Judgment :- The petitioner The Nalloor Vettuvenni Kandan Sastha Devaswom College at Attoor and N.V.K.S. Educational Agency, Vettuvenni, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District preferred the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in Letter No.9688/E1/2000-4, Higher Education (E1) Department dated 10. 2001 on the file of the first respondent herein, quash the same and direct the first respondent to confer linguistic minority status to the petitioner. 2. Thewrit petitioner contends as follows:- The petitioner Trust and the Educational Agency is a linguistic minority within the meaning of Articles 30(1) and 26 of the Constitution of India. The object of the educational institutions is for promoting Malayalam speaking persons who are minority community in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner approached the civil court and obtained a decree in O.S.No.1276 of 1986 dated 11. 1987 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai declaring that the petitioner is a linguistic minority. Responding to the letter dated 112. 1988 sent by the petitioner, the second respondent informed the petitioner that there was no need for declaring the institution as minority institution since the petitioner institution already obtained a decree from the competent court. The petitioner Trust and the Educational Agency has been enjoying the minority status in all respects. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 issued guidelines for conferring minority status. The petitioner sent an application dated 211. 1998 to the second respondent and requested conferment of minority status to the educational institution of the petitioner. The first respondent, in his letter No.14775/E1/99-6 dated 22. 2000 rejected the request of the petitioner seeking conferment of minority status to the educational institution of the petitioner. 3. Contending that the first respondent cannot take a different view in the face of the decree obtained by the petitioner declaring the petitioner as minority institution, the present writ petition is filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 4. In the counter filed by the respondents, it has been categorically admitted that the petitioner Educational Agency had already obtained decree in O.S.No.1276 of 1986 dated 11. 1987 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras declaring it as a linguistic minority institution. 4. In the counter filed by the respondents, it has been categorically admitted that the petitioner Educational Agency had already obtained decree in O.S.No.1276 of 1986 dated 11. 1987 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras declaring it as a linguistic minority institution. It is further admitted that the second respondent, in fact, informed the petitioner that there was no need for declaring the institution as minority institution in view of the decree staring at the second respondent. It is also admitted that the petitioner college has been so far treated as linguistic minority college, in the aftermath of the decree passed by the competent civil court declaring it as linguistic minority institution. Contending that the Supreme Court of India was pleased to stay the operation of the decree and orders that had been passed by the civil court in respect of the minority status to the institutions concerned and direct the institutions claiming minority status to approach the Government for a declaration, G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 was issued to verify and determine the minority status of an educational institution in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the first respondent, having given an opportunity to the petitioner and after verifying all the records/documents submitted by the petitioner, weighed the merit of the claim made by the petitioner and passed the impugned order which is very much valid in the eye of law. 5. Thequestions that arise for determination before this court are:- .(1) Whether the order passed by the Supreme Court of India in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.317 of 1993 dated 110. 1994 (T.M.A. Pai Foundation and other cases) would apply to the petitioner institution which was not one of the parties to the said writ petition. .(2) Whether an institution should be established exclusively for the benefit of the minorities to claim minority status as provided under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. .(3) Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 is sustainable. .6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the order passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.3197 of 1993 dated 110. .(3) Whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 is sustainable. .6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the order passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.3197 of 1993 dated 110. 1994 would not apply to the decrees obtained by the institution like the petitioner which were not parties before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petition. He would further contend that G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 would apply to the institutions which apply afresh for conferment of minority status and also for the institutions which have applied for conferment of such a status and the applications are pending disposal before the first respondent. A Single Judge as well as a Division Bench of this court have already held that the order passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.3197 of 1993 dated 110. 1994 would not apply to the institutions which were not parties to the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, he would submit that the first respondent has misread the scope of the order passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.3197 of 1993 dated 110. 1994 and also G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 which was passed giving certain guidelines in the light of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court and passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. The court heard the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3. He would submit that as per the fresh guidelines found in G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998, the petitioner does not fall under the category of linguistic minority institution and therefore, the plea for conferment of such a status made by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the petitioner. 8. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner got itself declared as a linguistic minority institution as per the decree obtained by it from the competent court viz., IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O.S.No.1276 of 1986 The said decree obtained by the petitioner declaring it as a linguistic minority educational institution has reached its finality, inasmuch as the same was not challenged by the respondents. In all fairness, the petitioner also, in the aftermath of the decree passed in its favour, approached the second respondent seeking conferment of the minority status. It is the admitted position that the second respondent gave a reply to the application dated 211. 