w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Chennai v/s Syed Ammal Engineering College, Rep. By its Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram


Company & Directors' Information:- M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200GJ1981PLC004437

Company & Directors' Information:- G. R. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1990PTC058602

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = L28900MH2006PLC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- V U B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29290MH2005PTC154033

Company & Directors' Information:- N S ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29219TG1989PTC010511

Company & Directors' Information:- S S S ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27205KA1981PTC004194

Company & Directors' Information:- H M G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1977PLC019533

Company & Directors' Information:- K R R ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1989PTC016852

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28900MH2006PLC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- D B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC026541

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28900MH2006PTC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- J P ENGINEERING CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U34103WB1951PTC019638

Company & Directors' Information:- T P W ENGINEERING LTD [Active] CIN = U27203WB1975PLC029939

Company & Directors' Information:- C L ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PB1992PTC012057

Company & Directors' Information:- W & W ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2003PTC051228

Company & Directors' Information:- K B ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74160TG1988PTC008366

Company & Directors' Information:- R P ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB1992PTC055482

Company & Directors' Information:- J & K ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203JK2006PLC002684

Company & Directors' Information:- S P T ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U27109UP2005PTC030940

Company & Directors' Information:- A M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910MH1981PTC187856

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. E. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36990MH2007PTC175320

Company & Directors' Information:- C T ENGINEERING LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29259GJ1986PLC009007

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND S ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1995PTC027661

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND R ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29199TZ1999PTC009012

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PTC021507

Company & Directors' Information:- G M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910GJ2013PTC077091

Company & Directors' Information:- W. E. ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U52335WB1985PTC039370

Company & Directors' Information:- L. B. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2018PTC225084

Company & Directors' Information:- R I ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA1991PTC012420

Company & Directors' Information:- U D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109DL1999PTC102586

Company & Directors' Information:- H H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301WB1997PTC083294

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00350PB2006PLC029521

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29110PB2006PLC029521

Company & Directors' Information:- D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29269TZ1932PTC000046

Company & Directors' Information:- V K B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141483

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200PN1999PTC014259

Company & Directors' Information:- C N C ENGINEERING LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000KA1986PLC007922

Company & Directors' Information:- G V T ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29219DL1996PTC082427

Company & Directors' Information:- K. I. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2009PTC133109

Company & Directors' Information:- G M E P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29192DL1998PTC096737

Company & Directors' Information:- J T ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018756

Company & Directors' Information:- M C ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1972PTC006392

Company & Directors' Information:- C P ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PTC014052

Company & Directors' Information:- H V S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH2005PTC158342

Company & Directors' Information:- S C ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1982PTC035623

Company & Directors' Information:- U M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29200MH1977PTC019574

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071971

Company & Directors' Information:- S K ENGINEERING CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05001UP1952PTC002408

Company & Directors' Information:- G D ENGINEERING COMPANY (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1993PTC058553

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. I. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36999HR2007PTC036660

Company & Directors' Information:- N S S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28999KA1989PTC010312

Company & Directors' Information:- A P V ENGINEERING CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29113WB1945PLC006428

Company & Directors' Information:- G B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29212PB1996PTC017500

Company & Directors' Information:- T P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201OR2010PTC011517

Company & Directors' Information:- S B ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1982PTC005292

Company & Directors' Information:- J J ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29219WB1986PTC041433

Company & Directors' Information:- D & L ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U29113TN2004PTC052690

Company & Directors' Information:- H R P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31503MH1997PTC108621

Company & Directors' Information:- S H ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB1999PTC088930

Company & Directors' Information:- V K S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28133TN2005PTC057283

Company & Directors' Information:- P. L. G. EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80300DL2007PTC171109

Company & Directors' Information:- M K ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1995PTC027278

Company & Directors' Information:- K J ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29299PN2006PTC129171

Company & Directors' Information:- N. P. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100WB2010PTC150609

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC063442

Company & Directors' Information:- M P T ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29299KL1994PTC007761

Company & Directors' Information:- A K ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50300UP1981PTC005354

Company & Directors' Information:- J P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28129MH1972PTC015813

Company & Directors' Information:- V M ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH1969PTC014224

Company & Directors' Information:- M M ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U28932MH1979PTC021819

Company & Directors' Information:- N G T ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1968PTC027292

Company & Directors' Information:- M A S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1976PTC019233

Company & Directors' Information:- K P ENGINEERING CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74200WB1961PTC025258

Company & Directors' Information:- M A N INDIA ENGINEERING LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74200WB1979PLC020893

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007743

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U00500JH1988PTC003057

Company & Directors' Information:- L & V ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MZ2005PTC007690

Company & Directors' Information:- C P C ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29120TZ1986PTC001880

Company & Directors' Information:- P K R ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29130TZ2004PTC011094

Company & Directors' Information:- C S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211DL2004PTC125711

Company & Directors' Information:- D M S ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1964PTC026168

Company & Directors' Information:- S D S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999PN2000PTC014838

Company & Directors' Information:- N T ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999PY1986PTC000445

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31100MH2005PTC152838

Company & Directors' Information:- V J S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29130TN1996PTC036636

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. V. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253MH2010PTC205237

Company & Directors' Information:- U S ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U34300CH1986PTC006887

Company & Directors' Information:- SYED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50103DL1984PTC018743

Company & Directors' Information:- A D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1989PTC002348

Company & Directors' Information:- R J ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ1972PTC001441

Company & Directors' Information:- O N ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031987

