Kamaraj Memorial Higher Secondary SchoolPanthaluvilai, Manjalumoodu Post,Kanayakumari District 629 151 v. The Government of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.8.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.BASHAW.P.No.15085 of 2009& M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009Kamaraj Memorial Higher Secondary SchoolPanthaluvilai, Manjalumoodu Post,Kanayakumari District 629 151Represented by its Manager / CorrespondentA.Kamalan.. PetitionerVs.1.The Government of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 0063.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.4.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsherein and their subordinates to treat the petitioner institutionas linguistic minority institution as already declared by the CivilCourt in O.S.No.117 of 1992 (Principal District Munsif Court,Nagercoil) and consequently, forbearing the 4th respondent frominsisting upon the petitioner of minority declaration from the 1strespondent Government while considering the approval of theappointments made by the petitioner herein.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravichandara BaabuFor Respondents :Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, Govt.Advocate(Education) O R D E RBy mutual consent of the learned counsel on either side, thispetition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner has come forward with the present petitionseeking for the relief of directing the respondents herein andtheir subordinates to treat the petitioner institution aslinguistic minority institution as already declared by the CivilCourt in O.S.No.117 of 1992 (Principal District Munsif Court,Nagercoil) and consequently, forbearing the 4th respondent frominsisting upon the petitioner of minority declaration from the 1strespondent Government while considering the approval of theappointments made by the petitioner herein.3. Mr.Ravichandra Baabu, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner contended that the petitioner school is a linguisticminority institution as the petitioner school obtained a decree inO.S.No.117 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District MunsifCourt, Nagercoil declaring the petitioner school as a linguisticminority school. It is submitted that the said decree and orderreached finality as no appeal was preferred against the Civil Courtdecree and order. The learned counsel for the petitioner alsosubmitted that in the civil suit, the Chief Educational Officer hasbeen impleaded as a defendant and as such the respondents are wellaware about the status of the petitioner school to the effect thatthe petitioner school is declared as a linguistic minorityinstitution. It is submitted that in respect of such declarationto the effect that the petitioner school is a linguistic minorityinstitution, the petitioner school submitted an application toapprove the appointment of five teachers and the same was rejectedby the District Educational Officer by order dated 14.7.2009 in hisproceedings Na.Ka.No.2788/A2/2008 on the ground that order wasawaited from the 2nd respondent, namely, Director of SchoolEducation, Chennai. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend thateven in respect of the petitioner school, an order was passed bythis Court in W.P.No.34674/2003 dated 23.6.2004 filed by a teacherof the petitioner school following the Division Bench decision andthe order of the Supreme court, setting aside the order holdingthat the petitioner school is a linguistic minority school andconsequently directed the District Educational Officer to approvethe appointment of the petitioner in that matter. It is alsopointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the verysame school also further filed a writ petition in W.P.No.27920 of2005 and this court passed an order dated 8.9.2005 holding that thepetitioner school is a minority school by placing reliance on theDivision Bench Judgement further holding that the petitioner schoolhas not obtained any minority status from the State Government andultimately directed the concerned authorities to consider theapproval on the basis of eligibility and qualification. Therefore,the petitioner is constrained to approach this court seeking forthe aforesaid relief. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Heard Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, learned Government Advocate(Education) on the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions on both sidesand also perused the materials available on record including theearlier decision rendered by this court. 