HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL Nos.928, 929, 941, 942, 943, 944 and 1161 of 2005 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.8114, 8134, 8280, 8288, 8371, 9066, 9562, 9974, 9982, 10898 and 12146 of 2005 Writ Appeal No.928 of 2005 Between: Andhra Kesari College of Education, Ongole, Prakasham District, represented by its Correspondent, Sri J.Prasad and others. ...Appellants AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Nuty Rammohan Rao with Sri Ch.Samson Babu Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Appeal No.929 of 2005 Between: Indur College of Education, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, rep. by its Secretary, D.Thomasaiah and others. …Appellants. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Nuty Rammohan Rao with Sri Ch.Samson Babu Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Appeal No.941 of 2005 Between: Malla Reddy College of Education, rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent, Ch.Malla Reddy, Secunderabad. …Appellant. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B.Adinarayana Rao Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Appeal No.942 of 2005 Between: St. Georges College of Education, rep. by its Correspondent, M.Niranjan Reddy, Shankarapally and others. …Appellants. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri B.Adinarayana Rao Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Appeal No.943 of 2005 Between: Alimineti Madhava Reddy Memorial College of Education, rep. by its Correspondent, R.Petar Spurgeon Jayakar, Hyderabad. …Appellant. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B.Adinarayana Rao Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Appeal No.944 of 2005 Between: Jyothi College of Education, Sircilla, rep. by its President, Md.Samuel. …Appellant. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Koka Raghava Rao Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Appeal No.1161 of 2005 Between: Nova Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary, M.Krishna Rao, Hyderabad and another. …Appellants. AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Sri S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.8114 of 2005 Between: Holy Mary Institute of Technology and Science, Yenkepally, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Chairman, Y.Thomas Reddy. …Petitioner. AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education (Training-A1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Sriram Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.8134 of 2005 Between: Holy Trinity College of Education, Bogaram village, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Chairman, Y.Thomas Reddy. …Petitioner. AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education (Training-A1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.8280 of 2005 Between: Miriam College of Education, Amalapuram, rep. by its Correspondent, Carl D.Kommanapalli and others. …Petitioners. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Samson Babu Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.8288 of 2005 Between: Annibesant College of Education, Karepalli, rep. by its Chairman, Mary Kutti Cherian and others. …Petitioners. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ch.Samson Babu Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.8371 of 2005 Between: K.David and aother. …Petitioners. AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education (Training A-1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. …Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M.Prasad Rao Counsel for Respondent : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.9066 of 2005 Between: AES College of Education, Moinabad, rep. by its Correspondent, Mohd.Ghouse Moinuddin. …Petitioner. AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education (Training-A1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Sriram Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.9562 of 2005 Between: Dr.K.S.P.R.College of Education, Narsaraopet, rep. by its Correspondent, P.Rayanna and others. …Petitioners. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri T.Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.9974 of 2005 Between: Thoma Educational Society, Amalapuram, rep. by its Correspondent, Carl D.Kommanapalli and others. …Petitioners. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Samson Babu Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.9982 of 2005 Between: Allen Alfred Educational Society, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary, M.Praveen Kumar and another. …Petitioners. AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.10898 of 2005 Between: Ameeruddin Academy of General, Technical, Professional Educational Society, Giddalur, rep. by its Correspondent & Secretary, Smt.S.Mehatab. …Petitioner. AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.Mallik Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education Writ Petition No.12146 of 2005 Between: Nova Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary, M.Krishna Rao, Hyderabad and others. …Appellants. AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Advocate General assisted by Government Pleader for School Education : J U D G M E N T : AUGUST, 2006. PER G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J By this order, we are disposing of a batch of writ appeals filed against order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed Writ Petition Nos.5750, 6162 and 8348 of 2005 filed for quashing G.O.Ms.No.57, School Education (Training-A1) Department, dated 21.03.2005 (for brevity the ‘G.O.’). We are also disposing Writ Petition Nos.8114, 8134, 8280, 8288, 8371, 9066, 9562, 9974, 9982, 10898 and 12146 of 2005 in which