Company & Directors' Information:- S D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80903MH2004PTC147463

Company & Directors' Information:- P N ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1980PTC032750

Company & Directors' Information:- S G D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29210KA2009PTC050452

Company & Directors' Information:- G A S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191MH2004PTC149606

Company & Directors' Information:- G T ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29219PN2012PTC145781

Company & Directors' Information:- M. M. K. ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29305MH2014PTC252830

Company & Directors' Information:- K-4 ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31400MH2010PTC204004

Company & Directors' Information:- K-EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301MH2014PTC256056

Company & Directors' Information:- N J ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209MH2015PTC262607

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253TN2009PTC073915

Company & Directors' Information:- A S C EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80904TG2015PTC099629

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INDIA EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904UP2016PTC084320

Company & Directors' Information:- O S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035501

Company & Directors' Information:- T A ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28992CH2003PTC025800

Company & Directors' Information:- M N A ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202CH2006PTC030215

Company & Directors' Information:- A A P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27106DL2005PTC138318

Company & Directors' Information:- A C ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29253DL2011PTC222515

Company & Directors' Information:- S. Z. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29253DL2014PTC274095

Company & Directors' Information:- IN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL2011PTC212284

Company & Directors' Information:- J N ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC278906

Company & Directors' Information:- N I ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC280734

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51502DL2012PTC242516

Company & Directors' Information:- Z. M. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2007PTC168270

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2005PTC136846

Company & Directors' Information:- G D EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2003PTC122716

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80904DL2012PTC245724

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1951PTC000699

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2010PTC040713

Company & Directors' Information:- S I ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109UP1967PTC003182

Company & Directors' Information:- S D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1999PTC102948

Company & Directors' Information:- M B D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL2008PTC181446

Company & Directors' Information:- P H EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U80211DL2008PTC177735

Company & Directors' Information:- O E S EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302DL2006PTC154572

    C.M.P. No. 5028 of 2020 & W.A. SR. No. 7173 of 2019

    Decided On, 13 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.P. SAHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

    For the Petitioner: E. Manoharan, Spl. G.P. For the Respondent: Kandan Duraisami, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Petition filed under Order IV Rules 9 (4) of AS Rules to condone the delay of 253 days in re-presenting the W.A.SR.No.7173 of 2019 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.03.2016 made in W.P.No.3011 of 2016.)

A.P. Sahi, CJ.

1. This appeal once again raises the continuing legal strife on behalf of the minority institutions claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India to urge that their inviolable protected rights are being infringed by an effort of the State by impinging upon their existing rights to continue to enjoy the status of a minority institution established and administered by a religious minority, without there being any violation of law or mismanagement or any concern of public or national interest. The litigation again brings to the fore an assertion of such rights by educational institutions claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India as against State control being imposed in the manner of recognition and continuing recognition of minority status of such institutions

2. A learned single Judge allowed the petition of the respondent institution assailing the time limit of five years fixed by the State in the Government Order dated 16-07-2012 to the validity of a certificate recognising the minority status of the institution. This appeal has been preferred by the State, assailing the judgment dated 10.03.2016 of the learned single Judge, which is also excessively barred by time, that was noted in our order dated 09.07.2020 extracted hereinunder:-

“We have heard learned Special Government Pleader and we have also perused the order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar.

2. The issue raised is about virtually granting a temporary recognition of minority status of an institution, which claims to have established itself as a minority institution and is also administering the same as such. The concept of such temporary status does not appeal to reason and the same also prima facie cannot be a ground to urge that this is a reasonable restriction, even if the rights secured under Part III of the Constitution may not be absolute vis-a-vis the controversy in question. We are, therefore, yet to find out as to how the State can grant a temporary minority status which does not appear to be emanating from any of the fundamental rights pertaining to the minorities under Part III of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the State has urged that this recognition and any order passed by the State authority can be taken up in an appeal as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny and others v. State of West Bengal and others, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 772, para 19 onwards. He prays that he may be granted some more time to further study the matter in depth and then assist the Court.

4. We may also point out that there is a delay in presentation of the appeal of 978 days and then again a delay in the re-presentation of 253 days, which shall also be dealt with whenever the matter is taken up next.

List on 06.08.2020, as prayed for.”

3. A preliminary objection raised by the State to the maintainability of the writ petition is based on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Sisters of St.Joseph of Cluny (supra), to contend that any such dispute pertaining to the claim of an institution to be treated as a minority institution on a permanent basis has to go before the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions under the 2004 Act and therefore, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

4. The second contention on merits is that the exercise of power by the State by limiting the recognition of a status to a certain period is only regulatory in nature, and not prohibitory, so as to impinge upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that it is in the nature of a reasonable restriction to supervise, control and monitor the administrative set up of such a college so as to prevent any mal-administration or mis-management. It is urged that it is to ensure that there is no deviation in the standards of education and the regulatory control over such institutions is necessary so as to prevent the institutions from impinging any facet of the purposes for which such educational institutions have been set up. The control of the Government being necessary to that extent, the same does not amount to an interference with the minority status of the institution. The contention raised is that by issuing the Government Order to certify the minority status of an institution for a particular period of time is to extend the benefit and not to restrict the same and therefore, it is a reasonable provision which does not amount to any interference with the status of minority of the institution. Consequently, the conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge that too even based on judgments which no longer hold the field vitiates the impugned judgment.

