The protection of minority rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and the need for a comprehensive Act to govern all private schools.

S. Tamilvanan, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.No.2080, Education (D3) Department, dated 14.09.1977, issued by the first respondent, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and a discriminative act and consequently declare the Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment) Rules, 1977 as inoperative in the face of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner, party-in-person, submitted that as per the common order of this Court, dated 17.12.1975, rendered in batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.4478 of 1974 etc., this Court has held that certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, (herein after referred to as "the Rules"), have practically created problems to the minority educational institutions. It cannot be disputed that minority could be either a religious minor or linguistic minority and their right is protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner/party-in-person, in his writ petition, has stated in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit, as follows:

"To sum up, we declare as inapplicable to minor institutions Sections 8(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 12(a), 14 to 18, 21(2) to 26, 31 to 33, 39(4), 41 to 45 and rules 7 and 9, except clauses (3) and (k) of sub-rule (2), Rules 10 to 14, 16 to 18 and 22 to 24.", as found by the Division Bench in the judgment, dated 17.12.1975 and argue before this Court that the impugned Government Order could be declared unconstitutional, as stated by him."

The relief sought for by the petitioner is to quash the Rules.

3. Per contra, Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, drew the attention of this Court to Page No.115 of the typed-set of papers filed by him, which is a copy of the common order dated 10.10.2012, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4478 of 1974 and other writ petitions. Learned Special Government Pleader also drew the attention of this Court to page No.125 of the typed-set. As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the writ petitioner herein was a party to the common order passed by the Division Bench, as per Sl.No.89 and stated as T.N. Vidyanandan, (Retired Headmaster, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, Madurai) and also Review Applicant in Rev.Appn.28/2008. At Page No.135, the prayer relating to the Review Application is available, which reads as follows:

"Rev.28/08: Review application filed under order XVII Rule 1 r/w Sec.114 CPC and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this court passed in W.P.8201/07 dated 5.8.2008 filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus Directing the respondents to take up suitable steps to implementation of sections 8(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 12(1), 14 to 18, 21 (2), 22 to 26, 31 to 33, 39(4) & 41 to 45 of the T.N. Act 29/74 and Rules 7, 9 except clauses (e) and (k) of sub Rule (2) Rules 10 to 14, 16 to 18 and 22 to 24 & framed under the act and also for speedy steps for the implementation of the regulation framed in the Act governing service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority schools for whom aid is provided by the state and thus render justice, so that the minority school teachers may leave a of relief atleast now after three decades."

4. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the review petition filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, by its common order dated 10.10.2012. The petitioner/party-in-person, however, drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court, rendered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, on 31.10.2002, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 and submitted that the Rules being subordinate legislation, cannot over-ride the statute, however, according to him, as per