The central legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a civil court decree granting minority status to an institution and the interpretation of relevant case laws, which influenced the court's decision to direct the respondents to consider the institution as a linguistic minority institution.

1. 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 17. 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 26. 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 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 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 pref