SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Rabiammal Ahamed Maideen College for Women, (Administered by Rabiamman Ahamed Maideen Educational Trust) rep. by its Secretary A.Feroze Sha – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P.No. 19507 of 2021
Decided on : 15-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M. Mohamed Riyaz, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A. Selvendran, Government Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 30,226,(1), 14 and 143 - West Bengal Madarasah Service Commission Act, 2008 - Application - Grant of minority - Writ petition challenges impugned Government Order issued by respondent and for a consequential direction to respondent to issue a fresh Government Order by not restricting status of petitioner College as a minority institution for any particular period - Whether Management of a Minority School free to choose and appoint any qualified person as Headmaster of school or n - Whether such Management is hedged by any legislative edict or executive fiat in doing s – Held, Court held that there is absolutely no rationale in fixing a particular period to recognize minority status of institution and such a prescription is not sustainable under Constitutional mandate conferred under Article 30 of Constitution of India - Impugned Government Order issued by respondent requires interference of Court insofar as it restricts status of petitioner College as a minority institution for a limited period of five years - Court particular prescription imposed in impugned Government Order is set aside and matter is once again remanded back to file of respondent with a direction to pass a fresh Government Order by determining minority status of petitioner institution without limiting it to any period within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of copy of Court order - It is also made clear that respondent can impose conditions which will be complied with by petitioner institution -Writ petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.(Ms). No.126 Higher Education (E1) Department dated 30.04.2021, quash the same insofar as it restricts the status of the petitioner’s college as a Minority Educational Institutions to a limited period of five years from 2018-19.)

Considering the fact that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary versus Syed Ammal Engineering College, reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 13411, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

2. The present writ petition challenges the impugned Government Order issued by the 1st respondent dated 30.04.2021 and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to issue a fresh Government Order by not restricting the status of the petitioner College as a minority institution for any particular period.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the institution had made an application before the respondents seeking for the grant of minority status. The process commenced seven years back and ultimately it has culminated in the issuance of the impugned Government Order dated 30.04.2021. By virtue of this Government Order, the 1st respondent has recognized the minority status of the petitioner’s institution. However, while granting such a status, the 1st respondent has limited the period for conferring such a status to five years starting from the academic year 2018-19. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Heard Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, the learned Government counsel for the respondents.

5. The ground raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary versus Syed Ammal Engineering College, reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 13411. For proper appreciation, the relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:

    20. Accordingly, the State moved a Review Application No.236 of 2019 in W.A.No.1130 of 2013, and the Division Bench after hearing the review application and taking notice of these developments and other judgments, held that the State authorities have a right to monitor and regulate, but the view taken by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 11.09.2017 did not suffer from any infirmity. It was again observed that the State has been authorised under the Government orders to take appropriate action if any infraction as to the minority status of the institution comes to their knowledge but limiting the period of certification was unconstitutional. Thus, the final tally is still in favour of the respondent institution by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 21.02.2020, which is extracted hereinunder:-

(1) The 1st respondent/College filed WP.No.24606 of 2012, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to quash GO.Ms.NO.363, Higher Education [E1] Department dated 08.10.2009, in and by which, the extension of Religious Minority Status, already granted to the said College for earlier years, have been extended for a further period of five years from 2007-08 to 2011-12.

(2) The learned Single Judge, vide final order dated 17.09.2012, had taken into consideration, various Educational Institutions run by the Loyola College Society and also various judgments and held that the impugned order, restricting the 1 st respondent/College – Writ Petitioner in WP.No.24606 of 2012, as a Minority Educational Institution, warrants interference and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the said impugned Government Order.

(3) The official respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2012 made in WP.No.24606 of 2012, in allow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top