that particular Institution, which is declared to be Minority Educational Institution by the Commission, will obtain such benefit and that every other Institution under the same Corporate Management will have to obtain certification individually and relating to themselves, if it is to claim analogous benefit. 18. When I examine St. Roch’s HS (supra) carefully, it is indubitable - as is also admitted by Sri. Elvin Peter - that many of the observations therein are based on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Manager, M.M.L.P. School, Panayappilly and Others vs. V.B. Sajitha and Others, ILR 2014 (2) Ker. 822. When one reads paragraph 9 of St. Roch’s HS (supra) along with paragraph 10, it is clear that the findings therein - that every individual institution of a Corporate Management should obtain certification from the Commission regarding its minority status and that a certificate issued to one institution cannot be inure to the benefit of another under it - has been entered solely based on V.B. Sajitha (supra). There can be no doubt about this when one reads paragraph 10 of the said judgment which is as under: “The St. Roch’s H.S. was established long back and has been functioning for the past many years. Therefore, only the NCMEI in exercise of power under Section 11(f) of the Act, can declare its status as a Minority Educational Institution. In that view of the matter, even the appeals filed by the school under Section 12A(1) and 12B(1) against Ext.P15, treating Ext.P15 to be an order issued under Section 10(1) of the Act may not be of benefit, since only the NCMEI is conferred with the power to declare the minority status of an institution, post establishment. Going by the decision of the Division Bench in Manager, M.M.L.P. School’s case, the first appellant can effect appointment to the post of Headmaster de hors the requirement of effecting appointment according to seniority, as stipulated under Rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the KER, only after the St. Roch’s H.S. Thope is declared to be a Minority Educational Institution by the NCMEI. The fact that the previous Head masters were appointed considering seniority and that such appointments, though not proper, was approved does not confer the first appellant any right to perpetuate the impropriety and to clamour for negative equity.” 19. That said, V.B. Sajitha (supra) was taken up in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, finally culminating in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency vs. James Mathew and Others, 2017 (15) SCC 595 , which overruled the said judgment and held that the declarations therein, particularly that the minority status to an Institution would become available to it only from the date on which a certificate to such effect is issued by the Commission, has been found to be not good law. 20. Obviously, therefore, the views of the Division Bench of this Court in St. Roch’s HS (supra), which is based on V.B. Sajitha (supra), would also have no legs to stand upon, after James Mathew (supra) had been delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. I am also cognizant that this issue had been later again considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Manager, St. Paul’s H.S.S. Kozhinjampara vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2020 (2) KHC 145 (DB), in which, after analysing the findings in V.B. Sajitha (supra); the observations in St. 21. I am also cognizant that this issue had been later again considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Manager, St. Paul’s H.S.S. Kozhinjampara vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2020 (2) KHC 145 (DB), in which, after analysing the findings in V.B. Sajitha (supra); the observations in St. Roch’s HS (supra) and the declarations in James Mathew (supra), a learned Bench held specifically as under: “According to us, the only question to be considered is whether the school had been established by a minority community or not. According to the petitioners, the school was initially established by Coimbatore Diocese headed by the Bishop of Diocese who was the religious head of Tamil Catholic Christians in Kerala. They established 7 Aided Schools to cater to the educational needs of Tamil Christians residing at Palakkad District and St. Paul’s Higher Secondary school is one among them. These 7 schools were later brought under the administrative control of Bishop of Sulthanpet Diocese and the Congregation of Franciscan sister of Mary continued to be the Corporate Manager of the 6 schools and Vicar of St. Sebastian’s Cathedral Church Sultanpet was appointed as Manager of St. Paul’s Higher Secondary School. The first question to be answered is whether without a certification from the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI), the institution can claim minority status. As already stated, ‘minority’ means a minority group in the country and Christians are also considered to be a minority group. When members of Christian community establish an educational institution, it becomes a minority educational institution. Section 10 of the 2004 Act apparently insists for grant of ‘no-objection certificate’ to enable any person who desires to establish a minority educational institution, in which event the competent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. If the competent authority does not grant such a certificate within ninety days from the receipt of the application, it shall be deemed that the competent authority has granted a no objection certificate to the applicant. Sub-Section (4) of Section 10 states that if the no objection certificate is granted or it is deemed to have been granted, the person shall be entitled to commence and proceed with the establishment of a Minority Educational Institution in accordance with the rules and regulations.” 22. Sub-Section (4) of Section 10 states that if the no objection certificate is granted or it is deemed to have been granted, the person shall be entitled to commence and proceed with the establishment of a Minority Educational Institution in accordance with the rules and regulations.” 22. As is perspicuous from the afore extracted opinion of the learned Division Bench, it has been unambiguously concluded that even without certification from the Commission, an Institution can claim minority status, if it has been established by members of Christian Community - they being a minority group - thus being automatically eligible to be construed as a Minority Educational Institution. 23. These findings of the Division Bench are binding on me; and in any event, I do not find any reason to differ from the same, particularly going by the conclusive views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Ammad (supra) and James Mathew (supra). 