5. The respondent petitioner, however, refuted the said contentions and urged that none of the arguments are now sustainable keeping in view the final decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. The Secretary, Loyola College and Others, (MANU/TN/5158/2017), wherein, vide judgment dated 11.09.2017, it has been held that placing of any restriction on the period of recognition infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. A Review Application No.236 of 2019 was filed in the same judgment which has again been repelled on 21.02.2020 and the position of law has been reaffirmed holding that the minority status given to an institution will hold good without any restriction period, but if the State is able to find any change in the constitution of educational agency or if the institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of Association / By-laws of the Society, it would be open to the Government to issue notice and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

6. It is urged that the said judgments have considered take care of the Apex Court judgments that have been pronounced from time to time, and accordingly the issue raised having been answered by this Court, there is no occasion for the answering respondent to have gone to the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions.

7. It is also urged that the huge delay caused in the filing of the appeal is inordinate and unexplained and therefore, the appeal deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the respondent petitioner that the appeal does not require any consideration and should be rejected outright.

8. We may proceed to consider the issue of limitation first. As recorded in our order dated 09.07.2020, there was a delay in the presentation of the appeal by 978 days, whereafter certain defects were pointed out and it was re-presented after another delay of 253 days. Thus, there is a delay of almost four years. The explanation given in the affidavit sought for condonation of delay is that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the request to the Government Pleader for giving his opinion was moved on 23.05.2017, which opinion was rendered on 31.05.2017. The preparation of the appeal and the delay condonation application were vetted on 01.11.2017 and have been finally approved in December, 2017.

9. The affidavit on behalf of the State is by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, further states that since the officials are incharge of various administrative and quasi-judicial functions including initiating policy decision and disposal of other matters including day-to-day administration, could not file the appeal in time and it came to be preferred in February, 2020. The appeal was presented on 21.02.2020. We do not find any appropriate explanation much less day-to-day explanation for the delay between 2017 to 2020 and the affidavit of the official has been presented with a totally non-serious approach. In the absence of any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay except for the general observations made in the affidavit, we are not impressed by the explanation given. There is no sufficient cause therefore available to condone the said unexplained delay. We are supported in our view by the Apex Court judgment in the case of ESHA BHATTACHARJEE v. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERS, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649. But, in order to give a quietus to the matter, we find it more appropriate to say a few words on the merits of the appeal as well.

10. The contention of the appellant State that the respondent petitioner Institute ought to have approached the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions for redressal of its grievance against the Government Order impugned in the writ petition dated 16.07.2012, does not appeal to us keeping in view the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny (supra) read with the judgment in the case of Governing Body of Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College vs. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 6 SCC 788. The said decision has clearly explained that Section 11(f) of the 2004 Act empowers the Commission to decide all questions relating to the Status of any institution as a minority educational institution and declare its status as such. Section 12-B provides for an appeal under the said provision to be preferred against an order of rejection of an application for grant of such status. Thus, the provisions therein do indicate a procedure with regard to grant of status or rejection of an application for granting such status.

11. In the instant case, the status is already recognised and it is the tenure of the period of certification of such status which was restricted to five years. In our opinion this was not a case of rejection, but of continuing the grant of status which was limited to five years. In this background, there is no occasion for the institution to file an appeal as there is no rejection by the State Government. The institution was aggrieved only on account of the infringement of its fundamental rights as alleged under Article 30 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the State did not have an authority to limit the grant of certification for a period of five years. We, therefore, do not find any strength in the arguments of the learned counsel for the State that the respondent petitioner should be compelled to file an appeal before the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution.

12. The State has not disputed the minority status of the institution at all. The question is, can the status of recognition be limited by prescribing a tenure of five years to the validity of the certificate?

13. Before we proceed any further to examine the said question, it would be apt to mention that the issue which was raised before the Eleven Judges Bench of the Apex Court in T.M.Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481, was answered by indicating minimal of interference in administrative affairs, but approved regulatory measures that could be put into place for regulating the standards of education in the institution. The Apex Court in the Five Judges Bench decision that was constituted to explain the Eleven Judges Bench, in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 697, held that Article 30 is not absolute, however, the right under Article 30 was preserved and all minorities continue to have fundamental rights to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It further went on to hold that the management of a minority educational institution cannot be taken over, but at the same time, entered in a caveat that the Court should not be understood to mean that even in national interest, a minority institute cannot be closed down. In sum and substance, any conditions that would completely destroy the autonomous administration of an educational institution would be ultra vires the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

14. In a separate judgment delivered by Hon'ble Justice S.B.Sinha, in the Islamic Academy of Education case (supra), it was observed that minorities may have a right to establish and administer institutions of their own choice, but they do not have any fundamental right of recognition or affiliation for the said purpose. They must fulfil the requirements of law as also other conditions which may reasonably be fixed by the appropriate Government or the University. The issue of national interest and public interest were also taken to be relevant factors while granting recognition or affiliation.

15. It may further be pointed out that such reasonable restrictions to the extent of permissible closure, if the running of the institution is against public or national interest is established, has been considered in the case of Sindhi Education Society and Another vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 49.

16. The question in the present case is as to whether a recognition already granted under the Government Order dated 16.07.2012 did require any limitation being prescribed for the continuing recognised minority status of the institution. The respondents are right in their submissions that the issue has been directly answered in W.A. No.1130 of 2013 (between State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. The Secretary /Correspondent, Loyola College (Autonomous) and Another, decided on 11.09.2017 (MANU/TN/5158/2017), which is extracted hereinunder:-

“1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2012.

