R. Emerson Udaisingh, Manager and Correspondent vs The State of Tamil nadu and Others

P. Jyothimani, J.—The correspondent of writ Petitioner school in W.P. No. 9193 of 2002, has passed away pending the writ petition and his son R. Emerson Udaisingh who is the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 3881 of 2010 has been substituted as Petitioner in W.P. No. 9193 of 2002.

Originally, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 9193 of 2002 had challenged the order of the first Respondent in G.O(ID) No. 20, School Education Department, dated 20.02.2002and for a direction to accord minority status to the petitioner school. According to the Petitioner, he isstated to be the Manager and Correspondent of the primary school which was established for standards I to v. in the year 1865 by one Late Thiru. Gnana Sigamony a Baptised Christian and administered by him for the welfare of the students belonging to the Christian community. The school was upgraded as a middle school to conduct classes from VI to VIII and recognised by the District Educational Officer as Government aided school. After his time, another Baptised Christian V. Asirvatham, administered the school upto 31.12.1950. It is stated that from 01.01.1951Late.G. Thangapalam, a Baptised Christian and a member of St. Patrick''s Church, Tuticorin administered the School upto09.11.1997 and thereafter, it was administered by the petitioner which has been recognised by the District Educational Officer on 09.11.1998. Therefore, according to him, the school was established and administered as minority school from the beginning and the said Petitioner was a Baptised Christian and he was also approved as Manager and Correspondent of C.M. High School and Primary School situated in Tuticorin. It is stated that the third respondent in his proceedings, dated 09.11.1998 has ordered the said school as a non minority school. Aggrieved by thesame, the Petitioner has preferred a representation, dated21.11.1998 to the Government, the first Respondent. The first Respondent has called for report on 07.06.1999 from the second Respondent namely, the Director of Elementary Education to award minority status as per G.O. Ms. No. 375,School Education (X-1) Department, dated 12.10.1998. It isstated that thereafter, the second Respondent in his proceedings, dated 22.11.1999 has called for report from the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, the fourth Respondent who on 29.11.1999 has submitted a detailed report to the third Respondent and thereafter, the third Respondent has sent a form for minority status to the fourth Respondent who filled up the form on 22.12.1999 and directed the same to be sent to the third Respondent. Since the first Respondent has not passed any orders on the representation, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 11799 of 2001 and by an order dated26.06.2001 there was a direction to the first Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner''s representation. Even afterwards no order was passed which resulted in initiation of contempt proceedings by the Petitioner in filing Cont.P. No. 64 of 2002 in which notice was ordered. After notice, the first Respondent hurriedly passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the Petitioner which according to the Petitioner is with total non application of mind.

Basing his claim under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has filed the said writ petition challenging the order of the Government. The impugned order challenged on the ground that the first respondent cannot reject the claim of the Petitioner for recognising its institution as minority institution for want of a trust deed. It is stated that the school was established by Gnana Sigamony and continued to be administered by Christians namely, Late.V. Asirvatham, Late.G. Thangapalam, and C. Stephenson Rooba Singh continuously who are all Christians and in fact out of the three schools which were established by the original founders two were continuously recognised as minority institutions while the one in issue now has been wrongly termed as non minority. Simply because the school has been transferred to another minority person, the minority status will not come to an end and therefore, the finding of the first Respondent is not valid in law.

On a reference to the impugned order of the Government, it shows that the Petitioner has been rejected as minority institution on the ground that the trust deed has not been filed; that no certificate has been produced to the effect that the original founders and the persons who have established and administered namely, nana Sigamony, V. Asirvatham, G. Thangapalam and C. Stephenson Rooba Singh are all belonging to the minority Christian community and such certificate from the Revenue Department has not been enclosed; that even though the said school was run as a minority school earlier it was a no minority and inasmuch as the originally, it was registered as a non minority school by educational authorities, it cannot claim minority status; that out of four persons who are stated to have administered the school along with C. Stephenson Rooba Singh other three having died the certificate has been produced only from the CSI authorities to show the minority status and that the particulars regarding the Christian students who are studying has not been furnished.

