( 1 ) THESE Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by minority educational institutions of Indian Christians which are running Womens Teacher Training Colleges in Borsad (District : Kheda), Ankleshwar (District : Bharuch) and Godhra (District : Panchmahal ).

( 2 ) THEIR main grievance is that step by step on several decisions of High Court and Supreme Court the fundamental rights guaranteed to minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution are being gradually curtailed.

( 3 ) IN the two Petitions filed by Minority Educational Institution Mary Brown Memorial Training College, Borsad (for short "the MBMT College") (SCA 12124/00 and SCA 10703/00) the grievance raised is that the Institution on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi AIR 1992 SC 1630 could not question the directions of the respondents to fill 50% of their intake capacity by admitting students from other than minority community, but they have serious objection to the directions issued and coercion exercised, on the pain of derecognising them, to grant admission to the students for the remaining 50% of the vacancies on the Centralised Admission List prepared under the Regulations and norms fixed by the National Council for Teachers Education under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (for short "the NCTE Act" ). The other grievance raised by MBMT College (in SCA 10703/00) is that suddenly and arbitrarily their initial intake capacity is reduced from 40 to 30.

( 4 ) SO far as the other Christian minority institutions representing the Teachers Training Colleges at Ankleshwar and Godhra are concerned, the common challenge is to the insistence of the respondents on them to fill 50% of their seats from the Centralised Admission List prepared by the National Council for Teachers Education.

( 5 ) THE case of the petitioners is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in St. Stephens College (supra) and the subsequent interim orders made by the Supreme Court from time to time in the pending cases there, they cannot legitimately question the direction to the minority institutions to fill 50% of their seats from candidates on merits from other than minorities. The method of admission, however, adopted by the Institution by fixing minimum percentage of marks in qualifying examination of 50% instead of 60% as fixed by the Council and subjecting the students to interview, cannot be objected to by the Council or the State of Gujarat. On behalf of the Minority Educational Institutions, it is argued that some regulatory rules or measures can be made applicable to minority institutions to maintain their standard and efficiency, but if the minority institutions insist on higher standard of excellence for granting admission to their Institutions, the respondents representing the Authorities of the State and the Council cannot insist that 50% of the students must be filled on minimum qualification of 50% marks in qualifying examination and without interview and only from the Centralised Merit List prepared by the Council.

( 6 ) LEARNED Sr. Counsel Shri G. L. Sanghi appearing for the petitioner and the Sr. Counsel Shri Yatin Oza appearing in the connected cases have placed their strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of the same party Mary Brown Memorial Training College rendered by Six Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabbai and others v. State of Gujarat and another (AIR 1963 SC 540 ). It is argued that Five Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in St. Stephens College (supra) (AIR 1992 SC 1630), which has followed the Six Judges Bench decision in the case of Sidhrajbhai (supra) has no where held that 50% seats which should be made available by the minority institutions to general candidates should be filled only on the norms and rules framed by the educational Authorities of th