( 1 ) THIS is the second time that the petition has come up for hearing before the court. Earlier by our order dated 24/05/1984, the petition had been dismissed on the ground that in view of the consistent stand taken by him throughout his tenure as a principal of the institution that it was a minority institution, it was not open to the petitioner to turn round and contend that it was not a minority institution and, therefore, the disciplinary action initiated against him by the Management was subject to the control of the educational authorities under Section 16g (3) of the Intermediate Education Act. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. By its order dated 29/10/1984, the Supreme Court granted Special Leave to the petitioner letting aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the case for the determination of the question whether the institution is or is not a minority institution.

( 2 ) UPON remand, we heard learned counsel for the parties again at some length on the issue whether the institution of which the petitioner was the principal, bears the character of a minority institution protected by Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, the main and t