This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Organization Department dated 6.1.2011, whereby the Government of Tamil Nadu has made inapplicable the rule of reservation so far as the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in the minority educational institutions.
2. Assailing the impugned Government Order, it has been contended that when the aided minority educational institutions are all receiving grant-in-aid from the Government, they are bound to follow the rule of reservation with regard to the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff. Since they are not following the rule of reservation, the State Government ought not to have issued the present impugned Government Order exempting all the minority educational institutions. Such an approach adopted by the State Government may not stand to the test of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. But this Court is unable to find any justification on the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reason is that the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Organization Department dated 6.1.2011 by the State Government exempting the aided minority educational institutions from following the rule of reservation is purely based on the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and others, (2008) 6 SCC 1, wherein it has been candidly held that imposition of the rule of reservation on aided minority institutions is ultra vires the Constitution. This apart, in yet another Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others v. Union of India and others, (2014) 4 MLJ 486 (SC), it has been held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the 2009 Act) insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of
Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution. In this context, the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Apex Court is reproduced below:-
26...In other words, the minority character of the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of
Article 30 of the Constitution, whether aided or unaided, may be affected by admissions of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and it is for this reason that minority institutions, aided or unaided, are kept outside the enabling power of the State under clause (5) of Article 15 with a view to protect the minority institutions from a law made by the majority. As has been held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (supra), the minority educational institutions, by themselves, are a separate class and their rights are protected under
Article 30 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the exclusion of minority educational institutions from
Article 15(5) is not violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. In the light of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot come to this Court challenging the correctness of the Government Order that has been issued way back on 6.1.2011 exempting the minority educational institutions from following the rule of reservation in the matters of appointment of non-teaching staff including the Noon Meal Organizer. When the State Government has taken a decision to exempt the minority educational institutions, for the reason that they should be allowed to stand independently, in the matter of filling up the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.6736 & 6737 of 2017 are also dismissed. No costs.