S. VIMALA, J.

1. When the declaration of minority status is only an open acceptance of legal character which existed antecedent to such declaration and when such minority status of the institution has been declared by the Civil Court, whether it is essential that the Government should once again declare the minority status of the institution, in order to enable the institution to claim protection, is the issue raised in this writ appeal by the fourth respondent in the writ petition.

2. The parties are described as per the nomenclature in the writ petition.

3. The writ petition in W.P.No.46673 of 2002 was filed by Bhuvaneswari, as the petitioner / 1st respondent herein, seeking direction to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent, District Elementary Officer, Thanjavur, dated 23.12.2002, declining to grant approval for the appointment of petitioner Bhuvaneswari and also to direct the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school from 10.01.2000 with all attendant benefits.

4. The claim of the writ petitioner was dealt with by the learned single Judge and by order dated 07.08.2013, the order declining to grant approval, passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.12.2002, was quashed with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 therein to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school from 10.01.2000 with salary and other benefits.

4.1. However, in paragraph 18 of the order, a finding has been rendered that the 4th respondent Educational Institution is not a religious minority or linguistic minority institution as per Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, and that the 4th respondent school is not administering Tamil language and that it belongs to Hindu religion.

5. Challenging this finding, this writ appeal No.2415 of 2013 has been filed by the 4th respondent school.

6. The main contentions raised in the writ appeal are

(a) the order of the learned single judge is against the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 2001 (4) CTC 641 (The Secretary, D.G.Vaishnav College, Arumbakkam, Chennai and another vs. Dr.T.Venkataraman Reader and Head, Post Graduate and Research, Dept. of Chemistry, D.G.Vaishnav College, Chennai and 3 others) and against the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 3096 (R.Murali and others vs. Kanyaka P.Devasthanam & Charities and others).

(b) It is also contended that there is already a decree declaring the minority status of the 4th respondent school and the same is allowed to become final and therefore, the learned single judge is not correct in giving a finding that the appellant institution is not a minority institution.

7. The appellant is aggrieved by the observation made by the learned single Judge in the order dated 07.08.2003, where an observation is made that there is no Government Order conferring minority status to the 4th respondent school.

8. Be that as it may, in view of the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the decisions brought to the notice of this Court relating to minority status declared by the Civil Court.

9. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2001 (4) CTC 641 (The Secretary, D.G.Vaishnav College, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106 and another vs. Dr.T.Venkataraman Reader and Head, Post Graduate and Research, Dept. of Chemistry, D.G.Vaishnav College, Chennai and 3 others), it has been held as under:-

3. The appellant in W.A. No.2387 of 2001 has been granted a minority status by a declaration granted by a decree dated 19.2.1988 by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madras, in A.S. No.275 of 1987. It is not disputed that the said decree had become final. As on date, the said decree has not been nullified. But Mr. P. Jyothimani, learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that in view of G.O.(Ms.) No. 270, dated 17.6.1998, the decree, which has been granted on 19.2.1988, had become inop