ORDER
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions No. 13722 and 16229 of 2000 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since arguments were-addressed in civil writ petition No. 13722 of 2000, the facts are being noticed from this case.
2. Petitioners are students of Shri Baba Mast Nath College of Physiotherapy, Asthal Bohar, District Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the College) which is a minority institution set up by the ‘Nath Sect’ of people who are recognised as a minority community in the State of Haryana. They were admitted to the Three Year B.Sc. Physiotherapy course in the academic year 1999-2000 and by now they have completed more than one year of study. The College is affiliated to the Ma-harishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (for short the University). The relevant part of para 10 of Chapter-IV of the Information Brochure-cum-prospectus issued by the University for admissions to the aforesaid course for the academic year 1999-2000 which concerns us in this case reads as under :-
“…..
…..
Haryana State Government has approved that ‘Nath Sect’ be declared as minority community in Haryana State only as conveyed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Home Department vide memo 27.3.1996-Home (MC) dated 25.4.1997. As such, the Management of Shri Baba Mast Nath, Asthal Bohar is authorised to make 50% admissions from minority community (Kanpada) Yogis of Haryana Slate only at its own level treating itself as minority educational institution.
…..”
In view of the aforesaid provision, all the petitioners who belong to the ‘Nath Sect’ were admitted to the course. The University has by its communication
dated 26.6.2000 addressed to the Principal of the College cancelled the admission of the petitioners on the ground that they were not residents of Haryana at the time of admission and, therefore, their admission was contrary to the prospectus. According to the University, only those candidates belonging to the ‘Nath Sect’ who were residents/domicile of Haryana were eligible for admission to the course against the 50% seats earmarked for the minority community (Nath Sect) to be made by the College itself. It is against this decision of the University that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. In response to the notice of motion, the University has filed its reply. It is pleaded that since the petitioners were not residents of the Slate of Haryana, they were not eligible for admission and, therefore, their admission to the College could not be regularised. It is further pleaded in para 6 of the reply that out of the total of 50 seats the College could make only 30 admissions upto 50% of the trial intake strength whereas it has admitted 41 students against 30 seats reserved for minority community and for this reason as well the admission granted to the petitioners could not be sustained. The College has not filed any separate reply but the learned counsel appearing on its behalf supported the contentions of the petitioners.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties and it is their common case that the College is a minority institution in the State of Haryana and that ‘Nath Sect’ has been declared a minority community in the State. What is contended by the learned counsel for ihc University is that ‘Nath Sect’ is a minority community only within the State of Haryana and according to the prospectus only the residents of Haryana who belong to the ‘Nath Sect’ could be admitted against the 50% seats earmarked for the College and since the petitioners were not residents of the State they could not be admitted. Reliance in this regard has been placed on para 10 of Chapter-IV of the prospectus. A perusal of this para which has been reproduced herein above no doubt provides that only the residents of Haryana belonging to the ‘Nath Sect’ could be admitted against the 50% seats by the College but in view of the constitutional right which the Nath community has under Article 30 of the Constitution the clause will have to be read to mean that if candidates from within the State of Haryana belonging to the Nath community were available then the College was obliged to admit only those students and in case such students were not available within the State, it was open to the College to look for such students from outside the State. Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees to all minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. If this constitutional guarantee has any meaning the institutions established by the minorities must be allowed to admit the requisite number of students of their community which is the instant case was 50% of the total seats. If the requisite number of students are not available from within the State the minority institution has
to be permitted to look for such students from outside the Slate. If the clause in the prospectus was to be strictly adhered to inasmuch as no student from outside the State was to be allowed admission then the clause would violate the constitutional right of the minority institution as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. Instead of striking down the relevant clause the same can be saved by reading it down as aforesaid. We, therefore, hold that the College has to right to admit 50% of the students from ‘Nath community’ and if such students are not available from within the State it can admit those from outside the State provided they belong to that minority community. The view that we have taken finds support from the observations of the Supreme Court in Mathammal Sheela Engineering College v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1999(8) SCC 541.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the College informed us during the course of arguments that the requisite number of students from within the State of Haryana belonging to the ‘Nath community’ were not available for admission and that is why the petitioners were granted admission. In this view of the matter, the action of the University in cancelling the admission of the petitioners on the ground that they were not residents of Haryana cannot be sustained,
6. Shri Balram Gupta, Advocate learned counsel for the University also urged that the College had made admissions in excess of the 50% quota and, therefore, the admission of the petitioners could not be regularised. No doubt, this plea has been taken in para No. 6 of the reply as noticed above but the admission of the petitioners has not been cancelled on this ground. The contention of the learned counsel for the University cannot, therefore, be accepted. We, however, make it clear that it will be open to the University to seek any clarification from the College in this regard and if it finds that the students had been admitted in excess of the quota, necessary action can be taken in accordance with law.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned communication dated 26.6.2000 cancelling the admission of the petitioners quashed. There is no order as to costs.
7. Petitions allowed.