ORDER
A. Gopal Reddy, J.
1. The question that falls for adjudication in all the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P. Nos. 2792/2003 is filed by Muslim Minority Welfare Committee seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the admission process undertaken by the State Government into the undergraduate Professional Courses in Minority Educational Institutions cannot be regulated by Andhra Pradesh Common Entrance Test for entry into Engineering, Architecture, Pharmacy, Agriculture, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 2003, and further to declare the notice dated 10-2-2003 issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (for short “JNTU”) does not bind or apply to the admission process into Undergraduate Professional Courses by Minority Educational Institutions and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the Right of Minority Professional Educational Institutions from conducting the entrance test to regulate the admission into the above courses by such institutions for the academic year 2003-2004 refraining them from interfering with the right of admission into under Graduate Professional Courses in Professional Educational Institutions run and managed by Minority Educational Institutions.
3. As an off shoot of the judgment of the Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, , (for short “TMA Pai Foundation”), the State Government through G.O. Ms. No. 3 Education (E.C) Department dated 7-2-2003 exercising the powers conferred by Sections 3 and 15 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1983 (for short “the Capitation Fees Act”) and in supercession of Andhra Pradesh Professional
Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Under Graduate Professional
Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993, framed rules called “Andhra
Pradesh Common Entrance Test for entry into Engineering, Architecture, Pharmacy,
Agriculture, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 2003 (for short “the Rules”) for conduct of Common Entrance Test for admission into the above courses. In view of
issuance of said rules, JNTU issued a notification dated 7-2-2003 inviting
applications from the students for making
them eligible for admission into respective
courses, followed by another notification
dated 10-2-2003 whereunder the JNTU
prescribed the eligibility criteria for
admission into B.Tech., B.Pharm and
B.Arch., Courses in the constituent and
affiliated colleges of JNTU. Questioning the
same, the present writ petitions were filed
contending that the State Government cannot
usurp the entire power of regulating the
admission process to Minority Educational
Institutions, essentially those institutions that
are not receiving aid from the State
Government. Such educational institutions
are entitled to have admission process of
their own in view of the authoritative
pronouncement of the eleven-Judges
Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court as
referred to above. In the notification issued
by JNTU, no liberty or freedom was given
to the Minority Educational Institutions to
regulate the admission process into such
institutions by themselves. Both the State
Government and JNTU acted upon the advise
from the A.P. State Council of Higher
Education and evolved criteria for regulating
the admission process including private
Professional Educational Institutions
including those established by the minorities.
In view of the dicta laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of TMA Pai’s Foundation,
neither the State Government nor JNTU can
regulate admission. The petitioner-society in
WP No. 2792/2003 had been inter-acting with all Minority Professional Educational Institutions established in the State of Andhra Pradesh to ensure one common entrance test is conducted by them so as to enable the process of admission into their institutions is regulated based upon the assessment of merit of the candidates at such test. In view of the same, it is imperative on the part of the State Government to allow such Minority Educational institutions to follow their own procedure for admission of students.
4. Similarly, some Muslim students filed WP No. 3603/2003 stating that approximately 6000 students belonging to Muslim Minority Community alone got qualified at the last year EAMCET examination, whereas in the previous years, it was around 1500 only and EAMCET examination which is conducted by the State as well as University are devised in such a manner that they last the performance and the identity and its ensuring only for the purpose of regulating admission into Government Professional Colleges alone. The EAMCET system adopted by the State Government for the past few decades has never been as transparent, as the present PCMB (Planning, Co-ordination, and Monitoring Board) devised system is EAMCET examination system was never fool proof and there were instances of wholesale bungling of the entire affair, either in the form of leaking out the question paper or in the form of tampering of the answer sheets. In view of the same. Muslim Minority Professional Educational Institutions are entitled to have their own procedure for conduct of entrance test to regulate admission into the above courses.