2. The appellant No.1, which is, effectively, the State of Tamilnadu, has filed the present appeal along with the Director of Collegiate Education, to impugn the judgement of the learned Single Judge, on the sole ground that the acceptance of prayer to quash the impugned Government Order, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.363, Higher Education (E1) Department, dated 08.10.2009 (in short, “the G.O.”), which was issued to monitor and regulate the minority status of respondent No.1, i.e., Loyola College, would impact its rights to oversee and supervise, not only this particular institution, but all other institutions. It is pertinent to note that via the impugned judgement, appellant No.1, had limited the recognition of minority status of respondent No.1, to a defined period, that is, five years. The impugned G.O. indicates that respondent No.1 would enjoy minority status for the period spanning between 2007 and 2012.

2.1. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by incorporation of a defined period in the impugned G.O., with regard to its minority 3 status, had approached the learned Single Judge, via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, as adverted to above, quashed the impugned G.O.

3. It is, in this background that the appellants have preferred the captioned appeal before us. Before we proceed further, we would like to allude to the relevant facts, which are, helpfully, etched out in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the impugned judgment:

“..... 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner- College, namely, Loyola College, Chennai is one among the recognised educational institutions administered by the Loyola College Society formed by the members of the Congregation of Society of Jesus. The college was established by the St. Joseph's Society, Tiruchirappalli, a society registered under the Societies Act (Registration No.5228 of 1973) and for administrative convenience, a separate society namely, Loyola College Society was formed and it took over the College. The Loyola College Society is a registered Society bearing Registration No.228 of 1973. It was originally registered under the Societies Registration Act No.XXI of 1860 and after the enactment of Societies Registration Act, 1975 which came into effect on 22.04.1978, the Society became deemed to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975 by virtue of Section 53 thereof. The members of the Society of Jesus are popularly known as Jesuits in the State of Tamil Nadu. There are 480 Jesuits working in various schools and colleges, social services and social work centres in Parishes and in Mission Outreach Programmes. This Jesuit Province of Tamil Nadu is called the Jesuit Madurai Province. There are totally 5 Arts and Science Colleges including Loyola and 2 Colleges of Education under the Madurai Province. Some of the other premier institutions of higher education administered by the Jesuits in India are as follows:

1. Loyola-ICAM College of Engineering Technology (LICET),Chennai.

2. Loyola Institute of Business Administration (LIBA), Chennai.

3. Xavier Labour Research Institute (XLRI), Jamshedpur

4. Xavier Institute of Management (XIM), Bhubaneswar

5. Loyola College , Thiruvananthapuram

6. St.Xavier's College, Ahmedabad

7. St.Xavier's College, Mumbai

8. St.Xavier's College, Kolkota

9. St.Joseph's College, Bangalore

10. St.Joseph's College, Trichy

11. St.Joseph's College of Commerce, Bangalore

12. St.Aloysius College, Mangalore

13. Xavier Institute of Engineering, Mumbai

14. St.Xavier's College of Management and Research, Mumbai

15. St.Xavier's College of Education, Mumbai

16. St.Xavier's College, Thiruvananthapuram

17. Andhra Loyola College,Vijayawada

18. St.Joseph's College, Darjeeling

19. St.Xavier's College, Ranchi

20. Xavier Institute of Social Studies, Ranchi

21. St.Xavier's College, Palayamkottai

22. St.Xavier;s College of Education, Palayamkottai

23. Arul Anandar College, Karumattur-Madurai

24. Vidyajoti College of Theology, Delhi

25. Loyola College, Thiruvannamalai

26. Loyola College of Education, Chennai

5. The object of the Society is to provide education in all streams to all, especially to the Roman Catholic Christians of the State and to maintain the spiritual educational, cultural, social, industrial, technical, agricultural, benevolent and other interests of the Society. The Loyola College was established in the year 1925. It became an autonomous college in 1978. it continues to remain affiliated to the University of Madras. The University confers the degrees on the students passing the examinations held by the college and the name of the college will be indicated in the degrees. All along, the college was recognised as a Minority Institution by the Government. The Society is the Educational Agency of the college. Although it is a Christian Religious Minority College, admission is not denied to anyone only on the ground of caste, creed, religion or language.

6. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.270 (Higher Education-J1) dated 17.06.1998, pursuant to which, the second respondent insisted the petitioner-college to get a separate order from the Government recognizing its status as a Minority. Accordingly, the petitioner-College applied to the first respondent through the second respondent requesting to recognize it as a Minority Institution. The college satisfied all the requirements contained in the said Government Order for the grant of minority status. The details are as under:

(i) The college has been established with the definite aim of promoting the educational interest and the social advancement of the Christian population.

(ii) The members of the Society which runs the college are all Christians by birth. They belong to the Roman Catholic order of Christianity.

(iii) The college has been functioning as a fullfledged Christian Minority Educational Institution.

(iv) The Educational Agency, namely, the Society is a Christian organization.

(v) Christianity is a religion recognized and declared as Minority in the State of Tamil Nadu. The first respondent issued orders recognizing the status of the college as Minority college for one year from 2004-2005. Every year applications were submitted by the petitioner and orders recognizing the college as Minority Institution were issued for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

7. The first respondent again issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.363 Higher Education (E1) Department dated 08.10.2009 granting recognition as Minority Institution from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 for a period of five years. The restriction of recognition as minority college for a period of five years is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that there is no change in the membership of the society and constitution of the educational agency and its objects. .....”

