ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. on 25 September 2019

1. The present Civil Appeals and Writ Petition have been filedto challenge the vires of the Rules framed by the Government of AndhraPradesh vide G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005, G.O.M. No. 92 dated16.11.2006, and G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 (hereinafter referredto as the “impugned G.O.Ms”), for admission to the B. Ed. Course inthe State of Andhra Pradesh, and became applicable from the AcademicYear 2006 – 2007. The said G.O.Ms continue to remain in force evenas 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 aretherefore, deciding the case in light of the facts in the Writ Petition.

2. The Petitioner – Institution is a minority institution which wasgranted the status of a “Christian Minority Educational Institution” bythe Government of Andhra Pradesh.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

As per G.O.M. No. 55 dated 20.03.2005, minority colleges werepermitted to fill up 85% of their total seats, with students belonging tothe minority community, as the Management Quota.

3. The Petitioner – Institution filed the present Writ Petition tochallenge 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 directedthat the criteria fordetermining the minority status of candidates would be asfollows :–

“As there were reports of students/candidates obtainingreligious conversion certificates overnight by exploitingthe provisions contained in G.O. 6[th] above, the followingcondition is prescribed. For the purpose of determiningthe minority status of candidates seeking admission into85% management quota in the B.Ed., minority colleges,the Secondary School Certificates or TransferCertificates (T.C.) from the school from which they havestudied shall be the basis.In the absence of a T.C., thecandidate should obtain a certificate from the Head ofthe Institution in which he/she studies in the proformaprescribed (Annexure-I) to this order. Further, thestudents submitting bogus minority communitycertificates shall be dealt with under the relevantsections of the I.P.C. apart from losing their seatsfollowing the due procedure.”

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 bedecided as per the orders issued in G.O.M. No. 57School Education (Trg-A1) Department dated21.03.2006.”

Clause 5 set out the general guidelines for admission in the orderof merit on the basis of the rank assigned in the Ed. CET to theextent of sanctioned seats.

ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Clause 6 prescribed centralized counselling as the only mode foradmission even in respect of minority institutions.

iii) The third ground of challenge is the amendment made toG.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006 vide G.O.M. No. 98 dated06.12.2006. The following clause was incorporated by theamendment :–

“(8). In clause (iii) (b), after sub-clause para (10), thefollowing shall be inserted, namely :- (10 A). The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shallconduct the counselling in phases if required till the lastrank of Ed. CET. The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions-shall fill the left over seats of the unaided colleges inthe presence of a Government nominee by following ruleof reservation through counselling process, in case the-seats in minority colleges are to be filled up with nonminority candidates.”

iv) It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner – Institution thatthe direction underG.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 that unfilledseats in the 85% Management Quota, be allotted by theConvenor, Ed. CET to non-minority students on merit, is anintrusion on the right to administer the minority institutionsconferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. The Respondent – State contended that the impugned G.O.Msdo not in any manner violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioner –Institutions whatsoever.

4.1. The condition making the SSC Certificate as the basis forproving the minority status of the student, was imposed in lightof the statistical data, which revealed that many students wereconverting over-night so as to obtain admission in theManagement Quota of Minority Educational Institutions.

4.2. The Petitioner – Institution had an unhindered right to selectminority students to fill up the 85% of the seats by theManagement Quota, subject to merit in the Common EntranceTest.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

If however, seats in the Management Quota of the MinorityEducation Institution, remained unfilled by students from theminority community, the unfilled seats would be allotted by theConvenor to candidates on the basis of merit in the CommonEntrance Test.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, andperused the material on record, as also the written submissions filedby the parties. We would observe :–

5.1. G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 had been issued for thepurpose of determining the minority status of candidatesseeking admission in the Management Quota. The G.O.M.provides that the SSC/Transfer Certificate should be thebasis for making a valid claim by a candidate that he or shebelongs to the minority religion, to be eligible for admission.

Statistical data was placed on record before the HighCourt, which is recorded in the impugned judgment, whichhighlights that Baptism Certificates were being obtained bystudents from other communities, so as to obtain admissionin the Management Quota of Minority EducationalInstitutions.

In the additional counter affidavit filed by the Respondent– State before the High Court, it was revealed that a largenumber of admissions were made on the basis of conversioncertificates. The enquiry conducted revealed that 67 out of200 students in New College of Education, Nizamabad; 90out of 136 in Rayalseema College of Education, Kurnool;82 out of 102 in Bhongir College of Education, Bhongir; 60out of 85 in Jyoti College of Education, Siricilla; 91 out of102 in Anebesent College of Education, Khammam; 85 outof 102 in Trinity College of Education, were admitted on thebasis of Baptism Certificates. In most of these cases, thecandidates declared themselves to be Christians subsequentto the date of submitting their applications for the EntranceTest.