5. Two Minority Educational Institutions filed WP Nos. 4075/2003 and 4234/2003 challenging the notice dated 10-2-2003 issued by JNTU by contending that issuance of the impugned notice is in direct violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court in TMA Pai’s Foundation which places letters on the right of un-aided Minority Institutions to administer the institutions of their choice thereby infringing the rights guaranteed under Articles 29(2) and 30 of the Constitution of India. The impugned notice should specify that admission shall be made only on the basis of criteria of qualifying examination or EAMCET will amount to taking away the right of selection as declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the TMA Pai Foundation. In view of the same, notice dated 10-2-2003 is arbitrary and illegal and violative of constitutional right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set-aside.
6. The first and second respondents filed separate counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that in the rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 7-2-2003, it has been clearly stated that the rules of admission into the above courses, namely Engineering, Architecture, Pharmacy, Agriculture, Medical and Dental Courses, will be issued separately. In view of the same, the presumption of the petitioners that the State is interfering with the rights of the Minority Institutions in admitting candidates of their own choice is pre-mature at this juncture and is devoid of any ground reality. The JNTU has prescribed the qualifications keeping in view of the observations of the Honourable Supreme
Court in TMA Pai Foundation permitting it to lay down conditions for grant of affiliation. While doing so, JNTU has not discriminated between its constituent and affiliated colleges and has applied the same yardsticks to all
institutions in order to ensure that deserving and qualified candidates are only able to secure admission into Professional Courses based on their merit. Neither the rules issued by the Government nor notifications issued by JNTU have at any stage made any regulations, which impinges on the minority character of the institution. The rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 7-2-2003 and notifications issued by JNTU are intended for achieving excellence in the standards of education while simultaneously allowing simple discretion to the Private Educational Institutions to administer them freely in the spirit of the judgment of the Apex Court. Rules framed through G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 7-2-2003 are applicable to both the majority and the minority communities, whom the Government represents. The Convenor, EAMCET has been asked to prepare several merit lists which also includes the merit lists in respect of the minority community candidates who have appeared for the examination, both on State-wide and regional-wise basis to know how many candidates belong to a particular minority community have appeared the examination and qualified. Neither the notification issued by JNTU nor rules framed by the Government through G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 7-2-2003 have any scope of interfering with the constitutional right of minorities as is guaranteed by the Constitution as the said rules were framed for achieving excellence in the professional education only. The writ petitioner in WP No. 2792/2003 do not run college nor is it proposing to establish any college, much less minority college, therefore, it has no locus standi to question the rules issued by the Government nor the notifications issued by the JNTU.
7. Sri Nooty Rama Mohana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners in WP Nos. 2792/2003 and 3603/2003, who led the arguments, took me through the Rules namely 3, 4, 5(3)(4) and 23 of the Rules and contended that in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court in TMA Pai’s Foundation, it is not open for the State Government or University to prescribe any admission criteria and it is for the minority colleges concerned to evolve their own schedule and mode of selection etc. Learned Counsel taken me through the judgment of the Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation case (supra) where it protects the rights of the unaided Minority Educational Institutions in restricting the role of the State Government in admission of the minority students into such minority institutions and would contended that for the purpose of admission into minority institutions the Government cannot make the rank as qualification. Article 30 is the repository, whereas Article 14 recognizes negative rights. The 1st petitioner is taking all necessary steps to take up the cause of minority institution to gather them under one umbrella to admit the students of their own choice. The State Government cannot prevent the minority institutions from conducting such examination, as the EAMCET is only competitive examination. The State Government will not have any role to play in admission to Minority Educational Institutions, as its role in the process of administration is dismal, whereas the University comes into picture only if admissions are made but not earlier to it. Once the students are qualified in the competitive examination, the State or the University can place no further restrictions.
8. Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that the writ petitioners have no locus standi as they are not administering any college, more so
protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution will be available to such of those minority institutions who established the colleges and administering the same, which alone can maintain the writ petition if their rights are violated. The petitioners who are not running any colleges cannot evolve a scheme for admission and in the absence of any cause of action the present writ petitions filed by them are not maintainable. By taking me through the various paragraphs of the judgment learned Government Pleader contended that Common Entrance Test and rank would be a guiding factor, which is uniform to all students. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 7-2-2003 clearly specifies that Rules of Admission will be issued separately. Hence, the rules do not deal with the admission and the writ petitions are premature. Earlier Rules, namely Rules 3, 4, 5(2), 7 and 8 issued in G.O. Ms. No. 184 dated 20-8-1993 which deals with admission are now omitted. As the Colleges are owned by the Government, the aided, un-aided Minority Educational Institutions cannot deny admission to students, the uniform test is devised. Unless a right is conferred on the petitioners, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the Government. In view of the same, the relief claimed in prayer a and b cannot be granted and the relief in prayer C is premature. Moreover, it is not practicable to any Minority Educational Institutions to hold a test nor any minority institution is coming forward to conduct Common Entrance Test.
9. Sri C. Kodandaram, learned Standing Counsel for JNTU while adopting the argument of learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would contend that convention is implementing the G.O. issued by the Government and the procedure adopted is uniform to all the affiliated colleges. Unless the students or the institution is aggrieved by the action of the University they cannot maintain the present writ petitions.
10. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4075 and 4234 fairly submitted that he is not challenging the Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3, but the petitioners are only aggrieved by the notification issued by the University. In view of answer to questions 4A and 5A by the Apex Court in TMA Pai’s Foundation, issuing notification by the University making the rank in the EAMCET as eligibility criteria is arbitrary and illegal and the same is contrary to law declared by the Apex Court and cannot be sustainable.
11. In view of the above rival contentions the points that emerge for consideration is:
1. Whether the present writ petitions filed by the association and others are maintainable or not?
2. Whether the rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3, dated 7-2-2003 regulate the admission into un-aided Minority Educational Institutions, which deprives the institutions’ right to administer the said institutions?
3. Whether the consequential notification issued by the University is liable to be set aside or not?
12. It is not in dispute that W.P. Nos. 2792, 3603 of 2003 filed by the association has not established any Professional College or running any such college. The protection, which was granted under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, is only to minority community who established such educational institutions. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in TMA Pai’s Foundation cause was espoused by the minority community, hence the writ petitions are maintainable cannot be sustainable. The rights recognized under Articles 29, and 30 of the Constitution are only to established educational institutions. In view of the same, the learned Government Pleader was justified in making his submission that writ petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the G.O.
13. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3 dated 7-2-2003 clearly stated that rules do not deal with the admission and separate rules will be issued. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 also does not deal with such admission.
14. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education after closing the arguments made available the Interim Policy Regulations issued by the All India Council, for Technical Education for the academic year 2003-2004, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court to be followed by all the colleges. In the absence of challenge to such regulations it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of such regulations. Suffice it to say that the Rules, namely 3, 4, 5(2), 7 issued in G.O. Ms. No. 184, dated 20-8-1993, which deals with the admission to minority colleges, were omitted through G.O. Ms. No. 3 indicating that the Rules of Admission will be issued separately. The rules issued do not deprive the Minority Professional Colleges either in the process of admission or places any fetters on such right. In view of the same, the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and it is not necessary to consider the various contentions raised by the petitioners elaborately. If any minority community, which establishes and runs the college, aggrieved by issuing such regulations, it is at liberty to question the same on such issuance of rules.
15. Coming to notification issued by the University, which is the subject-matter of W.P. Nos. 4075 and 4234 of 2003, the admission of students, but in the rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 3 nothing is provided for admission into such Minority Educational Institutions. In the absence of issuance of such rules the contention that the notification issued by the University restricts the admission into such minority institutions cannot be gone into for the present.
16. It is not in dispute that the minority students will also be admitted into various Government Colleges and non-minority institutions apart from minority institutions, which are receiving aid and certain percentage of seats are earmarked for the non-minority students. In view of the same, it is always open for the University to issue such notification prescribing the qualifications for admission of such students to affiliated colleges.
17. In view of the same, the present writ petitions are premature and they are accordingly dismissed.