Andhra Kesari College Of Education vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.

Andhra Kesari College of Education & Anr. … Appellants

versus

State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.. … Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 110 of 2011

Holy Mary Institute of Technology & Science …Appellant Versus Govt. of A.P. & Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 244 OF 2007

Holy Mary Institute of Technology & Science …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. …Respondents

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2019.09.25 16:33:37 IST Reason:

1 JUDGMENT

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

1. The present Civil Appeals and Writ Petition have been filed to

challenge the vires of the Rules framed by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005,

G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006, and G.O.M. No. 98 dated

06.12.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned

G.O.Ms”), for admission to the B. Ed. Course in the State of

Andhra Pradesh, and became applicable from the Academic

Year 2006 – 2007. The said G.O.Ms continue to remain in

force even as on date.

At the time of final hearing, the Counsel appearing in Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 244 of 2007 only pressed this matter for

hearing. We are therefore, deciding the case in light of the

facts in the Writ Petition.

2. The Petitioner – Institution is a minority institution which

was granted the status of a “Christian Minority Educational

Institution” by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

2 As per G.O.M. No. 55 dated 20.03.2005, minority colleges

were permitted to fill up 85% of their total seats, with

students belonging to the minority community, as the

Management Quota.

3. The Petitioner – Institution filed the present Writ Petition to

challenge the impugned G.O.Ms on the following grounds :–

i) As per Clause 3(i) of the G.O.M. No. 57 dated

21.03.2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed

that the criteria for determining the minority status of

candidates would be as follows :–

“As there were reports of students/candidates obtaining religious conversion certificates overnight by exploiting the provisions contained in G.O. 6 th above, the following condition is prescribed. For the purpose of determining the minority status of candidates seeking admission into 85% management quota in the B.Ed., minority colleges, the Secondary School Certificates or Transfer Certificates (T.C.) from the school from which they have studied shall be the basis. In the absence of a T.C., the candidate should obtain a certificate from the Head of the Institution in which he/she studies in the proforma prescribed (Annexure­I) to this order. Further, the students submitting bogus minority community certificates shall be dealt with under the relevant sections of the I.P.C. apart from losing their seats following the due procedure.” (emphasis supplied)

3

ii) The second principal ground of challenge is that as per

G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006, Clause 4(viii) provided

as follows :­

“(viii) The minority status of the students shall be decided as per the orders issued in G.O.M. No. 57 School Education (Trg­A1) Department dated 21.03.2006.”

Clause 5 set out the general guidelines for admission

in the order of merit on the basis of the rank assigned in

the Ed. CET to the extent of sanctioned seats.

Clause 6 prescribed centralized counselling as the only

mode for admission even in respect of minority

institutions.

iii) The third ground of challenge is the amendment made to

G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006 vide G.O.M. No. 98

dated 06.12.2006. The following clause was incorporated

by the amendment :–

“(8). In clause (iii) (b), after sub­clause para (10), the following shall be inserted, namely :­ (10 A). The Convenor, Ed. CET­AC Admissions shall conduct the counselling in phases if required till the last rank of Ed. CET. The Convenor, Ed. CET­AC Admissions shall fill the left over seats of the un­ aided colleges in the presence of a Government nominee by following rule of reservation through counselling process, in case the seats in minority colleges are to be filled up with non­minority candidates.” (emphasis supplied)

4

iv) It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner – Institution

that the direction under G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006

that unfilled seats in the 85% Management Quota, be

allotted by the Convenor, Ed. CET to non­minority

students on merit, is an intrusion on the right to

administer the minority institutions conferred by Article

30(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. The Respondent – State contended that the impugned

G.O.Ms do not in any manner violate the fundamental rights

of the Petitioner – Institutions whatsoever. 4.1. The condition making the SSC Certificate as the basis

for proving the minority status of the student, was

imposed in light of the statistical data, which revealed

that many students were converting over­night so as to

obtain admission in the Management Quota of Minority

Educational Institutions.

4.2. The Petitioner – Institution had an unhindered right to

select minority students to fill up the 85% of the seats

by the Management Quota, subject to merit in the

Common Entrance Test.

5 If however, seats in the Management Quota of the

Minority Education Institution, remained unfilled by

students from the minority community, the unfilled

seats would be allotted by the Convenor to candidates

on the basis of merit in the Common Entrance Test.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and

perused the material on record, as also the written

submissions filed by the parties. We would observe :– 5.1. G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 had been issued for

the purpose of determining the minority status of

candidates seeking admission in the Management

Quota. The G.O.M. provides that the SSC/Transfer

Certificate should be the basis for making a valid claim

by a candidate that he or she belongs to the minority

religion, to be eligible for admission. Statistical data was placed on record before the High

Court, which is recorded in the impugned judgment,

which highlights that Baptism Certificates were being

obtained by students from other communities, so as to

obtain admission in the Management Quota of Minority

Educational Institutions.

