Madras High Court
B.Manimuthu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 September, 2022
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10348, 10349, 10350, 10351, 10352, 10353, 10354, 10355,
10356, 10357, 10358, 10359, 17352,17353, 17354, 17355, 17356 & 17668 of
2021
In W.P.(MD)No.13393 of 2021
B.Manimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education,
O/o. the Director of School Education Office,
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary),
O/o. the Joint Director of School Education Office (Higher Secondary),
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o. the Chief Educational Office,
Thallakulam,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
5.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. the District Educational Office,
near Govt.Higher Secondary School,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
6.The Correspondent,
Nadar Saraswathi Higher Secondary School,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
7.Usilampatti Khatriya Kula Hindu Nattathi Nadakkal
Uravinmuraikku Pathiyamana Nadar Saraswathy
Higher Secondary School and Primary School
Paribalana Sabai, Usilampatti (REGN No.35/1961),
Rep. by its Secretary Mr.G.Subramanian,
Having its office at T.G.Road, Usilampatti-625532,
and residing at No.15/55, V.K.S.Street, Usilampatti-625532.
(R7 is impleaded vide order dated 09.03.2022 in
W.M.P.(MD)No.12570/2021) ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order issued by the third respondent in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.94977/W5/E2/2013, dated 07.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmalkhan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 to R5 : Mr.S.Saji Bino
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
For R6 : Mr.K.K.Kannan
For R7 : Mr.E.V.N.Siva
COMMON ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and
the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
2. The writ petitioners were appointed to various teaching posts in Nadar
Saraswathi Higher Secondary School, Usilampatti during February to July
2011. The management submitted proposals for approving the appointment of
the writ petitioners. The proposals were returned on 30.11.2011. Challenging
the same, the Management filed W.P.(MD)No.1332 of 2012. The said writ
petition was taken up along with a batch of writ petitions. In the mean while,
there arose a dispute regarding who should be in management of the school.
Thiru.P.Jeyarajan claimed to be the Correspondent of the school. His status
was contested by Thiru.G.Subramanian. This dispute between the two gave rise
to the other writ petitions. All the writ petitions were taken up together and
disposed of by common order dated 19.03.2013. It was made clear that the
various reliefs sought for by the petitioners in all the writ petitions stood
rejected. The following directions were also issued:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
“77. In view of the above, the various reliefs sought by the petitioners in all
these writ petitions, are rejected. The writ petitions are disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The Government order dated 01.1.2012 and the orders of the
Director of School Education and the District Educational Officer dated
11.1.2012 and 12.1.2012 are upheld and the competent authority shall continue
to make direct payment of the grant, until a Civil Court pronounces a final
judgment (not an interim order) as to who are the members of the original
Society with Registration No.35/1961 and as to who are its elected members,
eligible to be recognised as the Educational Agency.
(ii) The Government shall initiate action in terms of Section 34-A of the
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, for the appointment of a Special
Officer in supersession of the Committee and pass orders within a period of 3
months in accordance with law.
(iii) The warring groups are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for a
final determination as to who are the members of the original Society with
Registration No.35/1961 as on date and as to who are its elected members as on
date eligible to be recognised as the Educational Agency.
(iv) Till the Civil Court decides the question of membership as well as
the question of office bearership of the original Society (35/61), the District
Registrar need not accept any Form filed by any of the groups. This will not
tantamount to a violation of the statutory requirements, since I have directed
the Government to appoint a Special Officer, in the preceding clause.
(v) There will be not order as to costs. ”
Challenging the same, writ appeals were filed and the matter was finally taken
to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 10.05.2013, the contained in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
Para 77(ii) alone was stayed. In other words, the Judgment itself or the findings
set out therein were not stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the writ
petitioners herein filed W.P.(MD)Nos.22514 to 22519 of 2015. They sought
interim direction for granting temporary approval and for releasing the salary
payable to them. Vide order dated 15.12.2015, the following order was
passed:-
“2. The petitioners are appointed as Post Graduate Assistants except
the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.22518 of 2015, wherein, he is appointed as
B.T.Assistant. They were all appointed in the year 2011 by the
Correspondent who was approved by the order of the fourth respondent in
the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4415/R3/10, dated 10.02.2011. All the
petitioners were appointed only after the aforesaid order of the fourth
respondent dated 10.02.2011 approving the Correspondentship of the fifth
respondent School. However, their appointments are not approved by the
impugned orders dated 29.01.2014 on the ground that there is a civil
dispute pending between two groups relating to the management of the
school.
3. I am of the view that the petitioners were appointed in the regular
vacancy, that too, in the sanctioned post, by the Correspondent, who was
approved by the fourth respondent at the relevant point of time and
therefore, the petitioners were entitled to get temporary approval from the
date of their appointments pending disposal of the writ petitions.”
