IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right of minority institutions is not absolute and is amenable to regulation.
(2) Protection granted to Minority Educational Institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions.

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.

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. 6th 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 (Annexure-I) 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)

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 (Trg-A1) 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 sub-clause para (10), the following shall be inserted, namely :-(10 A). The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shall conduct the counselling in phases if required till the last rank of Ed. CET. The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shall fill the left over seats of the unaided 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 non-minority candidates."

(emphasis supplied)

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 non-minority 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 righ