Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2011
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
J U D G M E N T
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
th
by exploiting the provisions contained in G.O. 6
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
1
Karnataka and Ors. , 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