legality of the G.O. has been questioned. For admission of the students into B.Ed. courses in aided and unaided minority colleges of Education, the State Government prescribed the procedure vide Rules circulated through G.O.Rt.No.169, Education (SE.TRG.I) Department, dated 05.02.2004. As per Rule 4(ii), the managements of unaided minority colleges were required to admit the candidates to the extent of 85% of intake belonging to concerned minority community, who were eligible and qualified in Ed-CET-2003 or common entrance Test conducted by Association of Managements of Colleges of Education (Ed.CET-AC). The said G.O further stipulates that while filling 85% seats under management quota, if seats were vacant in any methodology due to non-availability of minority candidates in that methodology, such seats could be filled with the minority candidates belonging to other methodology as per merit, with the prior permission of the Commissioner & Director of School Education and still if the management could not get sufficient number of concerned minority candidates such seats could be filled with non-minority candidates who qualified in the Ed-CET 2003, duly following the merit and rule of reservation. The said G.O further contemplated that the remaining 15% of seats shall be filled with eligible and qualified candidates of Ed-CET-2003, methodology wise, either minority or non-minority. Sub- rule (x) of Rule 10 of the G.O prescribed that the minority status of the candidates should be determined as per the provisions of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1, Minorities Welfare (M&R) Dept., dated 16-01- 2004. Rule II(2) of G.O.Ms.No.1 laid down that Secondary School Certificate or any other equivalent record/Transfer Certificates from the schools in which they have studied shall be the basis for determining the religious status for admission in Minority institutions. G.O.Rt.No.169 was applicable for B.Ed admissions for 2003-2004 only. In supercession of all earlier G.Os. including G.O.Rt.No.169, dated 05.02.2004, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.26, School Education (Trg.A1) Department, dated 03.02.2005 and laid down the procedure for allotment of the students into B.Ed. courses in aided and unaided minority colleges in the State. The relevant extract of Rule 6 of G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 03.02.2005 reads as under: “6. Un-aided Minority Colleges of Education (i) 55% Manaagement Seats – to be filled with Minority candidates only The management of private un-aided Minority colleges of Education shall admit the candidates to the extent of 55% of intake belonging to concerned minority community who are eligible and qualified in Common Entrance Test conducted by Government (Ed.CET) or Common Entrance Test conducted by Association of Managements of Colleges of Education (Ed.CET-AC) as per the option already exercised by them with the Permanent Committee. (a) The admissions to the “55% Management Seats” shall be methodology wise as per merit ranking among the minority candidates applied to the college duly following the transparent method prescribed in the rules. (b) The existing rules of reservation for special categories i.e. NCC/Sports/CAP/PHC and Women are to be followed as prescribed in the rules. (c) If seats are vacant in any methodology due to non- availability of minority candidates in that methodology, such vacant seats shall be filled with the minority candidates belonging to other methodology as per merit with prior permission of Regional Joint Director of School Education concerned duly producing all relevant records. (d) Still, if the management is unable to get sufficient number of concerned minority candidates, such seats can be filled with non-minority candidates who are qualified in the Ed.CET/Ed.CET-AC (as per the option exercised already) duly following the merit and rules of reservation with prior approval of the Regional Joint Director of School Education concerned. However, the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1, Minorities Welfare (M&R) Department, dated 16.01.2004 have to be fulfilled if the minority status of the college is to be retained. (e) 85% of the seats covered under “55% Managaement seats” in each methodology shall be allocated to the local candidates and remaining 15% of the seats shall be unreserved for which Andhra University, Osmania University, Sri Venkateswara University local candidates and non-local candidates of Andhra Pradesh can compete in combined merit order of concerned minority. (ii) 15% - Management Seats – to be filled with Minority or Non-Minority candidates The management shall fill 15% of seats with eligible and qualified candidates as per merit in Ed.CET/Ed.CET-AC (as per the option exercised already) (ii) 30% - Convener Seats – to be filled by the Convener The remaining 30% of seats shall be filled by the Convener, Ed.CET from the common merit list of Ed.CET as per Rules.” The aforementioned G.O. was modified by G.O.Ms.No.55, School Education (Trg.A1) Department, dated 20.03.2005, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: “2. In the reference 2nd read above, the Treasurer of Minority B.Ed Colleges Association has submitted representation to the Government for consideration on the following:- (i) to delete the provisions in Rules 6(iii) and 7 in G.O.Ms.26, Education Department dated:3.2.2005 and allow them to follow the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.405 Education Department dated:6.11.1995 and G.O.Ms.No.570 Education Department dated:16.6.2004 for academic year 2004-05; and (ii) to delegate the powers for approving the list of candidates admitted in minority colleges to Regional Director concerned instead of State Council for Higher Education as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.26 Education Department dated:3.2.2005. 