1998 emanated from the petitioner that it was totally redundant to confer such a status on the petitioner institution as a competent civil court has already declared its status as minority educational institution. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been enjoying the linguistic minority status so far. 9. The Supreme Court of India in I.A.No.20 in W.P(C) No.317 of 1993 T.M.A. Pai Foundation case passed an order on 110. 1994 with respect to the educational institutions which had been impleaded as one of the respondents in the aforesaid interlocutory application pending before it. A general order was passed by the Supreme Court staying the operation of all the decrees which might have been obtained from the civil court declaring the minority status of an institution which was made a party to the said interlocutory application. Those educational institutions which had already become party to the said interlocutory application were also directed to approach the State Government for passing necessary orders as to the status of such institutions. .10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid order in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.317 of 1993 would apply only to the educational institutions which had already been impleaded as party to the said interlocutory application. The said order will not apply to the educational institutions which had already obtained a decree declaring its status as minority institution from a competent court but was not made a party to the said proceedings before the Supreme Court. 11. The learned Single Judge of this court in ST. IGNATIUS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ( (1999) 1 CTC 121 ) has categorically held that the order of the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.317 of 1993 would apply only to the respondents who were already parties to the said interlocutory application. The first respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. IGNATIUS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ( (1999) 1 CTC 121 ) has categorically held that the order of the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.317 of 1993 would apply only to the respondents who were already parties to the said interlocutory application. The first respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 giving certain guidelines to dispose of the pending applications claiming minority status and also applications which would be received in future from educational institutions praying for conferment of minority status. Unfortunately, the said Government Order was mis-interpreted and was applied to the institutions which had already been conferred with the minority status and were also not parties to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. 12. The aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 was put to test in THE SECRETARY, D.G.VISHNAV COLLEGE v. DR.T.VENKATARAMAN ( 2001 (4) CTC 641 ) wherein it was held that an educational institution which had already obtained a decree declaring its status as a minority institution cannot be asked to apply for grant of minority status afresh especially when such educational institution was not a party to the proceedings in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Case pending before the Supreme Court. The First Bench of this court held that the order passed by the competent civil court operates in rem whereas the order passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.317 of 1993 would be binding only the parties who had already been arrayed as parties before it and therefore, such an order passed by the Supreme Court would not operate in rem. 13. Therefore, it is held that the direction issued by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.20 in W.P.(C) No.317 of 1993 would apply only to the institutions which had already been made a party to the said proceedings. By no stretch of imagination, the order of the Supreme Court can be applied to nullify a decree obtained by an institution which was not a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Further, G.O.Ms.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 passed by the first respondent would apply only to the applications which are pending and also to the applications which are submitted in future seeking conferment of minority status. .14. Further, G.O.Ms.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 passed by the first respondent would apply only to the applications which are pending and also to the applications which are submitted in future seeking conferment of minority status. .14. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India would read that all minorities whether based on religion or not shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India does not mandate that minorities based on religion should establish educational institution for teaching their religion only or that a linguistic minority should establish educational institution for teaching their language only. The phrase "of their own choice" found in Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India has been interpreted by the Seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of THE KERALA EDUCATIONAL PARTY BILL, 1957. REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 143(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ((1959) 1 SCR 995) as follows:-"Having disposed of the minor point referred to above, we now take up the main argument advanced before us as to the content of Art.30(1). The first point to note is that the Article gives certain rights not only to religious minorities but also to linguistic minorities. In the next place, the right conferred on such minorities is to establish educational institutions of their choice. It does not say that minorities based on religion should establish educational institutions for teaching religion only, or that linguistic minorities should have the right to establish educational institutions for teaching their language only. What the article say and means is that the religious and the linguistic minorities should have the right to establish educational institutions of their choice. There is no limitation placed on the subjects to be taught in such educational institutions. As such minorities will ordinarily desire that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and be eligible for higher university education and go out in the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering the public services, educational institutions of their choice will necessarily include institutions imparting general secular education also. As such minorities will ordinarily desire that their children should be brought up properly and efficiently and be eligible for higher university education and go out in the world fully equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make them fit for