Madras High Court
The Secretary vs 4 Thiruvalluvar University on 5 July, 2021
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 5.7.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.12617 of 2021
The Secretary
Loyola College Vettavalam 606 754
Tiruvannamalai District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt.,
Department of Higher Education (E1),
Fort St. Geroge Chennai 600 006.
2 The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3 The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Vellore Region, Vellore District 632 004
4 Thiruvalluvar University
Rep. by its Registrar,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent State Government in GO.
(Ms) No. 178 Higher Education (E1) Department dated 7.12.2020 quash the
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
same in so far as it restricts the status of the petitioner college as a Christian
Minority Educational Institution to a limited period of 5 years from 2016-2017
to 2020-2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexl for
M/s.Isaac Chambers.
For Respondents : Mr.
*****
ORDER
The writ petitioner viz., Loyola College, Olaipadi Village,
Vettavalam, Tiruvannmalai District is a private self financed (unaided) Arts and
Science College, founded and administered by 'Ahal Jesuit Society' which is a
society registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 bearing
Registration No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Registrar of Societies,
Tiruvannamalai. The petitioner College was established in the year 2009. It is
a religious miniority Institution, affiliated to the 4th respondent Thiruvalluvar
University, Vellore. At present 1158 students studying in the college. The
Educational Agency of the College viz., the ''Ahal Jesuit Society'' is formed by
the members of the Congregation of the Society of Jesus. The said society is a
Congregation of the Roman Catholic order of Christianity. The society of Jesus
is a worldwide organization of religious men. In the State of Tamil Nadu, there
are 510 Jesuits working in the various schools and colleges, youth services and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
social work centres in Parishes and in Mission Outrerach programmes. In Tamil
nadu presently, there are two provinces namely the Jesuit Chennai province
and Jesuit madurai province. There are totally 7 Arts and Science colleges
including the petitioner college under the two provinces in Tamil Nadu and
some of the other premier institutions of higher education administered by the
Jesuits in India. The said institutions are run by the Jesuits are Christian
Religious Minority Educational Institutions. The status of Minority was declared
by the judgment, dated 24.9.1976 in W.P.No.701 of 1975. The Government of
Tamil Nadu announced the Congregation of Society of Jesus as a Minority vide
proceedings of th Director of School Education in RC No.24541-G3/76 dated
20.11.1976. Although the Government had already recognised the Congregation
and numerous institutions under it as minority, due to the insistence of the
respondents to obtain separate order for the institution recognising it as a
minority Institution, the petitioner applied for the minority status. The
Government has considered said application and granted minority status to the
petitioner's institution for a period of five years from 2016-17 to 2020-21. The
petitioner being aggrieved by the said portion of the restriction of the period
of 5 years, which is challenged in the present writ petition before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
2. According to the petitioner, the said restriction for a period 5
years is unconstitutional. The Division Bench of this Court in catena of
judgments has considered the similar issue and granted relief to the
petitioner's institution by holding that the restricting the period is illegal and
unconstitutional. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary, Department of
Higher Education and another vs. The Secretary/ Correspondent, Loyola
College (Autonomous) in Rev. Appln. No.236 of 2019 in W.A.No.1130 of
2013, dated 21.2.2020, has clearly held that the said restriction cannot be
imposed by the Government. In yet another decision rendered by this Court in
the case of The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Principal Secretary, Dept.
of Higher Education vs. Syed Ammal Engineering College rep. By its
Administrative Officer [C.M.P.No.5028 of 2020 and W.A.SR No.7173 of
2019, dated 13.8.2020] the Division Bench has taken a same stand and
confirmed the order passed by the writ Court that the said restriction cannot
be imposed by the Government and also also concurred with the earlier
decision of this Court in W.A.No.1130 of 2013, dated 11.9.2017. Therefore,
the impugned order passed by the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.178 Higher
Education (E1) Department, dated 7.12.2020 is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would submit that the issue in hand is already legally settled by
this Court and this Court may pass appropriate orders.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the
materials on record.
5. The writ petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of this court
in W.A.No.1130 of 2013, dated 11.9.2017, has filed the present writ petition.
The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
“9. Moreover, the argument advanced by Mr.Siva
Shanmugasundaram, that grant of permanent minority
status does not allow monitoring and regulation, has
been answered, as rightly argued by the learned counsel
for respondent No.1, in paragraph 7 of the judgement
rendered in : Jeyaraj Annapackiam College. For the
sake of convenience, the relevant observations are
extracted hereafter :
''.... 7. We are in entire agreement with the Division
Bench judgement of this Court reported in
Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru
Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and
Charitable Trust, Salem V. State of Tamil Nadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is
set aside. The minority status given to the appellant
will hold good without any restriction period.