4. Pertinently, the learned Single Judge, after adverting to the aforementioned facts, posed the following issue for consideration, which according to him, needed determination : whether the appellants could grant minority status for a limited period ?. The grievance of respondent No.1, is that, each time the 7 period prescribed for recognition of its minority status expires, it is required to approach the appellants, which involves having to tackle bureaucratic rigmarole.

4.1. The minority status of Loyola College was restricted, as noted above, to a period of five years spanning between 2007- 2008 and 2011-2012.

4.2. The learned Single Judge, relying upon a Division Bench judgement in the case of : Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (3) MLJ 433, ruled against the appellants.

5. Mr.P.Siva Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, who appears for the appellants, says the impugned G.O. restricted the period of recognition as such a regime allows for oversight, supervision and regulation. It is the learned counsel's submission that, if, the appellants were to grant permanent recognition to minority institutions, then, aberrations, if any, which may arise, could go unnoticed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 institute, says that, as and when, an infraction is noticed, the appellants would be free to take out proceedings against the concerned institution, and that, after hearing the concerned 8 institution, orders of de-recognition, as a minority institution, can be passed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon a judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter : Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College V. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 8 MLJ 509.

7. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. According to us, the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. As a matter of fact, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is based on the judgement of the Division Bench in the matter of : Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust. Being a coordinate Bench, we are bound by the view of the Division Bench.

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 9 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. 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. ....”

10. Having regard to the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement.

11. Accordingly, the captioned appeal is dismissed. Resultantly, pending application shall stand dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.”

17. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment before the Apex Court contending that the Division Bench had relied on the judgment in the case of Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (3) MLJ 433, which had already been set aside on 18.02.2013. We find that the aforesaid submission is correct. The judgment in the case of Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem (surpra) was taken up in appeal before the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar, Civil Appeal No.6730 of 2004 and the ground on which it was set aside is worth noticing. The judgment dated 18.02.2013 is extracted hereinunder:-

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 815 of 1999 by which it has set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.1.1999 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 29.9.1998 by which the Government of Tamil Nadu has cancelled the linguistic minority certificate issued in respect of the educational institution for the year 1997-98.

In order to decide this appeal, it is not necessary for us to give the facts in detail. It is evident from the record that a Trust was created for imparting the education. Subsequently, an amendment was brought in the Trust Deed on the basis of which certain preference was given to the persons belonging to a particular community to which the Trustee belonged. A certificate dated 27.10.1997 was granted by the revenue authorities conferring certain benefits under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India for the purpose of admission of medical students for the year 1997-98.

The said order was set aside by subsequent order which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The main reason of challenge of the subsequent order of withdrawal of the minority certificate had been that the order was passed by the Government without giving any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show cause notice to the respondent or trust or trustees. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench, while dealing with the writ appeal, has not only allowed the writ appeal rather granted a minority community certificate to the respondent assessing the merit itself.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we are of the view that in such a fact situation, the Division Bench ought to have set aside the order of recall of the minority certificate and ask the Government to reconsider after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned but it was certainly not permissible for it to take the task of Government upon itself and grant the minority certificate.

In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench, learned Single Judge as well as by the State Government dated 29.9.1998. The State Government is directed to issue fresh show cause notice to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today and respondent is directed to submit the reply within a period of two weeks after receiving the said show cause notice. The Government will decide the same after considering the contents taken in the reply to the show cause and if considered necessary, after giving opportunity of hearing within a period of four weeks thereafter.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

18. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the High Court had erroneously itself taken up the task of giving a declaration of minority status to the institution and should have remitted the matter back to the State Government to reconsider it as to whether the certificate should be granted to the institution or not. It was only on this short ground that the appeal was allowed, without touching upon the issue presently involved, namely, the period for which a certificate should be issued.

19. The appeal against the judgment dated 11.09.2017 in the Loyala College case before the Apex Court was disposed of on 05.03.2018 granting liberty to the State to take appropriate steps against the judgment dated 11.09.2017 and if they are still not satisfied, they will be at liberty to seek further remedy. The order of the Apex Court dated 05.03.2018 is extracted hereinunder:-

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Delay condoned.

It is stated that the judgment, which is the basis of the impugned judgment, was set aside by this Court on 18.02.2013 in C.A. No.6730/2004, titled “State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. Thirumuruga Kirupananda Vairyar”.

In view of above, it will be open to the petitioners to move the High Court for consideration of this aspect in accordance with law.

If the petitioners are not satisfied with the order which may be passed, they will be at liberty to take remedy against the same.

The special leave petitions are disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of.”

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, reported in MANU/TN/1877/2020, which is extracted hereinunder:-

(1) The 1 st 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 allowing the writ petition, filed an Appeal in WA.No.1130 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 11.09.2017, found that there is no reason to interfere with the said order and accordingly, dismissed the writ appeal.

(4) The appellants/official respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, had filed the present Review Application to review the said judgment dated 11.09.2017.

(5) The facts leading to the present round of litigation have been narrated in detail and in extenso in the order dated 17.09.2012 in WP.NO.24606 of 2012 as well as in the judgment dated 11.09.2017 in WA.No.1130 of 2013 and hence, it is unnecessary to restate the facts once again.