24. That being said, what is of acme relevance and importance to this case is the further observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 14 of St. Paul’s H.S.S. (supra) that “ there is no mandate that all the minority institutions should approach the competent authority and should get its status declared. Only when a question arises as to whether the institution is a minority institution or not, the Management is required to approach the competent authority for a declaration of status”. This observation in the judgment assumes specific relevance herein because, though the management of the School asserts strongly that it is a Minority Educational Institution - it having been established by the Church under the ambit of the constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church - no where in the pleadings or record or even in submissions made on her behalf, has the petitioner asserted to the contrary. 25. In fact, I must record that when this matter was considered earlier, I had specifically asked Sri. Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner, whether his client has a case that the school in question is not a Minority Educational Institution and as to whether she intends to amend this writ petition or to file reply to the pleadings of the School to such effect. However, Sri. Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the petitioner, whether his client has a case that the school in question is not a Minority Educational Institution and as to whether she intends to amend this writ petition or to file reply to the pleadings of the School to such effect. However, Sri. Elvin Peter today submitted that his client does not have a case that the School is not a Minority Educational Institution; but that even if it be so, it can obtain the benefits under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India only if it is declared to be so by the Government or if it obtains certification to such effect from the Commission. 26. Interestingly, this is the same line of argument impelled by the learned senior Government Pleader, Smt. Nisha Bose. 27. It is thus without requirement for further expatiation that both the petitioner and the Government maintain that even if the School is a Minority Educational Institution - in any case, not able to prove otherwise with cogent and reliable materials - it will be entitled to seek the privileges under Article 30(1) of the Constitution only once a valid certification to that effect is made by the Commission. 28. However, in the light of the observations in St. Paul’s H.S.S. (supra), the afore assertions present an un-surmountable problem to the petitioner, as also to the Government because, as I have already said above, in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, the indubitable declaration is that all Minority Institutions need not approach the National Commission or other competent authority for its status to be declared and that it is only when a question is raised to impeach such assertion of theirs, will it require them to do so. 29. In other words, since the School in question asserts to be Minority Educational Institution, its management is not obligated, in any manner, to prove anything or to approach the commission to prove themselves to be so, as long as this assertion of theirs is not challenged or even questioned. 30. In that perspective, when the pleadings available on record, particularly those in the writ petition, makes it manifest that the petitioner has not even susurratingly alleged that the School in question is not a Minority Institution; while the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent is to the unmistakable affirmation that they are managed by the St. 30. In that perspective, when the pleadings available on record, particularly those in the writ petition, makes it manifest that the petitioner has not even susurratingly alleged that the School in question is not a Minority Institution; while the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent is to the unmistakable affirmation that they are managed by the St. Peter’s High School and Training School Corporate Management’ and owned by the St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Kolenchery, it is rendered apodictic that the Management is not required to prove what is not alleged. 31. Moreover, going by K.S. Varghese (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the Institutions owned by the Churches - which are part of the Orthodox Malankara Syrian Church - can only be managed within the confines of its 1934 Constitution and obviously, therefore, when the fourth respondent maintains that the school in question is owned by a constituent Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and thus a Minority Educational Institution, it was at least for the petitioner to plead otherwise. The fact that she has consciously chosen to do so, even after I offered her the opportunity to amend or supplement her pleadings, spins this case away from her. 32. As regards the Government, it defies logical comprehension how they maintain that the School can be construed to be a Minority Educational Institution only if a certificate is obtained by them from the National Commission, because, when one goes through Exhibit R4(a) - which is an order of the DEO dated 19.01.2019 approving the change of management of the school - it is clear that the said authority has also recognised the School to be one governed by the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, since it unreservedly records that the “election of Fr. C.M. Kuriakose as the Manager of the School has been approved in the Kalpana No. 37/2017 dated 03.05.2017 of the Methrapolitha of Malankara Orthodox Suriyani Sabha Kandanad (W) Bhadrasana Idavaka” ( sic). The said order proceeds to further state as under: “As per the ref. 4, 5, 6 above the change of Management without involving change of ownership of St. Peters Vocational and Higher Secondary School and Teachers Training School, Kolenchery has approved this office in respect of Fr. C.M. Kuriakose for the period of 5 years from 01.04.2012. The said order proceeds to further state as under: “As per the ref. 4, 5, 6 above the change of Management without involving change of ownership of St. Peters Vocational and Higher Secondary School and Teachers Training School, Kolenchery has approved this office in respect of Fr. C.M. Kuriakose for the period of 5 years from 01.04.2012. Under the circumstances as per the reference cited 1, 2, 3 above the change of management without involving change of ownership of St. Peters Vocational and Higher Secondary School and Teachers Training School, Kolenchery is hereby approved in terms with Rule 4(1) of Chapter III of KER in respect of Fr. C.M. Kuriakose, Chelattu, Kolenchery for another 5 years from 01.04.2017.” 33. To summate, as long as the petitioner has no case that the School is not a Minority Educational Institution, which is virtually - if not expressly - admitted, there being no averments to such effect in her pleadings or even in the oral submissions made on her behalf, I fail to gather how any authority, including the Government can speak in variance to the specific declarations in St. Paul’s H.S.S. (supra). 34. In the afore circumstances, I cannot find favour with the petitioner and am compelled to dismiss this writ petition. It is so ordered. Consequently, the educational authorities are directed to consider the proposal to be submitted by the school for appointment of the fifth respondent, subject to her having all necessary qualifications and eligibility as per the Kerala Education Rules.