In the additional counter affidavit filed by the

Respondent – State before the High Court, it was

6 revealed that a large number of admissions were made

on the basis of conversion certificates. The enquiry

conducted revealed that 67 out of 200 students in New

College of Education, Nizamabad; 90 out of 136 in

Rayalseema College of Education, Kurnool; 82 out of

102 in Bhongir College of Education, Bhongir; 60 out

of 85 in Jyoti College of Education, Siricilla; 91 out of

102 in Anebesent College of Education, Khammam; 85

out of 102 in Trinity College of Education, were

admitted on the basis of Baptism Certificates. In most

of these cases, the candidates declared themselves to

be Christians subsequent to the date of submitting

their applications for the Entrance Test. Considering the extensive misuse of such certificates,

the State Government deemed it appropriate to issue

G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 making the SCC

Certificate as the basis for determining the minority

status of a student, in order to prevent misuse of

Conversion Certificates by ineligible candidates, so as

to ensure that only bona fide students were granted

7 admission in the Management Quota of Minority

Institutions.

G.O.M. No. 57 prescribed a uniform criteria for

determination of the status of all minority students. It

safeguards the interest of genuine minority students,

so that their seats are not taken away by those who

resort to false conversions over­night, for the purpose

of securing admission. This would preserve the

minority character of the Institution, rather than act as

an intrusion of the same.

5.2. The impugned G.O.Ms grant full autonomy to the

Minority Educational Institutions to provide quality

education for the minority community, by filling up

85% seats with meritorious minority students, and

granting them priority for admission in such

institutions.

5.3. With respect to G.O.M. No. 98, the requirement to fill

up the vacant seats by non­minority candidates was

based on statistical data which showed that the

number of colleges, and the seats available for

minorities, were highly disproportionate, and far in

excess of the population as per the 2001 census. The

8 distinct possibility of seats remaining unfilled in the

Minority Institutions every year, would not be in the

interest of the Minority Educational Institutions. With this object in mind, G.O.M. No. 98 was issued

to ensure that the vacant seats in the 85%

Management Quota did not remain unfilled during any

academic year. The G.O.M. merely stipulated that if the

said Quota remained unfilled by minority students, it

would be filled from the merit list of successful

candidates, as allotted by the Convenor, Ed. CET to

promote excellence in education. By this process, an

opportunity was granted to the CET qualified non­

minority candidates to secure quality education, which

would subserve the interest of the nation. This G.O.M. does not, in any manner, interfere with

the right of a Minority Educational Institution to

manage its affairs for the benefit of the Minority

Community. On the contrary, it ensures that vacant

seats are not wasted, and are filled up by meritorious

and deserving candidates.

5.4. Furthermore, the presence of a Government Nominee

in the counselling process was to ensure that the

9 admission process is fair, transparent, and non­

exploitative, and is based on merit. This would not

interfere with the admission process of the minority

institutions in any manner.

5.5. The impugned G.O.Ms are not violative of Article 30(1)

of the Constitution of India. Article 30(1) states that all

minorities, whether based on religion or language,

shall have the right to establish and administer

educational institutions of their choice. The impugned

G.O.Ms do not whittle down the right of the minority

institutions in any manner.

The right of minority institutions is not absolute, and

is amenable to regulation. The protection granted to

Minority Educational Institutions to admit students of

their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions.

In T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of

Karnataka and Ors.,1 this Court held that :– “The right to admit students being an essential facet of the right to administer educational institutions of their choice, as contemplated under Article 30 of the Constitution, the state government or the university may not be entitled to interfere with that right, so long as the admission to the unaided educational institutions is on a transparent basis and the merit is adequately taken care of. The right to administer, not being absolute, there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining

1 (2002) 8 SCC 481.

10 excellence thereof, and it is more so in the matter of admissions to professional institutions.” (emphasis supplied)

5.6. The impugned G.O.Ms do not impose any fetters on the

freedom of the minority institutions to profess,

propagate, and practice their religion, or the right to

establish and administer their educational institutions.

The criteria has been prescribed only for the purpose of

determining the minority status of the candidates for

admission to the B. Ed. Course. This would not

amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the

matter of an individual’s choice of religion. 5.7. The contention of the Petitioner – Institution that the

impugned G.O.Ms are unconstitutional, and violative

of their fundamental rights, is liable to be rejected. 5.8. The impugned G.O.Ms were brought into force w.e.f.

the academic year 2006­2007. These G.O.Ms have

remained in force ever since. All Minority Educational

Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh, including

the Petitioner Institution, have been following these

G.O.Ms since the past over 13 academic years without

any complaint. There is no justifiable reason why the

same should be discontinued at this stage.

11 In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Appeals and the

Writ Petition are dismissed as being devoid of any merit. All

pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................................J. (INDU MALHOTRA)

...…...............………………J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

New Delhi;

September 25, 2019.

12