However, if the respondents are able to find any
change in the constitution of educational agency or if
the institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of
Association/Bye-laws of the Society, it is open to the
Government to issue notice and take appropriate
decision in accordance with law. ....''
6. The Division Bench of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu rep.
by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education and another vs. The
Secretary/Correspondent, Loyola College (Autonomous) [Rev.Appln. No.236
of 2019 in W.A.No.1130 of 2013, dated 21.2.2020], considering the ratio
laid down in various judgments, has held as follows:
“(19)Now, coming to the facts of the instant case, it
is not in serious dispute that Loyola College is one of the
premier Institutions administered by the 1 st respondent
and the learned Single Judge, in the order dated
17.09.2012 in WP.No.24606 of 2012 as well as the
Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.3 of
judgment dated 11.09.2017 made in WA.No.1130 of
2017, had also taken into consideration the fact that
very many number of Institutions are run and
administered by the said Trust/Society in India. It is to
be reiterated at this juncture that the said important fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
remains undisputed.
(20)The various Government Orders [cited supra]
issued in this regard, also gives a leverage to the
concerned authorities to take necessary action in the
event of materials/information come to their knowledge
for withdrawal of Minority Status after affording an
opportunity to the concerned Institution. Therefore, the
review applicants have been granted such a power in the
Government Orders, to take appropriate action if any
infraction as to the Minority Status come to their
knowledge.
(21)A perusal of the Government Order dated
08.10.2009 in G.O.Ms.No.363, which had been quashed
in the writ petition and confirmed in the writ appeal,
which is the subject matter of review, would also
disclose that by the said order, extension of the
Religious Minority Status sought for by the 1 st
respondent/Society for the years 2004-05 ; 2005-06 ;
2006-07 and for a further period of five years from
2007-08 to 2011-12, have been granted and a call as to
the extension of new Religious Minority Status at an
appropriate time, have not been taken by the said
Department.
(22)As rightly observed in the judgment, which is
the subject matter of review, since the power to take
appropriate action, is vested with the concerned
authorities in the form of monitoring and regulation, this
Court is of the considered view that no grounds have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
been made out for reviewing the said impugned
judgment dated 11.09.2017.
(23) It is also a well settled position of law that the
Review Application is not an appeal in disguise and it
cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was
an erroneous one on merits. There is no error apparent
on the face of the record, so as to enable this Court to
exercise its review jurisdiction.
(24) In the result, the Review Application stands
dismissed. No costs.
7. Yet another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The
State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher
Education vs. Syed Ammal Engineering College rep. By its Administrative
Officer [C.M.P.No.5028 of 2020 and W.A.SR.No.7173 of 2019], this Court
held as under:
“25. The State Government can exercise a reasonable
control in the grant of certification or otherwise when the
legal character of the minority status of an institution on
its own undergoes a transformation. For example, an
institution initially established as a secular institution or
conversly as a minority institution can undergo such a
fundamental change so as to destroy its basic character.
It is trite to remember Heraclitus who said - “There is
nothing permanent except change”. Thus a living
nature of the status of minority unless duly transformed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
in a way so as to loose its basic character, minority or
otherwise, cannot be deprived of its status which is not
dependent upon a certification. The certification or its
withdrawal may have an impact upon rights and
privileges that may be available to such institutions from
the Government and therefore, the Government can
exercise control to that extent by imposing regulatory
conditions which do not impinge upon the
administration of the institution.
26. It is also stated by the learned Government
Pleader that there are other States throughout the
country that have restricted the life of certificates of
recognition to minority institutions providing for
renewal after three years or even annually. Thus the
prescription of five years in this State is justified. The
illustrations of other States may not be of any avail once
we have found no rationale in the prescription to make it
constitutionally sustainable.
27. Having considered the submissions raised and in
view of what has been noted hereinabove, there being no
further challenge at present to the Division Bench
judgment dated 21.02.2020, we see no reason to differ
from the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and finding
ourselves in agreement with the same, we find no merit
in the arguments advanced on behalf of the State even in
this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
8. In the light of catena of judgments delivered by the Division
Bench of this Court and the same is squarely applied to the facts of the case in
hand, this Court is bound to follow the said decisions. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the first respondent in GO. (Ms) No. 178 Higher
Education (E1) Department dated 7.12.2020 in sofar as restriction for the
period of 5 years is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The
petitioner is entitled for grant of minority status without restricting the
period, but subject to the direction passed by this Court in Review Appln.
No.236 of 2019 in W.A.No.1130 of 2017. The first respondent is directed to
issue the revised G.O. within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
9. In fine, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
5.7.2021
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vaan
To
1 The Principal Secretary to Govt.,
State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education (E1),
Fort St. Geroge Chennai 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
2 The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3 The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Vellore Region, Vellore District 632 004
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
W.P.No.11864 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.12617 of 2021
Dated: 5.7.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
