IMPORTANT POINTS:
" Only the NCMEI in exercise of power under Section 11(f) of the Act, can declare its status as a Minority Educational Institution.
" 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.

Arun, J.

The appellant in both the Writ Appeals is the Corporate Manager of the St. Roch's Group of Educational Institutions, Thope and the Headmistress of the St. Roch's High School, Thope, an educational institution under the Corporate Management. The question that arise for consideration in these appeals is whether, the minority status granted to one educational institution under a Corporate Management having multiple educational institutions would inure to the benefit of the other educational institutions under that Management or in other words, whether conferment of minority status to one educational institution under it would render the Corporate Management a minority educational agency.

2. The short facts leading up to the Writ Appeals are as under: -

For the purpose of identification the parties are described as per their status in W.A.No.802 of 2019. The first appellant had posted the second appellant as Teacher in-charge at the St. Roch's High School, Thope from 1.4.2015, consequent upon the Headmistress of the school entering on leave. Thereafter, on 1.6.2015, the second appellant was appointed as Headmistress of the school when the incumbent vacated office by opting for voluntary retirement. Even though the 6th respondent had a superior claim for appointment as Teacher-in-charge and Headmistress under Rule 23 of Chapter XIVA KER, the first appellant had appointed the second appellant overlooking the claim of the sixth respondent, in purported exercise of the managements minority right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Though the proposal for appointment of the second appellant was forwarded, the District Educational Officer refused to approve the appointment of the second appellant citing the reason that the school did not have minority status and therefore the Rule 43 claimant, who was the senior most teacher, ought to have been appointed as Teacher-in-charge and Head Mistress.

3. Revision petition filed before the Director of Public Instruction was rejected on the ground that neither the Government of Kerala nor the Minority Commission had declared the St. Roch's High School as a minority institution. The first appellant approached the Government for a clarification that St. Roch’s High School is an educational institution having minority status, since the St. Roch's T.T.I Thope under the Management was already declared to be a minority institution, the Government rejected the request. It was stated that the mechanism for granting minority status certificates had not been established in the State and that the request for grant of minority status should be taken up after such mechanism was established. The Government further directed the District Educational Officer to obtain proposal from the Management for approval of appointment of the senior most teacher as Headmistress. The first appellant again moved the Government in revision requesting to approve the appointment of the second appellant as Headmistress from 1.6.2015, treating the St. Roch's High School as a minority institution. This revision also having been rejected, the appellants approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.5705 of 2018, seeking to quash the adverse orders, to declare the St. Roch's High School as a minority educational institution, to declare the appointment of the second appellant as valid and consequently to approve the appointment of the second appellant.

4. While so, on the strength of the direction issued by the Government to appoint the senior most teacher as Headmistress, the 6th respondent filed WP(C) No.7851 of 2018 seeking a declaration that she is eligible and entitled to be appointed as Teacher-in charge and Headmistress of the St. Roch's High School and for a direction to the first appellant to appoint her as Teacher-in-charge and Headmistress with retrospective effect from 1.4.2015 and 1.6.2015 respectively. The learned Single Judge heard both Writ Petitions together and by the common judgment, which is