THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23296 of 2011 Date: 16.09.2011 Between: David Memorial Education Society, rep.by Its Secretary Dr. James David and another … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Minorities Welfare (ICM-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Rep. by its Principal Secretary. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 23296 of 2011 O R D E R: The 1st petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 fasli with the main object of establishing Christian minority educational institutions in various courses. The petitioner No.2 has been established by the petitioner No.1 to impart education in B.Ed. Programme for women. The 2nd petitioner-college was granted recognition in the year 2002-03 with an intake of 100 seats. It was also granted affiliation and permission by the competent authorities. By proceedings dated 1.7.2004 the 2nd petitioner was granted provisional minority status for the academic year 2003-2004. Subsequently, by order dated 04.03.2005 the Christian religious minority status certificate in favour of the 2nd petitioner-college was renewed for the three academic years i.e. 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. However, by order dated 25.02.2006 passed by the respondent, the recognition as Minority Educational Institution accorded to the 2nd petitioner was withdrawn with immediate effect on the alleged failure to fill up 70% seats under 85% minority quota with the candidates belonging to Christian minority community. Subsequently, having considered the representations made by several other managements of similarly situated minority educational institutions, the respondent by memo dated 04.01.2007 restored the Christian minority status of the 2nd petitioner. Since the minority status certificate was granted to the 2nd petitioner for a period of three years upto 2006-07, the petitioners made an application on 26.07.2007 for further extension of the minority status. The said request of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent by memo dated 23.03.2010 on the ground that the management had failed to submit either T.C. or Headmaster Certificate to support that the governing body members belonged to Christian religion and that the management did not give any specific information with regard to the number of minority students admitted in the institution which goes to show that they did not admit Christian minority students as specified in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 16.01.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14669 of 2010. By order dated 28.06.2011 made in W.P.M.P.No.18455 of 2010 this Court having recorded a prima facie finding that the 2nd petitioner was a Christian minority institution and all the members of the institution belong to the Christian community, permitted the 2nd petitioner herein to furnish a fresh list of the students who had been admitted in its college and also to raise the issue regarding applicability of requirement on minimum number of Christian students at the time of counseling as the 2nd petitioner did not have any control over the admission process. There was also a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the 2nd petitioner and pass orders within a period of two weeks. In pursuance thereof, the 2nd petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 07.07.2011. However, the respondent had again rejected the request of the 2nd petitioner for grant of certificate of Christian minority status by order dated 14.07.2011 stating that the 2nd petitioner did not admit a single minority student for the five academic years starting from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 and only one Christian student was admitted in the academic year 2010-2011 and the said action was not in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Government for grant of renewal of minority status. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.07.2011, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader Social Welfare appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record including the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. While pointing out that the Christian minority status of the 2nd petitioner institution which was withdrawn on 25.02.2006 was restored only on 04.01.2007 and again from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards the 2nd petitioner did not possess the minority status, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of rejection on the ground that the 2nd petitioner did not admit the minority students in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Government was irrational and perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that having regard to the fact that several institutions established by the 1st petitioner society have been recognized as Christian minority educational institutions and there is no dispute with regard to the services being rendered by the 1st respondent society to the Christian minority community, the respondent was not justified in rejecting minority status to the 2nd petitioner college merely on the ground of its failure to admit minority students during the academic years 2005- 2006 to 2009-2010. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, while reiterating the reasons stated in the impugned order, it is contended that since it was evident from the admission particulars furnished by the 2nd petitioner college that the management was not at all serious to serve the needs of the Christian students, the respondent was justified in rejecting the request of the 2nd petitioner for grant of Christian minority status certificate. The guidelines regulating the issue of minority status certificate to the Minority Educational Institutions have been issued under G.O.Ms.No.1, Minorities Welfare (M&R) Department, dated 16.01.2004. Para-I (5) of the said Guidelines provides that the educational institutions established and managed by the minorities shall serve the educational needs of their community to which they claim to belong by filling up not less than 70% of seats being filled up by the management as per the rules governing admission into various colleges with the candidates belonging to the respective minority community. Para-I (6) further provides that out of the seats to be filled by the management by the minority institutions, 70% of the seats shall be filled in by the management strictly as per the rules governing the admissions with transparency in admissions. Para-V of the guidelines prescribed the conditions under which the recognition as minority educational institution can be withdrawn by the competent authority. The said conditions included the failure of the educational agency to admit students belonging to the concerned minority community in the institution as to the Rules and prescribed percentage governing admissions during any academic year. On a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the requirement of filling up not less than 70% of management seats with the candidates belonging to the respective minority community is mandatory and in the event of the failure of the institution to fulfil the said requirement, the minority status can be withdrawn. As per the rules of admission governing admissions into the educational institutions that were existing prior to the decision of the Apex Court in P.A. INAMDAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[1], the entire intake of the minority educational institutions was allowed to be filled in by the minority educational institutions themselves. Subsequently pursuant to the judgment in P.A. INAMDAR’s case (1 supra) the State of A.P. issued Andhra Pradesh Colleges of Education (Regulation of Admissions into B.Ed. Course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2006 vide G.O.Ms.No.92, Education (SE-Trg-1) Department, dated 16.11.