Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. :— 1.This is an appeal against the order dismissing the writ petition in limine. 2. In view of the fact that there was an urgency as one batch of students will have to appear for the Examination to be conducted on 15th April, 1987, we issued notice to the respondents and the Government Pleader appears for the respondents today. 3. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the Government Pleader in full. Before we deal with the respective contentions, we may state a few relevant facts: Arch Diocese of Trivandum conducts a number of Malankara Syrian Catholic Schools in Kanyakumari District. It is not in dispute that the Diocese has been declared as a Religious Minority coming under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution-vide. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 826 of 1975 dated 24-9-1976 The Diocese has now established about 13 schools in Kanyakumari District. On the ground that there was a need for giving some Professional Training to the poor students of this area and that there were great demands for it from those students who passed out of the 13 schools established by the Diocese, the appellant—Diocese decided to establish a Teacher Training Institute for Girls at Chellamkonam in Kanyakumari District with its own funds and properties. It is stated in the affidavit that the Arch Diocese has invested about Rs. 10 lakhs for this Teacher Training Institute. This Teacher Training Institute was started on 5-8-1985. According to the appellant, they had comp lied with all the formalities and applied for recognition under R.4 of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977, and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 to the Respondents. It may be mentioned that the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 required an application to be filed by every educational agency of every private school proposed to be established on or after the date of the commencement of the Act to the competent authority for permission to establish such school. However, S.9 of that Act stated that any minority whether based on religion or language may establish and administer any private school without permission under S.6. Therefore, the appellants Training Institute being a Minority Religious Institution need not apply for permission for establishment. However, S.9 of that Act stated that any minority whether based on religion or language may establish and administer any private school without permission under S.6. Therefore, the appellants Training Institute being a Minority Religious Institution need not apply for permission for establishment. S.11 of the Act further requires that the institution concerned should also get recognition from a competent authority. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 4478 of 1974, dated 17-12-1975 has held that S.11 is not applicable to an educational institution established by a minority religious institution. Therefore, in turn S.11 requiring recognition of the School by a competent authority was also not required. However, the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 2080, Education, dated 14-9-1977 had framed certain Rules called the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977 regarding such recognition. The learned counsel for the appellant did not question the validity of this Rule and, therefore, we have to consider only whether the provisions have been complied with and whether the students will have to be permitted at this stage to write the examination. Sub-R.(3) of R.4 related to minority schools which have been newly opened after the commencement of the Rules. That sub-rule requires an application for recognition to be made in the form appended to the Rules to the competent authority for the grant of recognition within three months from the date of such opening. 5. The appellant filed an application in Form-1 on 30-10-1985. Pending consideration of the application, the appellant has also been admitting students in the institution in the hope that recognition will be granted. It may be mentioned that one of the conditions for applying for recognition also is that the institution should have admitted sufficient number of students and also must have recruited sufficient number of teachers in the pupil-staff ratio. The application was made after having complied with this formality and also after providing the building and other facilities to the appellant. It may be mentioned that one of the conditions for applying for recognition also is that the institution should have admitted sufficient number of students and also must have recruited sufficient number of teachers in the pupil-staff ratio. The application was made after having complied with this formality and also after providing the building and other facilities to the appellant. Sub R. (4)(a) of R.4 which is the relevant provision for considering this appeal reads as follows: “..(4)(aa) Recognition under Sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) shall be granted by the authority concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application for such recognition as satisfied by the management, namely:— (i) the amenities to teachers and pupils should be adequate; (ii) the equipments, buildings, laboratory, library and play ground and other facilities for imparting instruction are adequate; (iii) a structural stability certificate of the school building issued by the Executive Engineer of the P.W.D. and the sanitary certificate issued by the Health Officer of the locality should be enclosed with the application for recognition; (iv) the management should not appoint any teacher whose certificate has been suspended or cancelled or who has been declared unfit to be a teacher in recognised schools or who has been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude; and (v) there should be economic strength prescribed by the Education Department in all the standards; (b) It shall be open to the authority concerned to reject an application for recognition if he considers that any one or more of the requirements referred to under clause (a) has not been satisfied. Every order of such authority rejecting the application shall specify the grounds for such rejection.” 6. Though the Rule requires that the recognition shall be granted by the authority concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application, the application filed on 30-10-1985 was not disposed of till October, 1986, namely, the succeeding school year and, therefore, the appellant filed W.P No. 10776 of 1986 praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent therein to pass final orders on the application of the appellant for recognition. On the ground that the appellant had made out a case for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the respondent to consider and pass final orders in accordance with law on the application of the appellant for recognition within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 7. After the disposal of the writ petition, in his proceedings dated 3-12-1986 the first respondent rejected the application on the grounds; “1. The amenities to Teachers and pupils are not adequate. 