3. Government examined the matter in detail, and hereby accept the demand No.(i) above duly exempting the provisions in Rules 6(iii) and 7 of G.O.1st read above for the academic year 2004-05 and reverting the quota to the extent of 85% and 15% of management quota with the concerned minority candidates and management quota respectively. Regarding determining the minority status of the candidate, SSC records may be taken into consideration while admitting the students in minority quota. In regard to demand No.(ii) above, Government after due consideration rejected the same.” G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 21.03.2005 was issued in continuation of G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 20.03.2005 and in supercession of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.405 dated 6.11.1995, G.O.Rt.No.570 dated 16.06.2004 and G.O.Rt.No.478 MW Dept., dated 27.12.2004. The criteria prescribed in the G.O. for determining minority status of the candidates reads as under: “(i) Criteria for determining minority status of the candidates:- As there were reports of students/candidates obtaining religious conversion certificates overnight by exploiting the provisions contained in G.O. 5th above, the following condition is prescribed. For the purpose of determining the minority status of candidates seeking admission into 85% management quota in the B.Ed., minority colleges, the Secondary School Certificates or Transfer Certificates (T.C.) from the school from which they have studied shall be the basis. In the absence of a T.C., the candidate should obtain a certificate from the Head of the Institution in which he/she studied in proforma prescribed (Annexure-I) to this order. Further, the students submitting bogus minority community certificates shall be dealt with under the relevant sections of the I.P.C. apart from losing their seats following the due procedure. (ii) Criteria for admission into minority Colleges of Education:- It is clarified that only such of those candidates who have qualified at Ed.CET-2004 or Ed.CET-AC are eligible for admission into minority Colleges of Education, and those candidates who have not qualified at Ed.CET-2004 or Ed.CET-AC shall not be admitted into the minority Colleges of Education and no deviation is permitted in this regard. This condition is stipulated herein in order to implement the orders issued by Supreme Court of India and at the same time to ensure quality education to the students. (iii) Procedure for filling of unfilled seats in 85% management seats in minority colleges:- As the number of Ed.CET or Ed.CET-AC qualified minority candidates are lesser than the number of seats made available under 85% management seats in minority Colleges of Education, there is a distinct possibility of such seats remaining unfilled and to fill up such seats in the interest of students and managements, the following procedure is prescribed i.e., after admitting minority students duly following the procedure laid down in provisions (i) and (ii) of this order, if there are any unfilled seats, the same shall be notified and the Convener, Ed.CET-2004 shall allot candidates following the due procedure. Under no circumstance, the minority colleges shall admit students into 85% management quota, who do not satisfy the criteria laid down in the provisions (i) and (ii) of this G.O. If any violation is noticed, suitable action shall be taken to cancel the minority status of concerned College of Education apart from withdrawing No Objection Certificate issued by this Govt., and take action for de-recognition of the said college by National Council of Teacher Education, besides disallowing the irregularly admitted candidates from appearing at examinations by following the established procedure.” The thrust of the attack against the said G.O by the appellants and other writ petitioners, who are Minority Unaided Colleges of Education, is two fold. The first ground of attack is that by prescribing in clause 3(i) of the G.O that for the purpose of determining the minority status of candidates seeking admission into 85% management quota in the B.Ed., minority colleges, the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) or Transfer certificate (TC) from the school shall be the basis and in the absence of the said certificates, a certificate from the head of the institution in the prescribed proforma shall be produced, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is sought to be taken away. The second ground of challenge against the impugned G.O is that by prescribing in sub-clause(iii) of Clause 3 of the G.O that the unfilled seats shall be notified to the Convenor, Ed.CET-2004, who shall allot candidates to fill those seats forming part of 85% of management seats, the right to administer the minority institutions conferred on them under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is sought to be infringed. Learned counsel for the appellants and writ petitioners argued that taking the Secondary School Certificate/Transfer Certificate or in their absence, a certificate from the Head of the Institution as the basis for determining the religion of the candidates seeking admission tantamounts to violating the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India regarding freedom to profess, propagate and practise religion, inasmuch as such of those candidates who changed their religion subsequent to passing SSC or other qualifying examination and seeking admission into B.Ed will be deprived of admission into B.Ed. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel is to the effect that the impugned G.O prohibits voluntary change of religion. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, argued that the impugned G.O neither prohibits voluntary conversion nor does it impose any fetters on the freedom of individuals to profess, propagate and practise a religion of his choice. He further contended that the circumstances under which and the reasons for which the said criteria for determining the minority status was prescribed, are set out in the G.O itself. According to him, it was brought to the notice of the Government about large number of instances of misuse of the provision of allowing Baptism Certificate as a basis and in order to prevent such misuse resorted to by the management as well as students and in order to protect the interests of genuine minority candidates and the managements and to uphold criterion of merit, it was stipulated that SSC/TC, and in their absence a certificate from the Head of the Institution be taken as the basis for determining the minority status. It is to be noted that the criteria are prescribed only for the purpose of determining the minority status of the candidates for their admission to B.Ed course and it has nothing to do with the freedom of religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25(1) lays down that subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. The act of practice is concerned primarily with religious worship, rituals and observations`. Propagation is concerned with right to communicate beliefs to another person or to expound the tenets of one’s religion, but does not include a right to forcible conversions. We have considered the respective submissions. In Ratilal v. State of Bombay [1], the Supreme Court held that: “Religion is not necessarily theistic; there are well known religions in India like the Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in the existence of God or of any intelligent First Cause. A religion has its basis in a system of beliefs and doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion to be conducive to their spiritual well being, but it is not correct t say that matters of religion are nothing but matters of religious faith and religious belief. A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has its outward expression in acts well. The article protects acts done in pursuance of religious belief as part of religion. For, religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in particular doctrines. Following the above decision, it was held by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P[2] as follows: “What Article 25 (1) grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees `freedom of conscience’ to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the “freedom of conscience” guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike.” In Digyadarsan R.R varu v. State of A.P[3], it was held that when mathadhipathi was placed under suspension and the Asst. Commissioner was appointed as day-to-day administrator because of the enquiry which was pending against the former, there was no violation of Article 25 of the Constitution as Mathadhipathi was not prohibited or debarred from professing, practicing and propagating his religion. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [4], the Apex Court held that: “Religion is a matter of faith stemming from the depth of the heart and mind. Religion is a belief which binds the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural being; it is an object of conscientious devotion, faith and pietism. Devotion in its fullest sense is a consecration and denotes an act of worship. Faith in the strict sense constitutes firm reliance on the truth of religious doctrines in every system of religion. Religion, faith or devotion are not easily interchangeable. If the person feigns to have adopted another religion just fro some worldly gain or benefit, it would be religious bigotry. Looked at from this angle, a person who mockingly adopts another religion where plurality of marriage is permitted so as to renounce the previous marriage and desert the wife, cannot be permitted to take advantage of his exploitation as religion is not a commodity to be exploited.” The ratio of the aforementioned decision is that the question of infringement of the freedom enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution arises only when there is an obstruction to profess, practise and propagate any religion. So long as no such fetters are imposed on one’s right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion of his choice, the challenge under Article 25 does not simply exist. In our opinion, the impugned G.O. in no way imposes any restriction or creates any fetters in the matter of choice of a religion or in free professing, practising or propagating the same. The impugned G.O. only seeks to lay down criteria for determining the minority status of the candidates seeking admission into B.Ed based on SSC/TC that makes a mention of the religion of the candidate and the said G.O was issued in concurrence with the Minority Welfare Department as can be seen from clause 6 thereof and therefore, it complies with the requirement of sub-rule (vii) of Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 03.02.2005. The challenge to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.57 under Article 25 is therefore without any substance. Learned counsel for the appellants and writ petitioners then argued that the impugned G.O. is arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as the said stipulation of taking the SSC/TC as the basis is made only in respect of admission to B.Ed course, whereas no such stipulation is existing in the matter of admission to other professional courses like Medicine, Engineering etc and is therefore violative of Article 14. It is to be seen that G.O.Ms.No.26 modifying which G.O.Ms.Nos.55 and 57 are