7. A perusal of the materials placed before this disclosesthat the petitioner school has been declared as a linguisticminority school as per the judgment of the Principal DistrictMunsif Court, Nagercoil in O.S.No.117 of 1992 dated 6.4.1994. Itis pertinent to note that in the said suit, the District ChiefEducational Officer, Nagercoil was impleaded as a defendant. It isalso further relevant to note that such judgment and decree reachedfinality as per the submissions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner as no appeal has been preferred by the defendant againstthe said suit. That being the position, while the petitionerpreferred an application seeking for the relief of approval ofappointment of five teachers, the 5th respondent herein passed anorder dated 14.7.2009 stating that the order from the 2nd respondentherein namely Director of School Education has awaited on the basisof the judgment and decree obtained by the school declaring thepetitioner school as a linguistic minority institution. As pointedout by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of thevery same school, this court in W.P.No.34674/2003 dated 23.6.2009filed by a teacher of the petitioner school by placing reliance onthe Division Bench of this court and the Hon'ble Apex Court held ashere under:"1. The point involved in this writ petition hasbeen covered by a decision of this court in the case ofThe Correspondent, St.Ignatius Higher Secondary School,Kurumbanai-629251, Kanyakumari District and others V..Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6And Others reported in 1999 (7) CTC 121, wherein thelearned single judge has clearly held that that orderpassed in I.A.No.20 in T.M.A Pai Foundation and othersV. State of Karnataka and others, W.P. No.317 of 1993apply only to the respondents, who are parties to thatinterlocutory application.2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case ofThe Secretary, D.G.Vaishnav College Vs.Dr.T.Venkataraman reported in 2001 (4) CTC 641 alsovery categorically held that when a decree of CivilCourt granting minority status has become final and theGovernment having been a party and suffered the decree,it is binding on the Government unless there isspecific legislation provided such legislation is notaffront to the decree granted by judicial authority.It is further held that the Government cannot by issueof G.O call upon educational institution which have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obtained decree of minority status afresh especiallywhen such educational institutions are not party toorder of Supreme Court of India. It is further foundthat the order of Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in WP(C)No.317 of 1993 is not an order in rem and it is only anorder in personam.3.In view of the binding nature of the aboveDivision Bench Judgement of this court, I am of theview that the impugned order has to be set aside andthe same is set aside and the mandamus as sought for isalso to be granted and the same is accordingly grantedby allowing the writ petition".In the said unreported order, this court directed the DistrictEducational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner inthe said writ petition. In yet another order passed by this courtdated 8.9.2005 in W.P.No.27920/2005 filed by the very samepetitioner school, this court held as here under:"As there is no dispute that the Management or theschool has been declared as linguistic minority school inO.S.No.117/1982 on the file of Principal District Munsif,Nagercoil dated 6.4.1994 in terms of the judgement ofthis court in The Secretary, D.G. Vaishnav College Vs.Dr.T.Venkataraman 2001 (4) CTC 641, the petitioner neednot get minority status from the State Government. Thewrit petition is disposed of with a direction to therespondents to consider the proposal forwarded by thepetitioner school for approval of the papers withoutreference to the fact that the petitioner has notobtained any minority status from the State Governmentand dispose of the same within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.However, the Government is entitled to consider theapproval with reference to the other conditions withregard to qualification of the Teachers."8. It is pertinent to note that in the said order of thiscourt, it is made very clear that the petitioner need not getminority status from the State Government. Therefore there is nonecessity of any further order to be passed by the 2nd respondentnamely Director of School Education in respect of the status of thepetitioner school as the same was already declared as linguisticminority institution and such being the petition, this court is ofthe considered view that there is no legal impediment for the 3rdand 4th respondent to grant approval for the appointment of teachersby the petitioner school. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition isallowed directing the respondents herein to consider theinstitution as a linguistic minority institution as alreadydeclared by the Civil Court in O.S.No.117 of 1992. It is madeclear that the 3rd and 4th respondents would thereafter shall not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decline to approve the appointment of the teachers of thepetitioner school on the ground of pending orders to be passed bythe 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent regarding the minoritystatus of the institution and the respondents 3 & 4 are entitled toconsider only in respect of the qualification and eligibility ofthe concerned teachers for the appointment as teachers in thepetitioner school.10. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.JvmSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 0063.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.4.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.35315+ 1 cc to Mr. K. Ravichandra Baabu, Advocate SR No.35258RSI(CO)SR/25.8.2009W.P.No.15085 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009