Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1410
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN
Association of University Teachers Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary, P. Shanmuga Sundaram
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department & Others
W.P.No.22684 of 2009
Decided On: 20-03-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel for R. Kannan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R4 - R. Ravichandran, AGP, R2 -R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for K. Selvaraj, R5 - R. Subramanian, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which protects the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Headnote:
Minority Status - Educational Institution - Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act 1976, Article 30 of the Constitution of India - Summary of Acts and Sections: Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act 1976, Article 30 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the establishment and administration of educational institutions by minorities, the rights of minority institutions, and the guidelines for conferring minority status under G.O.Ms.No.270 Education (J1) Department dated 17.6.1998. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of Article 30(1) and the legal principles established in various Supreme Court judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Teachers Association, challenged the government order granting minority status to the second respondent institution. The petitioner argued that the institution was not established to serve the minority community and continued to be administered as a non-minority institution. The case involved complaints about the institution's functioning, amendment of the trust deed, and the conferment of minority status by the government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent institution was founded and administered by a linguistic minority, satisfied the guidelines for conferring minority status, and was entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the conferment of minority status was a recognition of the pre-existing minority status of the institution. However, the rights of the teaching and non-teaching staff employees who joined before the conferment of minority status would continue to be governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act and Rules as a private institution.
Issues: The issues involved the establishment and administration of educational institutions by minorities, the conferment of minority status, violation of principles of natural justice, and the rights of teaching and non-teaching staff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the establishment and administration of minority institutions, and the guidelines for conferring minority status under G.O.Ms.No.270 Education (J1) Department dated 17.6.1998. The court also considered the rights of teaching and non-teaching staff employees in relation to the conferment of minority status.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed, and the court held that the second respondent institution was entitled to minority status, which was a recognition of its pre-existing minority status. The rights of the teaching and non-teaching staff employees who joined before the conferment of minority status would continue to be governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act and Rules as a private institution.
1. Petitioner-Teachers Association challenges the government order granting minority status to the second respondent institution.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the second respondent college was started by a public charitable trust in the year 1974. During 1975-76 classes commenced. During 2009, the college was found to be not functioning properly and the petitioner's Association sent a memorandum to the second respondent management giving the details to that effect. There were complaints by students about the compulsory donation collected from them. On 14.2.2008, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education inspected the college. Criminal proceedings were also registered under Section 385 of I.P.C. against some of the persons in the management. Again on 10.4.2008, the Director of Collegiate Education inspected the college. On 12.5.2008, he submitted a report to the government recommending action against the management and also recommended stoppage of admission for the year 2008-2009. Sensing problem, the management amended the trust-deed amending the object of the trust, incorporating clause(2)(b)(i) and 2(b)(ii) in the Trust-deed to serve the minority community. On 30.3.2009, the third respondent university passed a resolution suspending the admission of students in the second respondent college for the year 2009-2010. On 20.5.2009, the Regional Joint Director submitted a report to the fourth respondent-the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, recommending invocation of Section 14A of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act 1976. Thereafter, on 10.8.2009, the management of the college applied for minority status and the first respondent granted minority status by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.355/2009 dated 25.9.2009. The said G.O. is challenged before this Court.
3. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted the following:
a) The institution was functioning as a private institution and also as non-minority institution right from 1974 and there is no cause/necessity for the second respondent college to get minority status.
b) The Original Trust-deed which incorporated the object to serve general public, was deliberately amended on 29.2.2009 to serve the linguistic minority only and the same is to get over problems faced by them. The second respondent institution cannot be called as a minority institution as it was not established to serve minority community, and continues to be administered as minority institution.
c) Judgment of the Hon'ble Court in S.Azeez Basha and another vs. Union of India etc. reported in AIR 1968 SC 662, it has been held that the words "establish and administer" in Article 30 (1) must be read conjunctively and if so read, it clearly shows that the minority will have the right to administer educational institutions of their choice provided they have established them, but not otherwise.
d) When the Tamilnadu Private Colleges Regulation Act 1976 came into force, as per Section 9 of the Act, the Minority College should inform the concerned authority about its minority status, whereas, in the case on hand, no statement was sent stating about its minority status as per Section 9 of the Act and as per rule 6 and that itself proves that the second respondent never claimed itself as minority institution.
e) When the administration of the college is governed by the provisions of the Tamilnadu Private Colleges Regulation Act 1976 and the employees' rights are governed by the Act, the same cannot be interfered with or taken away by the conferment of the status of minority institution to the second respondent.
f) When the rights of the employees are protected as per Sections 11, 19 and 24(3) of the Act, without notice to the employees, the said right cannot be taken away by the impugned order. Therefore, the said G.O. is bad for violation of principles of natural justice.
g) The object of the trust was amended without invocation of Section 92
