Jasmine Teacher Training Instituterun by Jasmine Educational trust15 v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.09.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NOS.39450 AND 39451 OF 2006 & MP.Nos. 1 and 1 and WV.MP.No.1 of 2007Jasmine Teacher Training Instituterun by Jasmine Educational trust15, I Street, Bakthavatchalam Nagar,Palavanthangal,Chennai 600 114.rep. by its Managing trusteeMr.W.Apollos David ...Petr.,in W.P.No.39450/06Ruth Williams Teacher Training Instituterun by Christian Educational Trust10, Thiruvalluvar Nagar Main Road,Alandur, Chennai 600 016rep. by its Managing TrusteeMr.W. Apollos David ...Petr., in W.P.No.39451/06Vs.1.The Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training, College Road, Chennai 600 006.2. The Secretary, School Education Department, Secretriate, St.Fort George, Chennai 600009.3. The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, CSD Building, I Floor, HMT Complex, HJalahalli, Bangalore 560 031. ...Respondents in both W.Ps.Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus as statedwithin. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners:Mr.L.Ramshankar For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader--- O R D E RThis order shall govern these two writ petitions viz.W.P.Nos.39450 and 39451 of 2006.2 In both the writ petitions, the short case of thepetitioner is that these two Educational Institutions were started toimpart Elementary Education, that they have established TeacherTraining Institute in the name and style of Jasmine Teacher TrainingInstitute at Palavanthangal and Ruth Williams Teacher TrainingInstitute at Alandur respectively, that the petitioners' Institutionshave been granted recognition to offer Elementary (D.T.Ed) Course bythe National Council for Teacher Education by the respective orderswith an annual intake of 50 students, that the object of the trainingstudents in D.T.Ed course is to ensure that every trainee at the endof diploma course achieves academic excellence, provisionalcompetence and commitment to serve the community and the DistrictInstitute of Education and Training (DIET) which has been establishedin each District will supervise and monitor the functioning of thesetwo institutes. The Hon'ble Apex Court has framed guidelines to grantreligious minority status to institutions in T.M.A Pai Foundation &Others Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2002 (8) SCC Page 481subject to the final orders to be passed in the second appeal andultimate guidelines that are to be laid down by the Regular Bench ofthe Supreme Court of India. The petitioners Institutions are fullyeligible to be declared as a religious minority institution by virtueof the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petitionersInstitutions approached this Court by way of writ petitions inW.P.No.44854 and 44853 of 2002 respectively to permit the petitionersto admit students in the Institution in terms of the guidelinesissued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court by order dated13.12.2002 directed the respondents to consider the representationsof the petitioners, that the respondents restricted theirrecommendations of students under single window system to thepetitioners Institution and thereby enabled the petitionersInstitutions to admit 70% of the students by themselves as eligibleto minority institutions. The Government of Tamil Nadu hasprescribed certain guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.375 dated 12.10.1998 byfollowing the dictum of the Supreme Court for the recognition ofminority status of Institution run by religious as well as linguisticminority. The Government order is clear that any other communitywhose mother tongue is not Tamil shall be construed to be alinguistic minority and as far as religious minority are concernedthat any religion other than Hindu Religion shall be construed to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a religious minority., the objective of the commencing theinstitution should be for the upliftment and betterment of theconcerned religious minority and not otherwise and thirdly, theinstitution should be administered only by persons belonging to theminority religion and not otherwise. In the instant case, thepetitioners have satisfied all the three tests and hence thesepetitioners who are minority institutions are fully entitled to fillup 70% of the seats out of the strength of 50 seats for the academicyear 2006-07 and the rest of 30% to be filled up by the respondentsunder the single window system. Under such circumstances,representations were made and they are pending in the hands of therespondents to recognise the petitioners institutions as minorityinstitutions, but it was not done so. Hence, every time it is verydifficult for them to get the recognition. Once if they arerecognised as minority institutions, they have to be proceeded withthe admission of students to fill up 70% seat out of the totalstrength which they are entitled to. Under such circumstances, theabove writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioners.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated theaverments found in the affidavits.4. The only reply given by the respondents side is that inthe instant case, both the institutions have never been recognised asminority institutions, but they have filled up 70% of the seat outof the total strength. In so far as they have not been recognised asminority institutions, they are entitled to fill up up to 50% ofthe seats and the rest of the seats to be sponsored by the State.In the instant case, according to the petitioners, they have maderepresentations as per the G.O. They have neither got therecognition from the State Government, nor they have obtainednecessary orders from the competent authorities and hence they haveto apply in a proper form and they have to give all the particularsprescribed in the said G.O., But, they have not complied with theprocedures prescribed in the G.O.. The entire case of the petitionersrests on the so called representation made by them. Hence, the reliefsought for by the petitioners seeking recommendation to declare themas minority institutions, cannot be allowed and hence both the writpetitions have got to be dismissed.5. After careful consideration on the rival submissionsmade, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the writpetitions require only a very short order. It is not in controversythat these two institutions who are petitioners herein before thisCourt have never been recognised as minority institutions by anyprocess known to law. According to the petitioners, they satisfiedthe requisite tests as contemplated under the relevant G.O. It ispertinent to point out that G.O.Ms.No.375 School Education dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.10.1998 which formulates, in a case like this that for obtainingthe minority status, the petitioners institutions have to apply withall necessary particulars in an prescribed application for thescrutiny of the authorities. In the instant case, admittedly that wasnot done so. Instead, the petitioners would submit that they havegiven a representation long back. But, the said representatives havenot been considered till date. Under such circumstances, this Courtis of the considered opinion that mere representation made by thepetitioners. without proper application or furnishing necessaryparticulars would not satisfy the requirements. Hence, it would besuffice if the petitioners are directed to file necessaryapplication with all the particulars within a period of four weekshere from before the respondents authorities , and on doing so, therespondents authorities are directed to consider the theirapplications and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law,within a period of ten weeks there from and it is accordinglyordered.6. With the observation, the writ petitions are disposedof. No costs. Consequently. MP.Nos. 1 and 1 and WV.MP.No.1 of 2007are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar VJYTo 1.The Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and training, College Road, Chennai 600 006.2. The Secretary, School Education Department, Secretriate, St.Fort George, Chennai 600009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, CSD Building, I Floor, HMT Complex, HJalahalli, Bangalore 560 031 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 59797AD (CO)km/8.10.W.P.NOS.39450 AND 39451 OF 2006and connected M.Ps.