Questioning the said interim order, the Government filed W.A.(MD)Nos.183 to
188 of 2016. Vide order dated 22.12.2016, the writ appeals were dismissed and
the interim direction given by the learned single Judge was confirmed. When
the main writ petitions were taken up for disposal on 21.12.2020, the Director
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
of School Education was called upon to appoint an officer not below the rank
of the Joint Director of School Education and conduct an enquiry and take a
decision as regards the minority status of the institution. Pursuant to the
aforesaid direction, an enquiry was conducted and by the impugned order
dated 07.05.2021, it was decided that the school did not enjoy the minority
status and that therefore, the appointments of the writ petitioners cannot be
approved. Challenging the same, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. In these writ petitions, the seventh respondent got themselves
impleaded. Even though Thiru.P.Jeyarajan was not formally made as a party,
this Court in the interest of justice heard the learned counsel for
Thiru.P.Jeyarajan also. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners took me through the averments set out in the affidavit filed in
support of these writ petitions and contended that the impugned order deserves
to be set aside and the writ petitions allowed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded
respondents as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the official respondents submitted that the impugned order does not call for any
interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6. Two issues arise before this Court. The first is whether the Institution
in question can be termed a minority institution. The other issue is whether the
petitioners' appointments can be approved.
7. The learned Senior Counsel emphatically contended that O.S.No.1682
of 1981 was filed before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai
seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was
originally dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the school Management filed
A.S.No.120 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai which
decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the Government filed
S.A.No.883 of 1987. Vide Judgment and decree dated 25.01.1999, the High
Court dismissed the second appeal. This had become final. That is why, when
the Government filed W.A.Nos.183 to 188 of 2016, the Hon'ble Division Bench
while dismissing the writ appeals on 22.12.2016, observed that the school had
been declared as a minority institution by the competent civil Court and that the
said decision has become final and that it is binding upon the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
8. Now the question is whether in the light of such a categorical finding
by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the impugned order can be set aside.
9. The very name of the school suggests that it is not an minority
Institution. The school bears the name “Nadar Saraswathi Higher Secondary
School”. It is not the case of the petitioners that the school is run by a religious
or linguistic minority. Only then, the benefit conferred under Article 30 of the
Constitution of India can be invoked or availed. Admittedly, the persons in
management belong to Hindu Nattathi Nadars.
10. I carefully went through the Judgment rendered in
S.A.No.883 of 1987. The only relief sought by the school management before
the civil Court was that they constitute a religious denomination and hence,
entitled to the benefit under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. It was
decreed. This cannot be construed as a declaration that they are a religious
minority and entitled to the benefit under Article 30 of the Constitution of
India. That would be a clear misreading of the decree. More than anything
else, in the order dated 19.03.2013 rendered in W.P.(MD)No.13037 of 2011,
it was categorically found that the Institution in question cannot be
recognised as a minority institution. The said finding has not been stayed or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
set aside till date. Therefore, in the light of the said finding rendered already,
one has to necessarily sustain the finding in the impugned order that the
Institution in question is not a minority Institution. The first issue is answered
accordingly.
11. The second issue is slightly complicated. The stand of the
respondents is that once the Institution is found to be a non-minority Institution,
then, the appointment of the writ petitioners is bad in law.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as
the learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents would
submit that the purpose of directing an enquiry regarding the minority status of
the institution vide order dated 21.12.2020 in W.P.(MD)Nos.22514 to 22519 of
2015 was that if the Institution is found to be a minority institution, then, the
petitioner's appointment will be sustained and if the Institution is found to be a
non-minority Institution, the petitioner's appointment cannot be sustained.
There is considerable force in the said contention. At the same time, I cannot
lose sight of the fact that during the relevant time, the education department
treated the school in question as a minority Institution. My attention has been
drawn to quite a few proceedings which have been enclosed in the typed set of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
papers indicating that Nadar Saraswathi Higher Secondary School, Usilampatti
was treated as an aided minority school.
13. Thiru.P.Jeyarajan was recognised as the Correspondent of the said
School vide proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar in
Na.Ka.No.4415/A3/10, dated 10.02.2011. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is right in his contention that when
Thiru.P.Jeyarajan appointed the writ petitioners, he was the competent authority
to make the appointments in question. It is true that on 10.01.2012, the position
of Thiru.P.Jeyarajan was completely undermined. The school was brought
under the direct payment system. But that was a subsequent event. The
appointments in question were made on 17.02.2011, 15.05.2011, 29.06.2011,
03.07.2011, 11.09.2011 and July 2011. It is seen that the proposal was returned
in November 2011 primarily for the reason that there was a intra-management
dispute which was pending before the jurisdictional civil court. There is no
dispute that the petitioners are qualified to be appointed to the said post. More
than 11 years have lapsed, since they were appointed. By virtue of the interim
direction given by this Court in the year 2015 which was also confirmed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench, temporary approval was also granted for their
appointments and they were also paid salaries from the date of their original
appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
14. Considering these special facts and circumstances, I am of the view
that denial of approval at this point of time is inequitable and would cause
hardship to the writ petitioners. In this view of the matter, even while
sustaining the finding in the impugned order that Nadar Saraswathi Higher
Secondary School, Usilamppatti is not a minority Institution, the order
declining to grant approval is set aside. The official respondents are directed to
approve the appointments of the writ petitioners and continue to pay their
salaries.
15. These Writ Petitions are partly allowed on these terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
To
1.The Secretary to Government
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of School Education,
O/o. the Director of School Education Office,
DPI Complex,
College Road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
Chennai.
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
3.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary),
O/o. the Joint Director of School Education Office (Higher Secondary),
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o. the Chief Educational Office,
Thallakulam,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
5.The District Educational Officer,
O/o. the District Educational Office,
near Govt.Higher Secondary School,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
W.P(MD)Nos.13393 to 13398 of 2021
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
