Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in O.M.No.7810/A2/04 dated 05.08.2005 and the consequential order of the third respondent dated 08.09.2004 in O.M.No.1182/A1/04 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to continue to recognise the minority status accorded to the petitioner institution. 2. Petitioner institution is represented by its Manager and Secretary. The petitioner school was established with standards 1 to 5 in the year 1941 by one Subbiah Draviyaraj, a Christian. It is informed that recognition with aid was granted to 6th and 7th standards by the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli South dated 12.05.1967 and later recognition was granted to 8th standard on 05.06.1967. After the lifetime of the founder the management was taken over by his son S.Durairaj. The minority status of the school has been recognised by the decree of the Civil court in O.S.No.4198/1977 dated 23.11.1983. The Management of the school was transferred in favour of the petitioner and by proceedings dated 04.09.2003, the second respondent viz District Elementary Educational Officer has confirmed the same on condition that minority status would be claimed. A civil suit in O.S.No.92/2003 filed by the Head Master and the daughter of the erstwhile Manager challenging the transfer of management is pending before the D.M.C., Nanguneri. 3. Petitioner addressed the third respondent pointing out that the School is a minority school, and it had been recognised as such, the School had been managed by members of the minority community, and hence prayed for minority status to be continued. On 02.12.2003, the second respondent addressed the petitioner referring to the provisions of G.O.Perm. 375 Education dated 12.10.1988 and sought explanation as to whether the conditions therein stood fulfilled. The petitioner addressed the third respondent on 11.12.2003 and informed that all the conditions of the Government Order were satisfied. It further was stated that the School had been a minority School for over 70 years, was established and managed by the members of the minority community and over 60% of the students of the School were from minority community and 85% of the teaching staff and other staff belonged to the minority community, being Christians and that all requisite conditions were fulfilled as far as the petitioner School is concerned. Petitioner again addressed the second and third respondents on 07.06.2004. Consequently, the petitioner was served with the proceedings of the third respondent dated 08.09.2004 in O.M.1182/A1/04 which informed that the recognition as a minority institution stands cancelled on transfer of management relying on the proceedings of the second respondent dated 05.08.2004 in O.M.7810/A2/04. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings of the respondents are totally arbitrary. The school which has been granted recognition is being denied recognition of minority status merely on the ground that transfer of management had taken place. 6. Learned counsel contended that the founder of the school had initiated proceedings in O.S.No.4189/1977 and therein obtained a decree of declaration that the school was a minority institution. On the demise of the founder, his son, who had been incharge of the management, effected transfer of management of the school to the petitioner. Petitioner has produced before the respondents relevant papers to inform that he as a Christian, is a member of the minority community and further under a detailed representation dated 07.06.2004, explained that the school has been functioning as a Minority School for nearly 70 years and that persons in charge of the school including himself were Christians. In response to clarification sought by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalakkad dated 02.12.2003, on how the School could claim Minority status as per the provisions of G.O.Perm.375 Education dated 12.10.1998, a reply dated 11.12.2003 had been forwarded pointing out that the School had been enjoying minority status for more than 70 years, that the school had been managed through the minority community, that 65% of the students and 85% of the teaching staff belong to such community. A request was made to the second respondent to modify his order dated 04.09.2003, by deleting the condition against claim of minority status. 7. Learned counsel referred to the decision in N.Ammad vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 674 wherein it has been held as follows: "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. 7. Learned counsel referred to the decision in N.Ammad vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 674 wherein it has been held as follows: "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 thyus: "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 02.08.1994." In the decision of Apex court in Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission, Bihar, Ranchi and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 500 , it has been held as follows: 2. In this appeal we are merely concerned with the rights and obligations of the State for the protection of minority institutions and for this avowed purpose Art. 30 was enshrined in our Constitution so that they may not suffer from a sense of inferiority complex and are able to through themselves into the main stream of the economic and political life of the country so as to march forward with the temper of the times and the needs of the nation Although Art. 30 is not included in Part II of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee certain fundamental rights. yet this Court starting from the Kerala Education Eill's case. Which is the locus classicus on the point in issue, right up to the case of The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & Anr, etc. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. and ending with All Sainis High School, Hyderabad & Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. yet this Court starting from the Kerala Education Eill's case. Which is the locus classicus on the point in issue, right up to the case of The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & Anr, etc. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. and ending with All Sainis High School, Hyderabad & Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. has clearly recognised that running of minority institutions is also as fundamental and important as the rights conferred on the other citizens of the country. Perhaps the only difference is that the rights contained in Art. 30 have an independent sphere of their own. A close scrutiny and study of the various decisions of this Court reveal that the freedoms guaranteed by Art. 30 are also elevated to the status of a full-fledged fundamental right within the field in which they operate. In other words, any State action which in any way destroys, curbs or interferes with such rights would be violative of Art. 30. ........... 