Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68403
2025:MHC:2178 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 11.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 02.09.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN W.A. No. 3769 of 2019 &C.M.P. No. 23848 of 2019
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 607 101 Cuddalore District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 607 101 Cuddalore District. ..Appellants Vs.
The Secretary, MuthiayarHigher Secondary School, Panruti – 607 106.
Cuddalore District. ..Respondent Prayer:Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order dated 27.09.2018 made in W.P. No. 8326 of 2012 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants :: Mr.P.S. Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr.U.M. Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader For Respondent :: Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for Mr. Godson Swaminathan for M/s. Isaac Chambers
A school originally established by a majority community cannot claim minority status solely based on subsequent management changes; both establishment and administration must be by a minority community under Article 30(1).
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions - Writ Court's decision granting minority status to a previously secular school was appealed by the State - The Court found that, while the school was administered by a minority, it was originally established as a secular institution, thereby failing to meet the requirements for recognition as a minority institution. (Paras 18, 38, 44, 96)
(B) Legal Interpretation - 'Establish' in the context of Article 30(1) implies the need for a minority community to have originally founded the institution to claim minority character, which cannot be altered by subsequent management changes. (Paras 26, 30, 96)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a Writ Court order allowing the school to claim minority status after its management was taken over by a religious congregation. The State asserted that the school, originally established in 1901 as secular, could not obtain minority status post-acquisition.
Findings of Court:
The school's original secular establishment barred it from being recognized as a minority institution, as both establishment and administration by a minority community need to exist simultaneously.
Issues: Can a secular school established by a majority community subsequently claim minority status due to changed management?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that minority status claims must originate from an institution being established by a minority, regardless of subsequent management changes.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.)
Background
The State is in appeal as against the order of the Writ Court dated 27.09.2018 made in W.P. No. 8326 of 2012 allowing the Writ Petition filed by The Secretary, Muthiayar Higher Secondary School, (in short ‘R1’) seeking a certiorarified mandamus challenging proceedings dated 03.10.2012 and seeking a direction to the authorities to accord minority status to the Muthiayar High Secondary School (in short ‘school’).
2. Muthiayar Higher Secondary School had been established as a primary school in 1901, upgraded as a Higher Elementary School in 1950, expanding to standards VI to VIII and upgraded further as a High School in academic year 1998-99, and as a Higher Secondary School in academic year 2003-04. The Government extends Grant-in-Aid towards staff salary upto class 8 (standards 1 to 8) only.
3. The School was founded by one Mr.P.Muthaiyar and had come to be known as A.V. School. After the demise of the founder in 1942, the school was being managed by his wife till 1947, by his nephew, one Mr.V.Natesan from 1947 to 1983 and thereafter by his son-in-law, Mr.S.R.Selvaraj from 1983 to 1997, in his name as Sri.P.Muthaiyar School.
4. The individuals managing the school functioned as recognized Educational Agencies and Secretaries of the School after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act , (in short ‘Act’) in 1973.
5. By sale deed dated 23.05.1997 the then Educational Agency Mr.S.R.Selvaraj, transferred all school properties to Sister Edvij, Trichy. The change in management was approved by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Cuddalore in proceedings Pa.Mu.No.5451/A3/97 dated 17.10.1997, in line with the provisions of the Act and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, (in short ‘Rules).
6. The school is thereafter being run by the Sisters of St.Anne. Tiruchirappalli, a congregation, constituting an assemblage of Nuns of the Roman Catholic Order (in short ‘Congregation’). The Congregation is a recognized religious minority enjoying protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India (in short ‘Constitution’) and had been accorded such status vide order of this Court in W.P.No.656 of 1975 etc. batch (order dated 24.09.1976).
7. According to R1, after the takeover of the school by it with effect from 01.06.1997, the Muthaiyar Higher Secondary School is functioning as a Christian Minority Educational Institution. Since R1 desired that the school must be granted the benefits of minority institution as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, a memorandum was made to the State along with necessary enclosures, seeking such status.
8. According to R1, the School satisfied all the requisite parameters for grant of such recognition as adumbrated under G.O.Ms.No.375 (School Education) dated 12.10.1998. A report was called for from the Director of School Education who had also recommended that the school be so recognized vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.117/Aa2/98 dated 05.05.1998.Despite the same, the State issued G.O.Ms.No.125 (School Education) B2 dated 17.09.2004 rejecting the plea for minority status.
9. Reference was made to Clause (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.375 dated 12.10.1998 which stipulates that an Educational Institution which was originally not established by a minority community, cannot acquire such status or character subsequently under any circumstances.
10. A representation was made by the School to the State interpreting Clause (iii) as aforesaid, by stating that the concept of ‘established’ should not be interpreted as ‘established originally’ but that even a subsequent purchase/acquisition of the school management by a minority body would satisfy the term ‘established’, vesting the school with the requisite character of a minority institution.
11. The representation was processed and various details were sought from R1. Since no final orders had been passed, R1 filed W.P.No.24251 of 2009 seeking a
