Besant Educational and Cultural Society vs The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

M. Chockalingam, J.—The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner as could be seen from the averments made and also after hearing the

learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner Society is a linguistic minority Educational Institution and it has already acquired the status

so. In the last occasion, the circumstance warrants the petitioner to file the writ petition in W.P. No. 30870 of 2005 whereby the petitioner sought

for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to treat the petitioner as Telugu Minority Teachers Training Institute, in view of the decree

passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 6183 of 1989 dated 30.4.1993 declaring that the petitioner society is a linguistic minority Educational

agency and also for further direction. On contest, the writ petition was allowed and following the same, the petitioner Society was allowed to admit

70% of students out of the total strength for the year for 2004-05, 2005-2006 and for the year 2006-2007 and the authorities are insisting the

petitioner to admit the candidates over and above their quota and a telegram was received from a candidate seeking admission under the single

widow system over and above the quota. Thus, the authorities are trying to create law and order problem. Under such circumstances, it has

became necessary to approach this Court for he relief as extracted above.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner advancing his arguments took the Court to the earlier order passed by this Court in the writ petition referred

to above and would submit that since a declaration was made by the Civil Court to the effect that the petitioner Institution is a linguistic minority

educational agency, there is no question of approaching the respondents for the said recommendation or the Court of law for such a declaration

and once such a writ petition was filed and orders were passed by this Court , on contest recognising the very status and issued directions to the

respondent educational authorities to treat the petitioner as such, there is no question in interfering with the rights of the petitioner-Institution which

has been permitted to intake 70% of the students out of the total strength. Under such circumstances, it has got to be ordered. Learned Counsel

would further add that in support of his contention he has relied on a decision of this Court in The Roman Catholic Diocese of Thanjavur v. the

Joint Director of Employment and Training (CT & AT) Alandur Road, Chennai reported in 2006 4 LW 439.

In answer to the above, learned Counsel for the respondents, inter alia would submit that the petitioner has never applied for the status as

minority institution and he neither furnished any particulars nor he was considered and without doing so, the petitioner directly approached this

Court asking for the relief as extracted above and hence on that ground the writ petition has got to be dismissed.

After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where an order has got to be

granted in favour of the petitioner. The only question that would arise for consideration is whether the petitioner-Institution can called themselves as

a Linguistic minority institution. In a case like this, three tests have got to be applied before declaring the institutions as Linguistic minority agency.

Firstly, any other community whose mother tongue is not Tamil shall be construed to be a linguistic minority, secondly the object for commencing

the institution should be for the upliftment and betterment of the concerned religious minority and not otherwise and thirdly the Institution should be

administered only by persons belonging to the minority religion and not otherwise. In the instant case, there was an occasion for this Court to

consider the status of the petitioner and it was declared so. It is pertinent to point out that even in that case, the petitioner brought to the notice of

the Court that a decree was passed in O.S. No. 6183 of 1989 by the City Civil Court, Chennai and at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that

even in that suit, there was a contest by the Department and the declaration was given in favour of the petitioner. Once the declaration has been

given, in the opinion of this Court, no further declaration would be required by a Court of law, neither is it necessary for the petitioner institution to

approach the Department by filing necessary application or to satisfy the same by furnishing particulars. Thus, the decision relied on by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner in 2006 4 LW 439, it could be well settled that once the declaration has been given by a competent civil jurisdiction and

also it was on contest, the authorities concerned cannot insist upon a further declaration of minority status for granting benefits. Once there was a

decree by a Civil Court declaring the petitioner as such, then the authority cannot suit over the judgment of the Civil Court or to appreciate or to be

held contrary and hence it would be binding on the State. Once the decree has been passed by the Civil Court, there is no meaning in approaching

the authorities for recommendation or status or to consider the same. In the instant case, it is not in controversy that the petitioner was allowed to

intake 70% students for the year 2005-2005, 2005-06 an 2006-07 and at the time when the admission for 2006-07 was made, the situation

arisen for approaching this Court for the reasons stated above.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as one asked for. As once the status

is declared and it is continuing , the petitioner is entitled to admit 70% of the total strength of the students as per the the above said G.O.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, WP.Mp. No. 1 of 2006 is closed.