(6) Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Special Government Pleader [Edn] has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment in WA.No.1130 of 2013 and would submit that the Division Bench of this Court has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment reported in 2001 [3] MLJ 433 [Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu] and it was followed in a subsequent decision / judgment reported in 2013 [8] MLJ 509 [Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College V. State of Tamil Nadu]. The learned Additional Advocate General has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 18.12.2013 made in Civil Appeal No.6730 of 2004 [State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar] and would submit that the judgment in Thirumurga Kirupananda Variyar's case has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited judgment and as such, it is not open to the 1 st respondent/College to claim Minority Status without any restriction of the period. It is also pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, by drawing the attention of this Court to various Government Orders, dated 17.06.1998 ; 06.05.2003 ; 11.12.2006 ; 12.03.2007 as well as the impugned Government Order No.363 dated 08.10.2009, which was quashed by the order passed in WP/NO.24606 of 2012 and would submit that in the judgment reported in 2002 [8] SCC 481 [T.M.A.Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka and others], it was observed that as regards framing of ''indicia'' for treating an educational institution as a Minority Institution, it was held that the said issue will be dealt with by a Regular Bench and since the Regular Bench is yet to be constituted, the Government, through various orders, had fixed the criteria/conditions for extension of the Religious Minority Status already granted to the Minority Colleges and the conditions are only minimal and only for the purpose of regulating it without appending the Constitution Right to Religious Minority and it cannot be faulted with.

(7) It is also urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that once the Minority Status, as pleaded by the 1 st respondent/College – writ petitioner in the writ petition, is permitted without any restriction, in the event of mal / misadministration and other shortcomings, it will be extremely difficult to set right the same. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in imposing reasonable and minimal restrictions to monitor such institutions, especially, in the context of students welfare. Hence, prays for allowing of the Review application.

(8) Per contra, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College, has drawn the attention of this Court to Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar's case reported in AIR 2002 Mad 42 and would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, thought fit to interfere with the said judgment only for the reason that the Division Bench, in the said judgment, rather granted a Minority Community Certificate to the appellant/respondent therein assessing the merit itself and therefore, only for the said reason, had remanded the matter to the State Government to decide the said issue and therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General is not correct in making submission that the reasons given in the said judgment has been set aside in toto. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College has also placed heavy reliance upon the judgment reported in 1998 [6] SCC 674 [N.Ammad Vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others] and would submit that as per the said decision, when a declaration to the effect that an Institution is a Minority Institution, the recognition pertains to a factual position that the said Institution was established and is being administered by a Minority Community and such a declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration and the said decision has also been subsequently referred to and reiterated in the decision reported in 2017 [8] SCALE 364 [Manager, Corporate Educational Agency V. James Mathew and Others].

(9) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 4 [Sk.Md.Rafique Vs. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Others] and would submit that in the said decision, some important decisions pertain to Right of Minority to establish educational institutions, have been referred to. In paragraph No.108, it is held that ''so long as the principles laid down in TMA Pai Foundation's case, are satisfied, it is permissible that any regulations seek to ensure the standard of excellence of the institutions while preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.'' It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that though reasonable restrictions can be imposed, especially in the interest of the students, the impugned Government Order, restricting the period of Minority Status, which also results in a Minority Institution compelling to approach the concerned authority for extension of Minority Status, per se, offends the Right guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

(10) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College further submitted that insofar as the 1 st respondent/College is concerned, it is one of the premier Educational Institutions in India and its Minority Status is never in doubt and the Government Orders referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General also provides for withdrawal of Minority Status by the said Institution, is guilty of commission or omission of any action which is against the Minority Status and as such, there is no necessity to restrict the Minority Status insofar as the 1 st respondent/College is concerned and prays for dismissal of the review application.

(11) This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

(12) In the decision reported in 1998 [6] SCC 674 [Ammad's case] [cited supra], the question that arose for consideration was that whether the Management of a Minority School, free to choose and appoint any qualified person as Headmaster of the school or whether such Management is hedged by any legislative edict or executive fiat in doing so?

(13) It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said decision that there is no provision in the Kerala Education Act and Rules directing the Government to declare a School as a Minority School. The Hon'ble Apex Court, after referring to Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India, observed in paragraph No.13 as follows:-

''13. When the Government declared the School as a Minority school it has recognised a factual position that the School was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the school can claim protection only after the Government declared it as a minority school on 02.08.1994.''

(14) In the judgment reported in 2013 [4] SCC 14 [Dayanand Anglo Vedic [DAV] College Trust and Management Society V. State of Maharashtra and Another], challenge was made to the withdrawal of the recommendation for DAV Society as a Linguistic Minority Institution on the ground that the earlier order, granting recommendation was under the mistake that the trustees of the appellant were residing in the State of Maharashtra. A question was posed in the said decision ''whether a member of linguistic non-minority in one State can establish a trust or society in another State and claim minority status in that State where speakers of the language, establishing the Trust or Society were a minority? The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Paragraphs No.28 to 32, had dealt with rights conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution of India to the Minority Educational Institutions and in the said paragraphs, it is observed as follows:-

''The rights conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution of to minorities are in two parts. The first part is the right to establish the institution of the minority's choice and the second part relates to the right to administration of such institution. The word ''establishment'' herein means bringing into being of an institution and it must be by minority community. ''Administration'' means management of the affairs of the institution. Minorities in India have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and the State Government or the Universities cannot interfere with the day-today management of such institutions by the members of minority community. Though Article 30 itself does not lay down any limitation upon the right of a minority to administer its educational institution, but this right is not absolute. This is subject to reasonable regulations regulations for the benefit of the institution and the State Government and Universities can issue directions from time to time for the maintenance of standards and excellence of such institution, which is necessary in the national interest.''

