Federation Of A.P.Minority Edu.Instn vs Admission & Fee Regulatory Commit.& Ors

Educational Institution ... Petitioner

Versus

Admission & Fee Regulatory

Committee for Matters relating

To Fee Fixation in Pvt. Unaided

Professional Colleges & Ors. ... Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the

Constitution is against the order dated 13.07.2010 of the

Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in

W.P.M.P. No.20682 of 2010 declining to grant an interim

relief to the petitioner in W.P. No.16424 of 2010.

2 2. The facts very briefly are that the petitioner-

Association is a Society registered under the provisions of

the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and

one of the objects of the petitioner-Association is to impart

training to the Muslim Minority Community in various

technical courses like Engineering, MCA, etc. On

12.08.2005, a seven-Judge Bench of this Court delivered a

judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6

SCC 537] clarifying the law laid down with regard to the

admission procedure and fee structure of unaided

educational institutions including minority institutions in

Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481]. In para 137 of the

judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra), this Court has clarified

that Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided

institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental

right to choose the students to be allowed admission and

the procedure therefor subject to it being fair, transparent

and non-exploitative. This Court has further held in para

137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra) that there may

be a single institution imparting a particular type of

education which is not being imparted by any other

3

institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling

the tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative or

all the institutions imparting the same or similar

professional education can join together for holding a

common entrance test satisfying the triple tests of being

fair, transparent and non-exploitative. This Court further

observed in P.A. Inamdar that the State can also provide for

a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the

interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and

preventing maladministration.

3. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in P.A.

Inamdar (supra), the Government of Andhra Pradesh in

exercise of its powers under Sections 3 and 15 of the

Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of

Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983

issued a notification dated 26.05.2006 for making rules for

admission of diploma holders into professional institutions

imparting under-graduate professional courses in

Engineering (including Technology) and Pharmacy in the

State of Andhra Pradesh (for short `the 2006 Rules'). The

scheme of the 2006 Rules is that admission to available

4

seats in all the institutions shall be offered through a single

window system of common centralized counselling to

qualified candidates in order of merit in the common

entrance test. The 2006 Rules contemplate that such single

window system of common centralized counselling will be

conducted either by Commissioner/Director of technical

education (Convener of ECET (FDH) Admissions) or by a

nominee of the Association of Unaided Professional Colleges

(Convener of ECET(FDH) AC). Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules

further provides that each unaided minority institution will

opt for either of the two aforesaid procedures for admission

of students through single window system for filling up

seats in their institutions. The Admission and Fee

Regulatory Committee of the State of Andhra Pradesh (for

short `the Committee') issued a notification dated

18.06.2010 inviting the management of each Private

Unaided Minority Engineering and Pharmacy College to

state whether the institution would admit students of ECET

rank holders through the Commissioner/Director of

Technical Education (Convener of ECET(FDH) admissions)

or through the nominee of the Association of Unaided

5

Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH) AC). In the

notification dated 18.06.2010 of the Committee, it was

stated that in case more than one association is formed for

conducting counselling to admit the students, they should

join together and conduct counselling through a single

window system as provided under the rules. In response to

notification dated 18.06.2010, the petitioner and some other

associations of minority institutions opted to admit students

through a single window system, but some other

associations of minority unaided institutions did not join

this single window system of admission. The Committee,

however, did not agree to allow different associations to

have separate windows of counselling for admission to the

seats in the institutions and by a notification dated

01.07.2010, the Committee directed all the four

associations to form by 03.07.2010 a consortium of

associations to conduct a single window system of

admission. Pursuant to the notification dated 01.07.2010,

three of the associations joined together and formed a

consortium of associations to conduct single window system

and intimated the Committee accordingly by a letter dated

6

03.07.2010. The Committee, however, referred to Rule 6 of

the 2006 Rules and denied permission to conduct

admissions through separate windows by the Associations

of Private Unaided Minority Institutions for the academic

year 2010-2011.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner and another filed Writ Petition

No.16424 of 2010 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court

praying for declaration that the 2006 Rules and in

particular Rule 6(b) read with 2(o) thereof were illegal,

arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a direction to permit

the petitioner along with other associations which had

consented to come together for conducting a separate single

window for admissions to the seats in the institutions

forming the consortium not only during the academic year

2010-2011 but also during the future academic years.

Petitioner also made interim prayers before the High Court

for suspending the proceedings of the Committee dated

05.07.2010 and for directing the Committee to permit the

petitioner-Association along with other associations

agreeing to come together to conduct counselling through a

separate single window during the academic year 2010-

7

2011 pending disposal of the writ petition. The Division

Bench of the High Court after hearing learned counsel for

the parties declined to suspend the decision of the

Committee dated 05.07.2010 and also declined to permit

the petitioner and associations which had consented to

come together as a consortium to admit students through a

separate single window.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we

find that the main reason which weighed with the High

Court for declining the interim reliefs was that it could not

conclude even prima facie that the 2006 Rules suffered from

any infirmity. Rule 6(i) of the 2006 Rules is quoted

hereinbelow:

"Each unaided minority institution who has

opted for ECET(FDH) as per clause (iv) of

sub-rule (a) in Rule 12 of the Andhra

Pradesh Engineering Common Entrance

Test for Diploma Holders for admission into

B.F., B.Tech. and B.Pharma courses Rules,

2004 shall indicate in writing to AFRC by a

cut-off date specified by it, as to whether the

institution would admit students through

the single window system to be operated by

the Convener of ECET(FDH) admissions

(ECET(FDH) Window) or the Convener of

ECET(FDH)-AC admissions (ECET(FDH)-AC

Widow."

8

We find on a reading of the Rule 6((i) of the 2006 Rules that

Private Unaided Educational Institutions can under the

2006 Rules either opt to fill up the seats in their institutions

through the single window operated by the

Commissioner/Director of Technical Education (Convener of

ECET(FDH) admissions) or the nominee of the Association of

Unaided Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH)-AC

admissions). If, therefore, all the associations of minority

institutions have not agreed to form a single window to

process the admissions of students to the seats in the

institutions, the reliefs as prayed for could not be granted to

the petitioner suspending the proceedings dated 05.07.2010

or permitting the petitioner along with other associations

which had come together to admit students through a

separate single window until the High Court, after hearing

the main writ petition, held that the 2006 Rules are ultra

vires Articles 19(1)(g) or Article 30 of the Constitution. The

High Court was, therefore, right in declining to grant the

interim reliefs prayed for the by the petitioner.

6. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the

impugned order passed by the High Court and we

9

accordingly dismiss this Special Leave Petition. There shall

be no order as to costs.

..........................J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

..........................J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

August 25, 2011.