The binding nature of the Civil Court decree granting minority status and the requirement of further proof of minority status from the government.

The prayer in the writ-petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner school from 6. 2002 without restricting the period of recognition and also without insisting upon the production of minority declaration order from the 1st respondent Government.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

.(i) The petitioner School was established as an Elementary School in the year 1978 by a person belonging to linguistic minority (Malayalam) and recognition was also granted and the management was transferred in favour of the deponent of the affidavit, namely A. Kamalan on 17. 1978. The transfer of management was also approved by the Education Department in terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. The School was thereafter upgraded as Middle School in the year 1985 and further upgraded as High School in the year 1990 and finally upgraded as Higher Secondary School during the year 1995-1996. The petitioner management filed a Suit to declare the School as a Minority Institution and it was declared as a linguistic minority School (Malayalam) in O.S.No.117 of 1992 by judgment dated 4. 1994 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. The petitioner School is having Standards 1 to 12 both in Malayalam and Tamil Medium in all classes and more than 1200 students are studying and there is no change of management altering the character of the Institution. Though grant in aid was sanctioned by the Government upto 10th Standard, recognition is granted on self-finance basis for standards 11 and 12.

.(ii) The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.15085 of 2009 and prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner School as linguistic minority School and forbear the 4th respondent from insisting upon the production of minority declaration while considering the approval of appointments made by the petitioner School. This Court by an order dated 8. 2009 allowed the Writ Petition and the said order was accepted by the Department and approved the appointments made in the petitioner School.

(iii) The petitioner management applied for continuance of recognition and the same was returned by the 4th respondent on 19. 2009 stating that the petitioner has to produce proof to show its minority character (linguistic minority status Malayalam). Aggrieved over the said return made by the 4th respondent, this writ petition is filed with the above said prayer.

3. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that even though a prayer is made to grant permanent recognition from 6. 2002, without reinstructing the period of recognition and without insisting the production of minority declaration from the 1st respondent, Government, the petitioner will be satisfied if an order is passed to treat the petitioner School as linguistic minority School and the respondents are directed to consider the grant of recognition from 6. 2002 within a given time. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded.

4. It is seen from the records that in O.S.No.117 of 1992 by judgment and decree dated 4. 1994, the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil has already granted declaration in favour of the petitioner School declaring that it is a linguistic minority (Malayalam) School.

5. The issue as to whether once the competent Civil Court having granted minority declaration, the Institution should apply to the Government and get further declaration, was considered by me in W.P.No.11932 of 2008 and by judgment dated 7. 2008. I have considered the earlier orders of this Court in the decisions in (i) Correspondent, St. Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kanyakumari District v. Director of School Education, Chennai and Others 1999 (1) CTC 121 (ii) Secretary, D.G. Vaishnav College, Chennai and Another v. Dr. T