Considering the extensive misuse of such certificates, theState Government deemed it appropriate to issue G.O.M.No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 making the SCC Certificate as the ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

basis for determining the minority status of a student, in orderto prevent misuse of Conversion Certificates by ineligiblecandidates, so as to ensure that only bona fide studentswere granted admission in the Management Quota ofMinority Institutions.

G.O.M. No. 57 prescribed a uniform criteria fordetermination of the status of all minority students. Itsafeguards the interest of genuine minority students, so thattheir seats are not taken away by those who resort to falseconversions over-night, for the purpose of securingadmission. This would preserve the minority character ofthe Institution, rather than act as an intrusion of the same.

5.2. The impugned G.O.Ms grant full autonomy to the MinorityEducational Institutions to provide quality education for theminority community, by filling up 85% seats with meritoriousminority students, and granting them priority for admissionin such institutions.

5.3. With respect to G.O.M. No. 98, the requirement to fill upthe vacant seats by non-minority candidates was based onstatistical data which showed that the number of colleges,and the seats available for minorities, were highlydisproportionate, and far in excess of the population as perthe 2001 census. The distinct possibility of seats remainingunfilled in the Minority Institutions every year, would not bein the interest of the Minority Educational Institutions.

With this object in mind, G.O.M. No. 98 was issued toensure that the vacant seats in the 85% Management Quotadid not remain unfilled during any academic year. TheG.O.M. merely stipulated that if the said Quota remainedunfilled by minority students, it would be filled from the meritlist of successful candidates, as allotted by the Convenor,Ed. CET to promote excellence in education. By thisprocess, an opportunity was granted to the CET qualifiednon-minority candidates to secure quality education, whichwould subserve the interest of the nation.

This G.O.M. does not, in any manner, interfere with theright of a Minority Educational Institution to manage its A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

676SUPREME COURT REPORTS

affairs for the benefit of the Minority Community. On thecontrary, it ensures that vacant seats are not wasted, andare filled up by meritorious and deserving candidates.

A

5.4. Furthermore, the presence of a Government Nominee in thecounselling process was to ensure that the admission processBis fair, transparent, and non-exploitative, and is based onmerit. This would not interfere with the admission processof the minority institutions in any manner.

5.5. The impugned G.O.Ms are not violative of Article 30(1) ofthe Constitution of India. Article 30(1) states that allCminorities, whether based on religion or language, shall havethe right to establish and administer educational institutionsof their choice. The impugned G.O.Ms do not whittle downthe right of the minority institutions in any manner.

The right of minority institutions is not absolute, and isDamenable to regulation. The protection granted to MinorityEducational Institutions to admit students of their choice issubject to reasonable restrictions.

In T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State ofKarnataka and Ors.,[1] this Court held that :–

E

E“The right to admit students being an essential facet ofthe right to administer educational institutions of theirchoice, as contemplated under Article 30 of theConstitution, the state government or the university maynot be entitled to interfere with that right, so long asthe admission to the unaided educational institutions isFon a transparent basis and the merit is adequately takencare of. The right to administer, not being absolute, therecould be regulatory measures for ensuring educationalstandards and maintaining excellence thereof, and it ismore so in the matter of admissions to professionalGinstitutions.”

5.6. The impugned G.O.Ms do not impose any fetters on thefreedom of the minority institutions to profess, propagate, H1 (2002) 8 SCC 481.

and practice their religion, or the right to establish andadminister their educational institutions. The criteria has beenprescribed only for the purpose of determining the minoritystatus of the candidates for admission to the B. Ed. Course.This would not amount to a restriction, or impose any fettersin the matter of an individual’s choice of religion.

A

B

5.7. The contention of the Petitioner – Institution that theimpugned G.O.Ms are unconstitutional, and violative of theirfundamental rights, is liable to be rejected.

5.8. The impugned G.O.Ms were brought into force w.e.f. theacademic year 2006-2007. These G.O.Ms have remainedCin force ever since. All Minority Educational Institutions inthe State of Andhra Pradesh, including the PetitionerInstitution, have been following these G.O.Ms since the pastover 13 academic years without any complaint. There is nojustifiable reason why the same should be discontinued atDthis stage.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Appeals andthe Writ Petition are dismissed as being devoid of any merit.All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposedof.

E

Ordered accordingly.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Matters disposed of.

F

G

H