4. The first question to be determined is whether the minority institutions have a fundamental right to get aid from the Government or affiliation from the Universities as a matter of course. In other words, the question posed is whether the right to affiliation or to not so as to violate Art. 30. Technically speaking the answer to this question is in the negatives but it must be stressed that the refusal to give aid or affiliation by the statutory authorities without just and sufficient grounds amounts to violation of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Art 30 of the Constitution. If the Government withholds giving aid or a university refuses to grant affiliation, the direct consequence would be to destroy the very existence of the Institution itself because there may be a number of minority institutions which may not exist without the Government aid and a large number of students admitted to these institutions, in the absence of affiliation, will be deprived of acquiring higher academic status which will not only be a loss to the institution but a loss to the nation itself. It is for this purpose that Art, 30 was inserted in the Constitution. ..... 7. It is for this purpose that Art, 30 was inserted in the Constitution. ..... 7. On a careful and detailed review of the cases cited above, the following position emerges; (1) That while Art, 30 undoubtedly seeks to preserve the religious freedom, autonomy and its individuality; there is no fundamental right under which an institution can claim either aid or affiliation as a matter of right. It is permissible for the State or the University, as the case may be, to lay down reasonable conditions to maintain the excellence of standard of education but in the garb of doing so, refusal to grant affiliation cannot be made a ruse or pretext for destroying the individuality and personality of the said institution. If this is done,then apart from being wholly arbitrary and unreasonable it would amount to a clear infraction of the provisions of Art.30 because what cannot be done directly is done indirectly. (2) While the State or a University has got an absolute right to insist on certain courses of study to be followed by institutions before they could be considered for affiliation but these conditions should not in any way take away the freedom of management or administration of the institution so as to reduce it to a satellite of the University or the State. This is wholly impermissible because such a course of action directly violates Art.30 of the Constitution. (3) While imposing conditions before granting affiliation, as indicated above, the State or the University cannot kill or annihilate the individuality or personality of the institution in question by insisting on following a particular kind of syllabus or a course of study which may be directly opposed to the aims, objects and ideals sought to be achieved by the institutions. (4) There is a very thin line of distinction between withholding of affiliation for a particular purpose on extraneous grounds so as to subject the institution to rigorous orders, edicts or resolutions which may run counter to the dominant purpose for which the institution has been founded, and insisting on genuine and reasonable conditions to be imposed in the larger interest of education. In the decision of State of Kerala vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, 1970 (2) ASCC 417, it has been held as follows: "8. Article 30(1) has been construed before by this Court. In the decision of State of Kerala vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, 1970 (2) ASCC 417, it has been held as follows: "8. Article 30(1) has been construed before by this Court. Without referring to those cases it is sufficient to say that the clause contemplates two rights which are separated in point of time. The first right is the initial right to establish institutions of the minority's choice. Establishment here means the bringing into being of an institution and it must be, by a minority community. It matters not if a single philanthropic individual with his own means, founds the institution or the community at large contributes-the funds. The position in law is the same and the intention in either case must be to found an institution for the benefit of a minority community by a member of that community. It is equally irrelevant that in addition to the minority community others from other minority communities or even from the majority community can take advantage of these institutions. Such other communities bring in income and they do not have to be turned away to enjoy the protection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the various observations of the Apex court found in the above decisions Minority status cannot be denied to the petitioner School and particularly on the ground that transfer of Management had been effected. 8. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this court to the fact that suit in O.S.No.92/2003 before the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, moved by the daughter of the founder of the School against the petitioner institution stood dismissed. 9. Learned Special Government Pleader defended the action of the respondent in reversing Minority Status recognition and placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 17.06.1998. Under the said Government Order certain guidelines had been issued to dispose of applications in respect of institutions claiming minority status. The guidelines relevant for the purpose of this petition are as follows: "8. The Govt. issues the following guidelines to dispose of the pending applications claiming minority status and also applications which will be received in future from Educational institutions: 1. The object of the Educational institutions should be for promoting the interest o the minority concerned and it should subserve the interests of the minority community concerned. 2. The Govt. issues the following guidelines to dispose of the pending applications claiming minority status and also applications which will be received in future from Educational institutions: 1. The object of the Educational institutions should be for promoting the interest o the minority concerned and it should subserve the interests of the minority community concerned. 2. Such educational institutions should have been established by the minority and should be continuously administered only by the members of that minority. 3. An Educational institutions which was originally not established by a minority community cannot acquire such status or character subsequently under any circumstances. 4. All the Trustees or members of the Governing body of the minority educational institutions shall belong only to the concerned minority." Once we find that refusal of minority status to the petitioner is not upon a finding that the institution fails to satisfy the above requirements but merely on account of the management having been transferred, also in the light of the decisions referred to above, we think it appropriate to set aside the order under challenge and accordingly do so. The respondents shall now consider the claim of the petitioner for recognition of minority status. It is needless to point out that in doing so, the respondents shall take note of the fact that the petitioner's institution has been declared to be a minority institution by virtue of decree passed in O.S.No.4198/1977 dated 23.11.1983, as also the fact that the petitioner's institution was all along recognised as a minority institution. This court would direct that the respondents shall now pass orders afresh in light of the above observations within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.