(15) Thus, the rights conferred upon the Minority Educational Institutions are not absolute and are subject to reasonable Regulations/restrictions especially for the benefit of the students and it is always open to the State and Universities to issue appropriate direction from time to time for the maintenance of standards and excellence of such institution, especially, from the angle of career and welfare of the students which is necessary in the national interest. Thus, the rights conferred upon the Minorities guaranteed under Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India are not absolute and are immuned from any reasonable restrictions.

(16) In the decision reported in 2017 [18] SCALE 364 [cited supra], the issue arose for consideration was, as to the right of the management of the Minority Educational Institution to appoint a person of their choice. The Hon'ble Apex Court, the said decision, after referring to its earlier decisions, had also placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 1998 [6] SCC 674 [Ammad's case] [cited supra] and in paragraph No.6, it is observed that ''therefore, there is no question of availability of the status only from the date of declaration and what is declared is a status which was already in existence.''

(17) The learned Additional Advocate General has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment dated 18.02.2013 made in Civil Appeal No.6730 of 2004 for the proposition that the judgment in Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar's case has been set aside. A perusal of the said judgment would disclose that the Division Bench took upon the task of granting Minority Community Certificate to the respondent therein by assessing the merit and only for that reason, had set aside the order and remanded the matter to the State Government.

(18) The judgment relied on by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 4 [Rafique's case] [cited supra], also reiterates the settled position that admission to the Aided Institutions, whether awarded Minority or Non-Minority, students, cannot be at the absolute, sweet will and pleasure of the management of minority educational institutions and the Regulations to promote academic excellence and standards and laid down the proposition that the Right guaranteed under Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India, is not absolute or above the law and that the conditions considering the welfare of the students and teachers must apply in order to provide proper academic atmosphere so long as the conditions did not interfere with the right of administration or management. [paragraph No.106]. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India, in the said decision, has also upheld the vires of certain provisions of West Bengal Madarasah Service Commission Act, 2008.

(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 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 Rev.Appln.No.236 of 2019 concerned authorities in the form of monitoring and regulation, this Court is of the considered view that no grounds have 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.”

Thus, the prescription of limitation of certification of minority rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India may not be permissible in these circumstances.

21. The contention of the State that such restrictions on the period of certification of minority status is necessary to monitor in our opinion also is not logically made out, inasmuch as, the State can take appropriate steps if it finds any deviation in the status of minority or otherwise of the institution for the limited purpose of certification and recognition granted by it. However, the issuance of the certificate for five years in the present case does not indicate any reason not to continue it beyond five years. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the appeal or before the learned single Judge, no material was brought forth to even remotely suggest that the institution had violated any regulation or norms so as to disentitle it to continue to claim recognition as an institution having minority status. This is a case where there is no such material and therefore, there cannot be any justification for making a provision so as to limit recognition. On the other hand, putting a limitation would not serve any such purpose inasmuch as even during the pendency or continuance of a certificate, the State is not denuded by the power of withdrawing any such recognition if any violation is established upon a due consideration of the facts by following the procedure prescribed by law. There is no rationale decipherable in restricting the period so as to connect it with the power of withdrawal of recognition of the State Government. If the power of the State Government can be exercised reasonably, there is no rational nexus between the object of limiting the period of certification with the object of exercising control or the power of withdrawal of recognition. The status of minority of an institution and the power to withdraw the recognition or certification though connected with each other, are differently placed. The power of withdrawal of recognition or certification is still there with the Government even if the recognition or certification is for an unlimited period. Accordingly, the limitation prescribed does not pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or reasonableness as well. Thus, the prescription of limitation of certification of minority rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India may not be permissible in these circumstances.

22. We say this because the rights under Part III of the Constitution of India are there to protect existing rights. The recognition of the status of the institution as a minority status does not amount to conferment of a minority status and is rather a recognition and acknowledgment of the existing minority status of an institution. The existence, therefore, of such a fundamental right is not dependent upon certification, but is dependent upon the ingredients of the establishment and administration of an educational institution, which, in the present case, has not been disputed by the State at all.

23. In this regard, it will be apt to quote a couple of p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

aragraphs of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N.Ammad vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 674. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 15 to 17 are extracted hereinunder:- “12. Counsel for both sides conceded that there is no provision in the Act which enables the Government to declare a school as a minority school. If so, a school which is otherwise a minority school would continue to be so whether the Government declared it as such or not. Declaration by the Government is at best only a recognition of an existing fact. Article 30(1) of the Constitution reads thus: “30. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” 13. When the Government declared the School as a minority school it has recognised a factual position that the School was established and is being administered by a minority community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the School can claim protection only after the Government declared it as a minority school on 2-8-1994. .. 15. A Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re [AIR 1958 SC 956] has examined the constitutional validity of the Bill which was the precursor to the Act when the President of India had sought the advice of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. One of the propositions laid down by the said Constitution Bench in the said decision is this: the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is a right that is absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the substance of that right is void to the extent of infringement. But the absolute character of the right will not preclude making of regulations in the true interests of efficiency or instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like, as such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution. 16. The aforesaid proposition was approved by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Sidhrajbhai Sabbaiv.State of Gujarat [AIR 1963 SC 540 : 1962 Ker LT 135] and also by a nine- Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Societyv.State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717] . 17. Thus the legal position adumbrated in Kerala Education Bill, Re [AIR 1958 SC 956] remains unchanged now.” 24. It has to be kept in mind that in such matters, one is dealing with fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III and not with a lease or a licence or a privilege at the pleasure of the Government. A periodical renewal of a Certificate by limiting its validity may not be necessary for an existing status of minority protected as a fundamental right under Art.30 of the Constitution of India, it is not something akin to the extension of a beneficial social scheme which may require a periodical physical verification of the living status of a human being or like renewal of a gun licence which is also a privilege, or in the like manner a driving licence. The principles of administrative law, therefore, while being pressed into service, in the mechanism of granting of certificates and its continuance or otherwise have to be subservient to the constitutional mandate preserved under Art.30 of the Constitution of India. 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 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. For all the foregoing reasons, we are neither satisfied with the explanation on delay nor on the merits of the submissions and hence, the appeal as well as the condone delay application are dismissed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

