Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—I have got the privilege to read the judgment prepared by my Lord Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

With respect while concurring with the findings recorded by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, I wish to deal with the con troversy with my own separate reasoning.

The controversy basically relates to interpretation of three Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 : 2002(5) ESC 1 (SC), TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka; (2003) 6 SCC 697 : 2003(4) ESC 509 (SC), Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka and (2005) 6 SCC 537 : 2005(3) ESC 373 (SC), P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, in context to admission for B.Ed. Courses in non-aided private colleges situated in the State of U.P.

2. Hon’ble the Single Judge of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani), vide order dated 8.8.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34114 of 2007, Tuples Educational Society and another v. State of U.P. and another, was pleased to frame the following questions by referring the controversy to Larger Bench :

(1) Whether the admissions to private unaided (minority and non-minority) colleges imparting education for Bachelor of Education Courses recognised by NCTE and affiliated to the University can be made by any method other than by holding a common entrance test either by the State/Universities, or by all the colleges of the State coming together as provided in P.A. Inamdar’s case?

(2) Whether the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge on 14.12.2006 in Writ Petition No. 5674 (M/S) of 2006, U.P. Management Association of Self-Finance Teachers Training Colleges v. State of U.P. and others has correctly appreciated the TMA Pai, Islamic Academy and P.A. Inamdar’s case and has laid down correct law?

(3) Whether in the absence of any common entrance test held by all the colleges coming together or a common entrance test conducted by the State Government or all the Universities in the State the admissions can be made through the entrance examinations held by individual universities providing list of students through counselling to these colleges?

(4) Whether the entire process of admissions to these colleges must be left to the supervision of the Justice H. N. Tilhari (Retd.) Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of the directions issued in P.A. Inamdar’s case?

The complexity of the situation may give rise to many other questions, which may be framed by the larger Bench to be considered in the matter.”

3. In pursuance of the order dated 8.8.2007, the petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon’ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ. and Hon’ble Justice Anjani Kumar, J. The Division Bench after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, formed an opinion that questions raised by the Hon’ble Single Judge, should be heard by a larger Bench. Accordingly, vide order dated 12.9.2007, the Division Bench had directed that matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice on administrative side to constitute a larger Bench. A copy of the order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Division Bench is reproduced as under :

“Hon’ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date September 12, 2007

P.C.

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kant, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners institutions. Mr. Devendra Arora appears for Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. Mr. Abhinav Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appears for the State Government.

2. Mr. Upadhyay wants to file a counter affidavit on behalf of the State.

3. The submission of the respondents is that this is a controversy which ought to be decided by a larger Bench.

4. In these circumstances, the papers of the matter be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side to constitute a larger Bench.”

In pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench (supra), Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute the present Full Bench by subsequent order.

4. In other Civil Misc. Writ Peti