The State cannot compel minority institutions to share seats; it must ensure transparent, merit-based admissions without compromising minority character.

1. Heard.

2. The rights of minorities to run and establish educational institutions of their choice under Art.30 of the Constitution of India, the regulation of such rights by the State and its extent, are the issues involved in these writ petitions.

3. REFERENCE

Learned Single Judge of this Court perceiving conflicting opinions expressed by various Division Benches of this Court on certain issues has referred the following questions for our consideration.

“(i) As to whether the regulatory measures, in the matter of admissions to unaided recognized minority institutions, to be taken by the State Government will be confined to the extent of ensuring fair and transparent procedure of admission to be adopted by the minority institutions without compromising with the merit in admissions to the courses of higher education, which will include professional and technical education, or it will extend to the extent of compelling the minority institutions to 'seat haring' or appropriation of quota of seats with the State Government, even in absence of any 'consensual arrangement between the unaided private minority institutions and the State'?

(ii) Which of the Division Bench judgments referred to herein above, either the judgment dated 25.09.2014 (Special Appeal Defective No. 376 of 2014) and the judgment dated 29.08.2011 (Special Appeal No. 605 of 2011) or the judgment dated 10.03.2017 in the case of Sankalp Institute of Education (supra), enunciates the correct law in respect of right of unaided recognized minority institutions to admit students in the background of the law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.M.A. Pai (supra) and PA. Inamdar (supra) ?

(iii) What is the extent of authority / power of the State Government to regulate admissions of students to unaided recognized minority institutions imparting education in the courses of higher education, which includes professional and technical courses, in view of the protection available to minority institutions under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India?”

4. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

All the petitioners before us are private unaided minority professional institutions imparting teaching in BTC course now referred as D.El.Ed (Diploma in Elementary Education), which is indisputably a professional course based on which appointments of Assistant Teachers are made in Basic Schools upto Class VIII. One of the intervenors before us is an Association of Unaided Minority Unani and Ayurvedic Colleges of U.P. which had filed a Petition bearing Misc. Single No. 22554 of 2017 before the learned Single Judge after the reference had been made and has intervened herein as the questions referred to us may have a bearing on its rights. Another intervention has been made by Sri Sandeep Dixit, Advocate. Further Sri Anand Mani Tiwari Advocate was also heard considering the importance of the issues involved. The applications for interventions are accordingly disposed of with the right of hearing already granted.

5. Before adverting to the above referred questions, it would be appropriate to give a brief back - ground leading to the reference as, it would help understand the controversy in a better perspective.

6. After the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in PA. Inamdar & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2005 (6) SCC 537 , the State Legislature enacted 'T