entering the public services, educational institutions of their choice will necessarily include institutions imparting general secular education also. In other words, the Article leaves it to their choice to establish such educational institutions as will serve both purposes, namely, the purpose of conversing their religion, language or culture, and also the purpose of giving a thorough, good general education to their children. The next thing to note is that the Article, in terms, gives all minorities, whether based on religion or language, two rights, namely, the right to establish and the right to administer educational institutions of their choice. The key to the understanding of the true meaning and implication of the Article under consideration are the words "of their own choice". It is said that the dominant word is "choice" and the contend of that Article is as wide as the choice of the particular minority community may make it. The ambit of the rights conferred by Art.30(1) has, therefore, to be determined on a consideration of the matter from the points of view of the educational institutions themselves. The educational institutions established or administered by the minorities or to be so established or administered by them in exercise of the rights conferred by that Article may be classified into three categories, namely, (1) those which do not seek either aid or recognition from the State, (2) those which want aid, and (3) those which want only recognition but not aid." 15. No limitation has been placed on the minority institution as to the subjects to be taught in such educational institutions. The choice of subject has been left to the minority institution. A minority institution may impart secular education, but, that does not mean that linguistic minority institution has lost its minority status. .16. In the subsequent decision in AHMEDABAD ST. No limitation has been placed on the minority institution as to the subjects to be taught in such educational institutions. The choice of subject has been left to the minority institution. A minority institution may impart secular education, but, that does not mean that linguistic minority institution has lost its minority status. .16. In the subsequent decision in AHMEDABAD ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE SOCIETY v. STATE OF GUJARAT ( (1974) 1 SCC 717 ) it has been held as follows:-"Question has been posed during the course of arguments whether the educational institutions to in clause (1) of Article 30 must only be those institutions which have been established with a view to conserve language, script or culture of a minority. To put it in other words, the question is whether clause (1) of Article 30 is subject to the provisions of clause (1) of Article 29. In this respect I am of the view that clause (1) of Article 29 and clause (1) of Article 30 deal with distinct matters, and it is not permissible to circumscribe or restrict the right conferred by clause (1) of Article 30 by reading in it any limitation imported from clause (1) of Article 29. Article 29(1) confers a right on any section of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture of its own to conserve the same. It is not necessary, as mentioned earlier, for invoking this clause that the section of citizens should constitute a minority. As against that, the right conferred by Article 30(1) only upon minorities which are based either on religion or language. The right conferred by Article 29(1) is for the conservation of language, script or culture, while that guaranteed by Article 30(1) is for the establishment and administration of educational institutions of the choice of minorities. Had it been the intention of the Constitution-makers that the educational institutions which can be established and administered by minorities should be only those for conservation of their language, script or culture, they would not have failed to use the words to that effect in Article 30(1). In the absence of those words, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that educational institutions mentioned in Article 30(1) are only those which are intended to conserve language, script or culture of the minority. Clause (1) of Article 30 also contains the words "of their choice". In the absence of those words, it is difficult to subscribe to the view that educational institutions mentioned in Article 30(1) are only those which are intended to conserve language, script or culture of the minority. Clause (1) of Article 30 also contains the words "of their choice". These words which qualify "educational institutions" show the vast discretion and option which the minorities have in selecting the type of institutions which they want to establish. In case an educational institution is established by a minority to conserve its distinct, language, script or culture, the right to establish and administer such institution would fall both under Article 29(1) as well as under Article 30(1). The minorities can, however, choose to establish an educational institution which is purely of a general secular character and is not designed to conserve their distinct language, script or culture. The right to establish and administer such an institution is guaranteed by Article 30(1) and the fact that such an institution does not conserve the distinct language, script or culture of a minority would not take it out of the ambit of Article 30(1)." 17. The minorities cannot be compelled to serve their distinct language, script or culture as they have the liberty to establish an institution which may be purely of a general secular character. 18. Therefore, the rejection of plea for the conferment of the status as linguistic minority institution by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioner institution had simply passed a resolution without any trace in the Trust Deed that the institutions were established for the promotion of interest of the Malayalam speaking people is found not sustainable. As already pointed out, there need not be such an object for starting a minority institution. A minority institution can very well impart secular education. 19. Inview of the above, I find that G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education Department dated 16. 1998 would not apply to the institutions which had already been declared by the competent court as the minority institution. The impugned order has been passed by the first respondent ignoring the decree passed by the competent court and also against the spirit of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.9688/E1/2000-4, Higher Education (E1) Department dated 10. 2001 is quashed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.9688/E1/2000-4, Higher Education (E1) Department dated 10. 2001 is quashed. As the competent court had already declared the petitioner as minority linguistic institution, it is redundant to direct the first respondent to confer the linguistic minority status of the petitioner. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.