Case: ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

determining the minority status of candidates seeking admission in the Management Quota. The G.O.M. provides that the SSC/Transfer Certificate should be the basis for making a valid claim by a candidate that he or she belongs to the minority religion, to be eligible for admission.Statistical data was placed on record before the High Court, which is recorded in the impugned judgment, which highlights that Baptism Certificates were being obtained by students from other communities, so as to obtain admission in the Management Quota of Minority Educational Institutions.In the additional counter affidavit filed by the Respondent – State before the High Court, it was revealed that a large number of admissions were made on the basis of conversion certificates. The enquiry conducted revealed that 67 out of 200 students in New College of Education, Nizamabad; 90 out of 136 in Rayalseema College of Education, Kurnool; 82 out of 102 in Bhongir College of Education, Bhongir; 60 out of 85 in Jyoti College of Education, Siricilla; 91 out of 102 in Anebesent College of Education, Khammam; 85 out of 102 in Trinity College of Education, were admitted on the basis of Baptism Certificates. In most of these cases, the candidates declared themselves to be Christians subsequent to the date of submitting their applications for the Entrance Test.Considering the extensive misuse of such certificates, the State Government deemed it appropriate to issue G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 making the SCC Certificate as the basis for determining the minority status of a student, in order to prevent misuse of Conversion Certificates by ineligible candidates, so as to ensure that only bona fide students were granted admission in the Management Quota of Minority Institutions.G.O.M. No. 57 prescribed a uniform criteria for determination of the status of all minority students. It safeguards the interest of genuine minority students, so that their seats are not taken away by those who resort to false conversions over-night, for the purpose of securing admission. This would preserve the minority character of the Institution, rather than act as an intrusion of the same.5.2. The impugned G.O.Ms grant full autonomy to the Minority Educational Institutions to provide quality education for the minority community, by filling up 85% seats with meritorious minority students, and granting them priority for admission in such institutions.5.3. With respect to G.O.M. No. 98, the requirement to fill up the vacant seats by non-minority candidates was based on statistical data which showed that the number of colleges, and the seats available for minorities, were highly disproportionate, and far in excess of the population as per the 2001 census. The distinct possibility of seats remaining unfilled in the Minority Institutions every year, would not be in the interest of the Minority Educational Institutions.With this object in mind, G.O.M. No. 98 was issued to ensure that the vacant seats in the 85% Management Quota did not remain unfilled during any academic year. The G.O.M. merely stipulated that if the said Quota remained unfilled by minority students, it would be filled from the merit list of successful candidates, as allotted by the Convenor, Ed. CET to promote excellence in education. By this process, an opportunity was granted to the CET qualified non- minority candidates to secure quality education, which would subserve the interest of the nation.This G.O.M. does not, in any manner, interfere with the right of a Minority Educational Institution to manage its affairs for the benefit of the Minority Community. On the contrary, it ensures that vacant seats are not wasted, and are filled up by meritorious and deserving candidates.5.4. Furthermore, the presence of a Government Nominee in the counselling process was to ensure that the admission process is fair, transparent, and non- exploitative, and is based on merit. This would not interfere with the admission process of the minority institutions in any manner.5.5. The impugned G.O.Ms are not violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 30(1) states that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The impugned G.O.Ms do not whittle down the right of the minority institutions in any manner.The right of minority institutions is not absolute, and is amenable to regulation. The protection granted to Minority Educational Institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions.In T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 this Court held that :–?The right to admit students being an essential facet of the right to administer educational institutions of their choice, as contemplated under Article 30 of the Constitution, the state government or the university may not be entitled to interfere with that right, so long as the admission to the unaided educational institutions is on a transparent basis and the merit is adequately taken care of. The right to administer, not being absolute, there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining. excellence thereof, and it is more so in the matter of admissions to professional institutions.?(emphasis supplied)5.6. The impugned G.O.Ms do not impose any fetters on the freedom of the minority institutions to profess, propagate, and practice their religion, or the right to establish and administer their educational institutions. The criteria has been prescribed only for the purpose of determining the minority status of the candidates for admission to the B. Ed. Course. This would not amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the matter of an individual?s choice of religion.5.7. The contention of the Petitioner – Institution that the impugned G.O.Ms are unconstitutional, and violative of their fundamental rights, is liable to be rejected.5.8. The impugned G.O.Ms were brought into force w.e.f. the academic year 2006-2007. These G.O.Ms have remained in force ever since. All Minority Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh, including the Petitioner Institution, have been following these G.O.Ms since the past over 13 academic years without any complaint. There is no justifiable reason why the same should be discontinued at this stage.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The impugned G.O.Ms do not impose any fetters on the freedom of the minority institutions to profess, propagate, and practice their religion, or the right to establish and administer their educational institutions. The criteria has been prescribed only for the purpose of determining the minority status of the candidates for admission to the B. Ed. Course. This would not amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the matter of an individual?s choice of religion.5.7. The contention of the Petitioner – Institution that the impugned G.O.Ms are unconstitutional, and violative of their fundamental rights, is liable to be rejected.5.8. The impugned G.O.Ms were brought into force w.e.f. the academic year 2006-2007. These G.O.Ms have remained in force ever since. All Minority Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh, including the Petitioner Institution, have been following these G.O.Ms since the past over 13 academic years without any complaint. There is no justifiable reason why the same should be discontinued at this stage.