By mutual consent of the learned counsel on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking for the relief of directing the respondents herein and their subordinates to treat the petitioner institution as linguistic minority institution as already declared by the Civil Court in O.S.No.117 of 1992 (Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil) and consequently, forbearing the 4th respondent from insisting upon the petitioner of minority declaration from the 1st respondent Government while considering the approval of the appointments made by the petitioner herein.
3. Mr.Ravichandra Baabu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner school is a linguistic minority institution as the petitioner school obtained a decree in O.S.No.117 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil declaring the petitioner school as a linguistic minority school. It is submitted that the said decree and order reached finality as no appeal was preferred against the Civil Court decree and order. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the civil suit, the Chief Educational Officer has been impleaded as a defendant and as such the respondents are well aware about the status of the petitioner school to the effect that the petitioner school is declared as a linguistic minority institution. It is submitted that in respect of such declaration to the effect that the petitioner school is a linguistic minority institution, the petitioner school submitted an application to approve the appointment of five teachers and the same was rejected by the District Educational Officer by order dated 14.7.2009 in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2788/A2/2008 on the ground that order was awaited from the 2nd respondent, namely, Director of School Education, Chennai.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even in respect of the petitioner school, an order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.34674/2003 dated 23.6.2004 filed by a teacher of the petitioner school following the Division Bench decision and the order of the Supreme court, setting aside the order holding that the petitioner school is a linguistic minority school and consequently directed the District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner in that matter. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very same school also further filed a writ petition in W.P.No.27920 of 2005 and this court passed an order dated 8.9.2005 holding that the petitioner school is a minority school by placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgement further holding that the petitioner school has not obtained any minority status from the State Government and ultimately directed the concerned authorities to consider the approval on the basis of eligibility and qualification. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court seeking for the aforesaid relief.
5. Heard Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, learned Government Advocate (Education) on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions on both sides and also perused the materials available on record including the earlier decision rendered by this court.
7. A perusal of the materials placed before this discloses that the petitioner school has been declared as a linguistic minority school as per the judgment of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil in O.S.No.117 of 1992 dated 6.4.1994. It is pertinent to note that in the said suit, the District Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil was impleaded as a defendant. It is also further relevant to note that such judgment and decree reached finality as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as no appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the said suit. That being the position, while the petitioner preferred an application seeking for the relief of approval of appointment of five teachers, the 5th respondent herein passed an order dated 14.7.2009 stating that the order from the 2nd respondent herein namely Director of School Education has awaited on the basis of the judgment and decree obtained by the school declaring the petitioner school as a linguistic minority institution. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of the very same school, this court in W.P.No.34674/2003 dated 23.6.2009 filed by a teacher of the petitioner school by placing reliance on the Division Bench of this court and the Hon'ble Apex Court held as here under:
"1. The point involved in this writ petition has been covered by a decision of this court in the case of The Correspondent, St.Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kurumbanai-629251, Kanyakumari District and others V.. Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6 And Others reported in 1999 (7) CTC 121, wherein the learned single judge has clearly held that that order passed in I.A.No.20 in T.M.A Pai Foundation and others V. State of Karnataka and others, W.P. No.317 of 1993 apply only to the respondents, who are parties to that interlocutory application.
2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary, D.G.Vaishnav College Vs. Dr.T.Venkataraman reported in 2001 (4) CTC 641 also very categorically held that when a decree of Civil Court granting minority status has become final and the Government having been a party and suffered the decree, it is binding on the Government unless there is specific legislation provided such legislation is not affront to the decree granted by judicial authority. It is further held that the Government cannot by issue of G.O call upon educational institution which have obtained decree of minority status afresh especially when such educational institutions are not party to order of Supreme Court of India. It is further found that 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 an order in personam.
3.In view of the binding nature of the above Division Bench Judgement of this court, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and the same is set aside and the mandamus as sought for is also to be granted and the same is accordingly granted by allowing the writ petition".
In the said unreported order, this court directed the District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the said writ petition. In yet another order passed by this court dated 8.9.2005 in W.P.No.27920/2005 filed by the very same petitioner school, this court held as here under:
"As there is no dispute that the Management or the school has been declared as linguistic minority school in O.S.No.117/1982 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil dated 6.4.1994 in terms of the judgement of this court in The Secretary, D.G. Vaishnav College Vs. Dr.T.Venkataraman 2001 (4) CTC 641, the petitioner need not get minority status from the State Government. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the proposal forwarded by the petitioner school for approval of the papers without reference to the fact that the petitioner has not obtained any minority status from the State Government and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the Government is entitled to consider the approval with reference to the other conditions with regard to qualification of the Teachers."
8. It is pertinent to note that in the said order of this court, it is made very clear that the petitioner need not get minority status from the State Government. Therefore there is no necessity of any further order to be passed by the 2nd respondent namely Director of School Education in respect of the status of the petitioner school as the same was already declared as linguistic minority institution and such being the petition, this court is of the considered view that there is no legal impediment for the 3rd and 4th respondent to grant approval for the appointment of teachers by the petitioner school.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents herein to consider the institution as a linguistic minority institution as already declared by the Civil Court in O.S.No.117 of 1992. It is made clear that the 3rd and 4th respondents would thereafter shall not decline to approve the appointment of the teachers of the petitioner school on the ground of pending orders to be passed by the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent regarding the minority status of the institution and the respondents 3 & 4 are entitled to consider only in respect of the qualification and eligibility of the concerned teachers for the appointment as teachers in the petitioner school.
10. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
jvm To
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 600 006
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District