The said Mr. C. Stephenson Rooba Singh who has filed the above said W.P. No. 9193 of 2002 stated to have been purchased the school on 10.11.1997 and continued to run the school as a minority institution. However, it was wrongly registered as a non minority and therefore, the institution has filed W.P.(MD) No. 3881 of 2010 for a direction against the Respondents to approve the transfer of management of the Petitioner school namely, Carpenter Street Middle School, Tuticorin as a minority institution on the ground that his father Late.R. Emerson Udaisingh has nominated him as a Manager-cum-Correspondent of the school on 18.09.2006. It is also stated that after making him as Manager-cum-Correspondent, the said Petitioner''s father who is the Petitioner in W.P. No. 9193 of 2002 has sent proposals to the fourth Respondent on 18.09.2006 through the fifth Respondent, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,Tuticorin (Urban). It is also stated that the Petitioner''s father has also sent similar proposals to the third respondent, the Chief Educational Officer, on 18.09.2006and thereafter, he died on 22.09.2006. It is stated that the Petitioner sent a letter through the fourth Respondent on 27.09.2006 requesting to register his name on transfer of management after the death of his father. It is stated that the fifth Respondent instead of forwarding the same to the fourth Respondent has returned the proposals on30.11.2006 stating that no objection certificate from the other legal heirs should be obtained apart from giving explanation for delay in applying the change of management and that was complied with and re-submitted on 02.02.2007. Similar letter was also sent to the third Respondent, the Chief Educational Officer on 27.09.2006 and the third respondent has not passed any orders. It is stated that in the meantime, the fifth Respondent has again returned the papers on 05.02.2007 directing to produce certificate of minority status from the Government. It was again re-submitted on 16.04.2007 intimating that the writ petition in W.P. No. 9193 of 2002 was pending. Once again, it was re-presented on 01.06.2007. In the meantime, it is stated that the fourth Respondent has ordered direct payment till the change of management is approved.

When after the death of his father, the approval for change of management was refused by the respondents 4 and 5, he has filed W.P.(MD) No. 6821 of 2007and W.P.(MD) No. 9818 of 2008 in respect of C.M. Primary School, Tuticorin and C.M. High School, Tuticorin respectively which are the other two schools seeking approval for the change of management. By an order dated20.01.2009, there was a direction from this Court to register the change of management in the name of the petitioner as a minority school and thereafter, the fourth respondent has approved the change of management in the name of the Petitioner as minority school in respect of those two schools.

Likewise, the District Elementary EducationalOfficer has also approved the change of management as a minority school in respect of C.M. High School in his proceedings, dated 17.11.2009. However, in respect of the middle school because of the pendency of the writ petition, the educational authorities have not recognised the same as a minority school and also the change of the same in the name of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 3881 of 2010.

It is not in dispute that insofar as it relates to C.M. Primary School which was purchased by C. Stephenson Rooba Singh, the father of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 3881 of2010, there has been a direction of this Court in W.P. No. 6821 of 2007 and W.P. No. 9818 of 2008 setting aside, the impugned orders contained therein by allowing the writ petitions. Those orders impugned were also to that of the order challenged in W.P. No. 9193 of 2002. It was after the said order, the change of management has been approved by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, the fourth Respondent on 26.06.2009. Again in respect of another school namely, C.M. High School which was also purchased by the Petitioner''s father, after the order in W.P. No. 9818 of 2008, the District Elementary EducationalOfficer in his proceedings, dated 17.11.2009 has granted change of management in the name of the Petitioner in respect of that school. Inspite of the above said facts which are unassailable, the representation made by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3881 of 2010, dated 27.11.2009 for the purpose of transferring the management in the name of the petitioner has not been passed.

Under similar circumstances, in W.P.(MD) No. 9424of 2006, in the order dated 11.07.2007, in respect of recognistion of B.M. High School, Malamary, Kanyakumari District, represented by its Correspondent, K.M. Benedict Crizal when the orders were passed by the educational authorities and the Government on the same ground namely that the copies of the trust deed and bye laws are not produced, minority population statistics was not obtained from the Population Census Officer, certificate from the Revenue Officer has not been furnished certifying that the members of the school committee belonging to minority community, K. Chandru, J has held that the privilege conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of Indiais applicable even to a single individual belonging to minority and therefore, the requirement of a trust by the minority cannot be a condition precedent as per the Constitution and that when once the highest authority in Christian religion has given a certificate that the person belongs to Christianity, no further proof is required and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The portion of the order of the learned Judge is as follows:

As rightly contended by Mr. Issac Mohanlal, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the exercise of the Respondents seems to be to deny the minority status to the petitioner at all costs and the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind. Even as per the application of the Petitioner, the Correspondent is not having any trust and it is a one-man show. The fact that he has produced a Certificate from the Bishop that he is a Christian shows that he belongs to minority community and even from the admission of the respondents in the counter, the population of the entire State will have to be taken into account for the purpose of becoming a minority and the Christians are admittedly a minority community in the State of Tamil Nadu and it is well within the knowledge of the Respondents. For this, the petitioner need not produce any proof. Once it is admitted that even a single individual can establish an educational institution of his choice and that if he happens to belong to minority community, the law does not preclude him from getting the minority status so as to enjoy the privilege conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. When the fact that the Petitioner is a single individual is conceded, then the question of producing any Registration Certificate, bye-laws, list of members and the past resolutions does not arise. Even the bye-laws having object of the institution being intended to work for the cause of the minorities need not be stated as the petitioner himself has stated in his application made before the first Respondent. For all these reasons, the impugned order liable to be quashed

An appeal was filed by the educational authorities against the said order in W.A.(MD) No. 120 of 2008 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment, dated 18.02.2008 with the following observation:

The court perused all the materials available. In the instant case, for the rejection of the request made by the Respondent/petitioner in the writ petition as found in the order of the learned Single Judge, the authority has pointed out that the copies of trust deed and bylaws were not produced; that the names of the members at the inception and the present incumbents and the details regarding their religion, language etc.,were not furnished; that the minority population statistics was also not obtained from the Population Census Officer; that the certificates of the Revenue Officer were not enclosed certifying that the members of the school committee were all minorities and the school committee has been promoting the interest of the minority community and that no school committee was constituted in the school till date.

After a perusal of the order, where insufficient reasons were adduced by the learned single Judge to issue direction, and also hearing the Learned Counsel for the State, it would be quite clear that the application was made by a single individual. Nowhere the law says that minority status should not be asked for by a citizen. Apart from that, it is not in controversy that the property originally belonged to the Trust was actually purchased by way of sale, by the single individual, who applied for minority status. It was not the case of the writ Petitioner that there was any Trust or it was actually constituted or maintained by the Trust in order to call for Trust deed. In the instant case, the petitioner belonged to minority community and he has applied for the same. The contention put forth by the Learned Counsel for the State that in the instant case, it is not shown that it was established and run by the minority cannot be accepted. Once the institution is being run by an individual belonged to minority community, it cannot be said that it was not established by the minority community and it cannot acquire such status. So far as the contention that population certificate was not obtained as to the population of a particular community is concerned, the same is not needed for, because it is well within the knowledge of the State that Christianity is a minority community. Further, in the instant case, the Petitioner has produced a certificate from the Bishop that he is a Christian and thus, it would be indicative of the fact that he belonged to minority community. Under these circumstances, calling for proof in respect of certain facts, which do not require either, which are very well within the knowledge of the State, was nothing but the authorities concerned have made up their minds not to grant the relief. Hence, the learned single Judge has passed the well reasoned order, which, in the opinion of the court, does not require any interference

Therefore, it is clear that for enforcement of the right of minority which is a fundamental right to run a school either for establishing or administering, it is not necessary that the person must be a trust or a society. Even an individual belonging to the minority has got aright to establish and administer an institution as a minority. As pointed out by the Division Bench in the above said case, in a similar circumstance, when once the authority recognises the above person as Christian, I do not know as to why the Revenue Department is directed to be certified which can only be an empty formality. In such view of the matter, the order impugned in W.P. No. 9193 of2002 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, the same is set aside and consequently, W.P. No. 3881 of 2010 is disposed of with a direction against the Respondents 3 and4 to consider the application of the Petitioner, dated27.09.2006 and a reminder dated 27.11.2009 and pass orders regarding the transfer of management and also the claim of the Petitioner for the purpose of treating it as a minority institution based on the above said judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court and such an order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, W.P. No. 9193 of 2002 stands allowed and W.P.(MD) No. 3881 of 2010 stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.