16-10-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, namely Shree Rajeev Kumar, District Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-10-2020 K.R. Devadurai Versus The Director The Director of Technical Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2020 Sheetal Tripathi & Others Versus U.O.I. Thru H.R.D. Ministry Higher Education Deptt. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
14-10-2020 G. Ramesh Versus The Joint Director of Higher Education, Directorate of Government Examination, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-10-2020 Vikram Vilas Mane Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-10-2020 Kasthuribai Versus The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-10-2020 Vineet Ruia Versus Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of West Bengal and Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-10-2020 Riddhima Singh Through: Her Father Shailendra Kumar Singh Versus Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
09-10-2020 Dr. B.S. Ravikumar Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-10-2020 Alwin Martin, Sweeper, St.Mary's High School, Coimbatore & Another Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Calicut, Represented by Its Manager Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 The Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), Chennai & Others Versus A. Inpavalli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar Paryayi Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 M/s. NTC Infra & Engineering Private Limited Represented by its Director S. Muthusamy, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Dr. B. Chandrashekara Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Education Department (Collegiate Education), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-09-2020 Dr. Battepati C. Narasimhulu Versus The Director of Medical Education High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
09-09-2020 R. Bharaneeswaran Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
04-09-2020 Shridhar Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (Technical Education), Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
04-09-2020 Y. Devadas Versus State of Telangana, Rep., by Special Chief Secretary, Education Dept., Government of Telangana & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2020 Preeti Rathod & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education (Technical Education), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-09-2020 3I Infraprojects Mauritius Limited Versus Navayuga Engineering Company Limited & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 The Correspondent, Sacred Heart Girls Higher Secondary School, Virudhunagar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 Phatik Sonowal Versus State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. & Secy. To The Govt. of Assam, Education (Elementary), Gauhati & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Poornachandrakala Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-08-2020 The Mining & Engineering Corporation Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
25-08-2020 P. Meenakshi Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
21-08-2020 Posh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-08-2020 M/s. Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-08-2020 Sheela & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 Suresh Kumar Banjare Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Education, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-08-2020 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Another Versus Arun Kumar Jain & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-08-2020 The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education (G1) Department, Chennai & Others Versus M. Selvaraj Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-08-2020 Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt Ltd & Another. Versus Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence & Another. High Court of Delhi
17-08-2020 Rohit Verma Versus State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education Lukcnow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
14-08-2020 Sunil Chillalshetti & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Medical Education Department, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-08-2020 Nipun Sharma Versus Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-08-2020 The Secretary to the Government, Department of Education Fort St. George, Chennai & Others Versus P. Dhanapackiathai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. its Secretary School Education Department, Chennai & Others Versus S. Venkatachalam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-08-2020 Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 T.M. Vasanthakumari & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
12-08-2020 The Principal & Secretary, Lady Doak College, Madurai Versus The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-08-2020 M. Raj Sekhar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Dept. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-08-2020 Tamil Nadu Elementary School Teacher's Federation, Rep. by its District Secretary, A. Justin Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2020 The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others Versus The Correspondent, St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Tuticorin Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-08-2020 Chandresh Kumar Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Higher Education Department, Raipur, (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-08-2020 The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai & Others Versus A. Brinda Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2020 M. Natarajan Versus The State Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 Mahrishi Arvind Institute of Engineering, Rajasthan Versus Ranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 State Bank of India, SCT Engineering College Branch, Pappanamcode, Thiruvananthapuram Versus V. Geetha, Sreenandanam & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
27-07-2020 T. Ranjeeth Singh Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-07-2020 S. Esakkiammal Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-07-2020 M/s. Sree Lakshmi Sreenivasa College of Education & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Mohan Shamrao Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
06-07-2020 K. Prem Chander & Another Versus M/s. Hella India Automotive Private Limited Formerly known as FTZ Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.R. Vinod Kumar High Court of Kerala
29-06-2020 M. Bhavani Manimari Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-06-2020 Post Gradugate Institute of Medical Education & Research Versus Tarandeep Singh Grewal & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
18-06-2020 C.C. Girija & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 ISTTM India Private Limited Versus Engineering Staff College of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 K.K. Jayasree Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-06-2020 Dr. Debajit Das & Another Versus Williamson Magor Education Trust & Others & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-06-2020 M. Karunya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 The Correspondent, St.Antony's Girls Primary School, Near Head Police Office, Coimbatore & Others Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. K.Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-05-2020 M. Lokesh & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Education, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
18-05-2020 K. Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Kashish Gupta Versus The Central Board of Secondary Education, Represented by its Secretary, Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
27-04-2020 P. Chandrasekhar Rao & Another Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
15-04-2020 Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Guntur & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
23-03-2020 Delhi Public School, East Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 Deepak & Another Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 SanatombaHaobam Versus The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary(Education-S), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal & Others High Court of Manipur
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court