Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.S.SINGHVI
DARUS SALAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST REP.BY ITS TRUSTEE SYED SHAH AKBAR NIZAMUDDIN Hussaini LATE SYED SHAH QUTUBUDDIN HUSSAINI - Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 11/14/2006
WRIT PETITION 12470 Of 2006
Education Law – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 19 (1) (g) and 30 (1) – Educational institutions of Muslim minority community – EAMCET admissions – allotment of seats – Violation of fundamental rights – Illegal amounting to colourable exercise – Government order Challenged – classifies the seats in private Unaided Minority Professional Institutions as category A and category B seats – Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of respondents in issuing G. O. Ms. Higher education (EC) Department and G. O. Ms. Higher Education (EC) Department and proceedings of first respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh in letter as arbitrary, illegal amounting to colourable exercise of power and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 29 and 30 (1) of constitution of India apart from being contrary to dicta laid down by supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 (8) SCC 481 and for consequentially setting aside rules framed in the above said G. Os. , particularly Rules 3, 5 and 6 and proceedings of first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to manage and administer the educational institutions including admissions – Held, There is no carving out of any percentage of seats to be filled by state through its instrumentality as was done in earlier G. Os which were in force prior to the decision in p. A. Inamdars case – All seats whether 80% category A, 20% category B seats are permitted to be filled by institutions – Categorizing seats as 80% to be filled through a common entrance test and 20% by all eligible candidates including NRIs and those from other States and Union Territories does not amount to sharing of seats by State – Impugned G. Os which are issued subsequent to decision of Apex Court in P. A. Inamdars case set out rules which are qualitatively different from rules existing previously and the impugned rules do not in any way violate dicta of Apex Court in decision in T. M. A. Pai Foundation and P. A. Inamdar and on other hand, they are in conformity therewith – Impugned rules do not infringe in any manner rights of minorities to establish and administer institutions under Article 30 (1) which right is held to be not an absolute one, but an additional protection – Impugned G. Os do not also violate rights of minorities or non-minorities under Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution – IN the circumstances and for reasons stated above, it is held that challenge to impugned G. Os. based on ground that they are violative of Article 19 (1) (g) and 30 (1) of Constitution and also dicta laid down by Apex Court, must necessarily fail – Writ petitions dismissed.
( 1 ) W. P. NO. 14048 of 2006 is filed by Darus Salam Educational Trust seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing G. O. Ms. No. 54, Higher education (EC) Department dated 10. 5. 2006 and G. O. Ms. No. 59, Higher Education (EC) Department, dated 26. 5. 2006 and the proceedings of the first respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh in letter No. 2973/ec/2/2006-1 dated 20. 6. 2006 as arbitrary, illegal amounting to colourable exercise of power and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 29 and 30 (1) of the constitution of India apart from being contrary to the dicta laid down by the supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 (8) SCC 481 and for consequentially setting aside the rules framed in the above said G. Os. , particularly Rules 3, 5 and 6 and proceedings of the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to manage and administer the educational institutions including admissions.
( 2 ) W. P. NO. 12470 of 2006 is a similar writ petition filed by Non-Minority engineering and Professional Colleges Managements' Association also seeking a writ of mandamus declaring 'a. P. Un-aided Non-Minority Professional institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Under-Graduate Professional Courses through common Entrance Test) Rules, 2006' issued by the first respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G. O. Ms. No. 53 dated 10. 5. 2006, more particularly Rules 3, 4 , 5 and 6 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for setting aside the same.
( 3 ) THE averments of the affidavit filed by Sri Syed Shah Akbar nizamuddin Hussaini, one of the trustees of Darus Salam Educational Trust (for short, 'the petitioner trust') in support of Writ Petition No. 14048 of 2006 in brief are as follows:
( 4 ) THE petitioner trust was established in the year 1974 to cater to the needs of educational institutions of Muslim minority community in the state of Andhra Pradesh and it was duly registered. The petitioner trust established colleges in various disciplines and all the colleges established by the petitioner trust are recognized by Government of Andhra Pradesh as Muslim minority Educational Institutions. The educational institutions are being run by the petitioner trust without receiving any aid either from the State or the Central Government. They are all self-financing minority educational institutions. The petitioner is entitled to administer and manage the educational institutions in pursuance of the provisions of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. However, the first respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 54 dated 10. 5. 2006 and g. O. Ms. No. 59 dated 26. 5. 2006 regulating admission of students into professional courses in Unaided Minority Educational Institutions. Rule 3 speaks about the allotment of seats and classifies the seats in private Unaided Minority Professional Institutions as category A and category B seats. Rule 3 (ii) says that 80% of the sanctioned intake of seats in each course in unaided minority professional institutions shall be filled with eligible candidates on the basis of rank obtained in EAMCET. Rule 3 (ii) says that 20% of the total intake of seats in each course shall be open for admission to all the eligible candidates. The method of admission is governed by Rule 5 saying that all category 'a' seats shall be filled in by respective institutions by admitting the candidates as allotted by the Convenor, EAMCET admissions.
( 5 ) THE procedure to be followed at the time of admission is prescribed in Rule 6. Rule 6 (i) says that each institution, which opted for Engineering and Medical common Entrance Test (for short, 'eamcet') shall indicate in writing to admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for short, 'afrc') by cut off date specified by it as to whether the institution would admit students through the single Windo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
