St. Xavier's Catholic College of Engineering vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

R. Mahadevan, J.�This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent State Government in Letter (D) No. 174 (Higher Education-J2) dated 31.07.2009 and quash the same insofar as it restricts the status of the petitioner''s college as a Minority Educational Institution to a limited period of 5 years from 2007 to 2012. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner college was established in the year 1999 and it has been recognised as a Minority Educational Institution by Letter (D) No. 174, dated 31.07.2009. Initially, the recognition was granted for a year and extended periodically. However, the status of the petitioner''s college as a Minority Educational Institution has been restricted to a limited period of five years from 2007 to 2012. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that once an institution is declared to be a minority, there cannot be any restriction of specific period. The learned Counsel has made reliance upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College for Women (Autonomous) by the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Anne Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , wherein it has been held that such a restriction cannot be accepted in the eye of law. In the Judgment, referred to supra, the Division Bench was pleased to hold as follows:

"6. The reason given by the learned single Judge for distinguishing the said judgment is that the matter is pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court regarding the issue of grant of minority status to linguistic minorities. It is relevant to note herein that the appellant College is a religious minority institution, viz. Christian religion. It may be noted that Christians are minorities not only throughout India but also in the State of Tamil Nadu. The same is also made clear in the Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998. In paragraph 8(vi), it is stated that to decide whether an applicant is a minority or not based on religion or language, the total population of that minority in the State of Tamil Nadu shall be taken into consideration and not the population of that minority in any particular region where the educational institution is situated. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order restricting minority status which was upheld by the learned single Judge is without noticing the said guidelines issued by the Government itself in G.O. Ms. No. 270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998. It is also to be noted that the said Government Order, no where states that minority status can be given to a limited period. The Government is also not doubting the claim of minority status of the appellant-College. Hence the order restricting the period is without any rhyme or reason.

We are in entire agreement with the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal, Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu stated supra. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The minority status given to the appellant will hold good without any restriction period. However, if the respondents are able to find any change in the constitution of educational agency or if the institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of Association/Bye-laws of the Society, it is open to the Government to issue notice and take appropriate decision in accordance with law."

In view of the said pronouncement, the order impugned is hereby set aside, insofar as it restricts the minority status given to the petitioner institution only for a period five years. However, if the respondents are able to find any change in the constitution of educational agency or if the institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of Association/Bye-laws of the society, it is open to the Government to issue notice and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. In fine, the writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.