2. The equipments, Laboratory, Library and Play ground and other facilities for imparting instruction are not adequate.” 8. There is no dispute that the appellant had complied with conditions (iii), (iv) and (v) of sub-R.4(a) extracted above. 9. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order dated 3-12-1986 has been made without giving an opportunity to him to show that amenities to teachers and pupils have been provided and the building, laboratory, library and play-ground are according to the instructions and there are also sufficient equipments as required by the Rules, nor have the respondents sent any officer to inspect and report as to whether those facilities are available or those that are required are complied with. We think that the learned counsel is well founded in this contention. 10. When an authority is vested with the power to grant or reject a request for recognition when an application is made for such recognition, there could be no doubt that the competent authority shall have to give to the educational agency an opportunity, if there are any defects or any further amenities to be provided, to comply with the same. In fact, S.12 relating to an application made under S. 11 of the Act for recognition of Private Schools specifically mentions that before rejection of an application, an opportunity shall be given to the educational agency for making its representations, if any. Though both Ss.11 and 12 are not applicable to a Minority Religious Institution as in this, case, when the Rules framed for the purpose of recognition of schools established by a minority religious institution requires that recognition has to be obtained, certainly it also postulates that the application could not be rejected merely on the ground that it is incomplete or some more particulars are needed. In fact, Sub-R.4(a) does not give any power to reject but it only says that recognition shall be granted within a period of two months from the date of application but it states that the requirements are to be satisfied by the management. 11. We must consider this question also with reference to the right of the minority institution to establish an educational institution of its choice guaranteed under Art. 30 of the Constitution. They have got a right to establish an institution subject to fulfilling certain conditions prescribed by the Government. If those conditions are not complied with, of course the Government could refuse recognition, but before such rejection of the recognition, the institution concerned should be given an opportunity either to make the representation or to comply with the formalities before grant of the recognition. 12. In this case, though the application has been pending from October, 1985 and it was disposed of after the writ petition was allowed on an earlier occasion, on 3-12-1986, neither the respondents had asked the appellant to comply with any further condition before recognition nor had they given them an opportunity as to why the recognition should not be refused. This is so especially when factually the appellant contended that all the formalities required under the Rules have been complied with. We also find from the order that even the Joint Director who refused recognition does not seem to be definite in his opinion as to whether the appellant had complied with the formalities with reference to the amenities to teachers and pupils. It is mentioned that drinking water facilities for the students of the Institute, Teachers and non-teaching staff separately have not been provided. Even then, ultimately the order states: “Hence it is assumed that the amenities to teachers and pupils are not adequate” Even with reference to the building, it is mentioned that in the sketch of the school building sent along with the application, the dimensions of the rooms meant for class rooms, library and laboratory have not been mentioned and hence it is assumed that the building amenity is not adequate. In respect of the library also, the same reason is given, namely, the dimension of the room has not been mentioned to assess whether the same is adequate or not. 13. In respect of the library also, the same reason is given, namely, the dimension of the room has not been mentioned to assess whether the same is adequate or not. 13. Most of those defects pointed out could have been verified either by the officers concerned or the appellant could have been asked to give the dimensions of the rooms meant for classrooms, library, laboratory etc., and the particulars of the equipments or furnitures as are available in the School, especially when it was the case of the appellant that they have complied with strictly the requirements under the Rules. Not giving this opportunity before rejection, in our opinion, vitiates the order of the first respondent itself. 14. The next question for consideration is, what is the direction that could be given at this stage. The students have been admitted in the school year 1985-86. They have undergone their training in 1985-86 and 1986-87 and they have to appear for the Examination on 15-4-1987. The delay in disposing of the application by 1 years has resulted in this situation. Though we would not have granted permission to students coming from unrecognised schools to appear for the examination, having regard to the fact that in this case, the applications had not been dealt with as per the rules expeditiously as it was required in an order passed on an earlier occasion in a writ petition filed by the appellant in which it was also directed that the application should be disposed of in accordance with law, and still no opportunity having been given before such rejection, we think it just and necessary that the present batch of students should be permitted to write the examination to be held on 15-4-1987 and subsequently, subject to the condition that they satisfy the minimum educational qualification for admission into a training institution and also subject to the condition that they satisfy the age regulations relating to admission for examination from a training institution. Subject to these two conditions being satisfied, the present batch of students as per the nominal roll sent by the appellant should be permitted to write the examination. Their results also should be published as in the case of any recognised institution. 15. Subject to these two conditions being satisfied, the present batch of students as per the nominal roll sent by the appellant should be permitted to write the examination. Their results also should be published as in the case of any recognised institution. 15. Since we cannot grant the recognition itself though we have quashed the order of the Joint Director dated 3-12-1986, we direct the respondents to consider the application afresh after giving notice to the appellant and requiring him to comply with any of the conditions required and dispose of the application. However, if the recognition is to be refused for any reason, it could be only with reference to the school year 1987-88 onwards and not for the earlier years. 16. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.