1. The Order of the Court was as follows :

The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the proceedings in SFPC/PC/00014 dated 1.6.2004 of the Permanent Committee constituted to ensure the fair conduct of Common Entrance Test for admission of students by Association/Consortium of various unaided professional engineering and Arts and Science colleges.

2. As the challenge made to the impugned order is almost on the similar grounds and common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal. This order shall govern all the writ petitions.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.16034 of 2004 is Consortium of Professional Arts and Science Colleges in Tamil Nadu and formed by the following associations, viz .,

(1) Association of Self Financing Private Engineering Colleges of Tamil Nadu;

(2) Tamil Nadu Self Financing Engineering Colleges Association;

(3) Tamil Nadu Unaided Colleges Management Association (TUCMA);

(4) Association of Self Financing Arts, Science and Management Colleges of Tamil Nadu;

(5) Association of Muslim Colleges of Tamil Nadu;

(6) Association of Minority Unaided Christian Institutions (AMUCI);

(7) Forum of Tamil Nadu Minority Self Financing Engineering Colleges.

4. The Consortium was formed for the purpose of conducting Common Entrance Test for admission to B.E., B.Tech., M.E., M.Tech., M.B.A. and M.C.A. Courses in respect of the seats allocated to be filled by the Managements, who are the member of colleges of the petitioner forum. The Consortium represents both self-financing minority and non-minority educational institutions established in the State of Tamil Nadu.

5. W.P.No.16068 of 2004 is filed by the 7th member of the Consortium i.e., Forum of Tamil Nadu Minority Self-Financing Engineering Colleges, as the members of the petitioner forum constitute the minority unaided private engineering colleges.

6. The petitioner in W.P.No.16095 of 2004 is the Tamil Nadu College of Engineering, a private unaided engineering college. The petitioner college is also a member of the Consortium.

7. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.16444 to 16447 and 16659 to 16662 of 2004 are individual unaided private engineering colleges. Though the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16559 to 16662 of 2004 are not the members of Consortium, Mr. K.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for those petitioners would submit that the petitioners undertake to become members of Consortium and the order in the writ petitions shall govern the petitioner colleges also.

8. The petitioner in W.P.No.17383 of 2004 is the All India Medical and Engineering Colleges Association and have also questioned the same order.

9. In order to appreciate the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, certain facts leading to the present dispute require a mention. In the judgment reported in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of A.P. , 1993 (1) SCC 645, the Apex Court in order to curb the commercialization of education, framed a scheme relating to admission and fixing of fee in private unaided educational institutions both for unaided minority and non-minority private educational institutions. As we are concerned with only the admission of students by unaided private educational institutions, the scheme as to the percentage of seats for the State to be filled under Single Widow System and the percentage of seats to be filled by the private unaided educational institutions under the management quota is alone referable. Under the Scheme, the Apex Court fixed 50% of seats to be filled by the State under Single Window System and the remaining 50% of the seats to be filled by the management and those seats are known as “Management Quota” with further entitlement to charge higher fee.

10. The judgment in Unni Krishnan’s case came up for consideration before a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court consisting of 11 Judges in T.M.A.Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 (5) CTC