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.98, Education (SE-Trg- 1) Department, dated 6.12.2006. As per the said Rules, the intake of the seats has been divided into Category-A and Category-B. The seats in Category-A i.e., 85% of the intake are required to be filled in by the Convenor appointed for the said purpose by the State by following the process of Centralized Counselling. So far as the seats in Category-B i.e., remaining 15% of the intake are concerned, the management is at liberty to admit students belonging to any social group by following the transparent process of admissions. It is to be noticed that subsequently the percentage of seats to be filled in Category-A and Category-B is amended as 70% and 30% respectively of the intake. Thus it is clear that from the academic year 2006-2007 onwards the admissions are governed by G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 16.11.2006 read with G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 6.12.2006 whereunder the minority educational institutions are allowed to admit students as per their choice only to the extent of 15% intake (subsequently amended as 30%). Therefore the requirement under G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 16.01.2004 that the minority educational institutions shall fill up not less than 70% of seats to be filled up by the Management is applicable only to the Category-B seats available to the management under G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 16.11.2006 read with G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 6.12.2006. So far as the 2nd petitioner college is concerned, it was initially granted the provisional minority status for the academic year 2003- 2004. Subsequently by order, dated 4.3.2005 it was confirmed and renewed upto the academic year 2006-2007. However during the academic year 2005-2006 itself the minority status of the petitioner No.2 institution was withdrawn by order dated 25.2.2006 on the ground that for the academic year 2004-2005 it had made admissions in violation of the requirement of filling up 70% of seats under minority quota and the minority status was restored only on 4.1.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the admissions for the academic year 2004-2005 could be commenced only in April-May 2005 and that the non-filling up of the required number of Christian minority students was not willful. The learned counsel further submitted that the facts and circumstances under which the requirement of filling up 70% of seats with Christian minority students could not be complied with had been explained by the petitioners and having considered the same the respondent had restored the minority status and therefore it is not open to the respondent now to reject the renewal of minority status on the basis of the performance of the petitioner prior to the order of restoration dated 4.1.2007. I find substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though it is a fact that the petitioner No.2 failed to fulfil the 70% admissions during the academic year 2004- 2005, in view of the order dated 4.1.2007 the non-compliance shall be deemed to have been condoned and it is not open to the respondent now to reopen the said issue for the purpose of renewal of the minority status of the petitioner No.2. It is relevant to note that by the date of restoration of minority status on 4.1.2007, the academic year 2006-2007 had already commenced and therefore the petitioner No.2 did not enjoy the benefit of the minority social status. From 2007-2008 onwards the petitioner was admittedly treated as a non-minority institution since in spite of its application, the minority status was not renewed beyond 2006-2007. Para-VII (8) of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 16.01.2004, provides that in case renewal of recognition was not obtained by the date of expiry of the existing period, the institution shall be treated as non-minority institution. Hence from 2007-2008 onwards the petitioner No.2 shall be treated only as non-minority institution and the requirement of filling up 70% of seats with the candidates belonging to the Christian minority community cannot be insisted upon. It is also relevant to note that though Para-III (1) of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 16.01.2004 provides that the minority status certificate shall be given for a period of three years and it shall be renewed prior to its expiry period by making an application about three months in advance, there is no other specific provision prescribing the criteria for renewal. On a reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that the respondent had failed to take into consideration the effect of the order of restoration dated 4.1.2007. Moreover the admitted fact that in view of the withdrawal of the minority status the 2nd petitioner did not have the benefit of the minority status from the academic year 2006-2007 onwards was also not taken into consideration. As could be seen, the impugned order came to be passed solely on the ground that not even a single Christian student was given admission during the academic years 2005-06 to 2009-10. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner No.2 did not possess the minority status from the academic year 2006- 07 onwards, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent ought not to have assessed the performance of the 2nd petitioner on the basis of the admission of minority students in the previous years. At any rate before passing the rejection order on the said ground, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to submit the reasons for its failure to admit the Christian minority students during those academic years. Therefore, in my considered opinion the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.07.2011 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh with regard to the request of the petitioner No.2 for renewal of Christian minority status. Such an order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 2nd petitioner. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.09.2011 Note: CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs [1] (2005) 6 SCC 537