Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21142 OF 2010
Federation of A.P. Minority
Educational Institution ... Petitioner
Versus
Admission & Fee Regulatory
Committee for Matters relating
To Fee Fixation in Pvt. Unaided
Professional Colleges & Ors. ... Respondents
O R D E R
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution is against the order dated 13.07.2010 of the
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
W.P.M.P. No.20682 of 2010 declining to grant an interim
relief to the petitioner in W.P. No.16424 of 2010.
2
2. The facts very briefly are that the petitioner-
Association is a Society registered under the provisions of
the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and
one of the objects of the petitioner-Association is to impart
training to the Muslim Minority Community in various
technical courses like Engineering, MCA, etc. On
12.08.2005, a seven-Judge Bench of this Court delivered a
judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6
SCC 537] clarifying the law laid down with regard to the
admission procedure and fee structure of unaided
educational institutions including minority institutions in
Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481]. In para 137 of the
judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra), this Court has clarified
that Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided
institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental
right to choose the students to be allowed admission and
the procedure therefor subject to it being fair, transparent
and non-exploitative. This Court has further held in para
137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra) that there may
be a single institution imparting a particular type of
education which is not being imparted by any other
3
institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling
the tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative or
all the institutions imparting the same or similar
professional education can join together for holding a
common entrance test satisfying the triple tests of being
fair, transparent and non-exploitative. This Court further
observed in P.A. Inamdar that the State can also provide for
a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the
interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and
preventing maladministration.
3. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in P.A.
Inamdar (supra), the Government of Andhra Pradesh in
exercise of its powers under Sections 3 and 15 of the
Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of
Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983
issued a notification dated 26.05.2006 for making rules for
admission of diploma holders into professional institutions
imparting under-graduate professional courses in
Engineering (including Technology) and Pharmacy in the
State of Andhra Pradesh (for short `the 2006 Rules'). The
scheme of the 2006 Rules is that admission to available
4
seats in all the institutions shall be offered through a single
window system of common centralized counselling to
qualified candidates in order of merit in the common
entrance test. The 2006 Rules contemplate that such single
window system of common centralized counselling will be
conducted either by Commissioner/Director of technical
education (Convener of ECET (FDH) Admissions) or by a
nominee of the Association of Unaided Professional Colleges
(Convener of ECET(FDH) AC). Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules
further provides that each unaided minority institution will
opt for either of the two aforesaid procedures for admission
of students through single window system for filling up
seats in their institutions. The Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee of the State of Andhra Pradesh (for
short `the Committee') issued a notification dated
18.06.2010 inviting the management of each Private
Unaided Minority Engineering and Pharmacy College to
state whether the institution would admit students of ECET
rank holders through the Commissioner/Director of
Technical Education (Convener of ECET(FDH) admissions)
or through the nominee of the Association of Unaided
5
Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH) AC). In the
notification dated 18.06.2010 of the Committee, it was
stated that in case more than one association is formed for
conducting counselling to admit the students, they should
join together and conduct counselling through a single
window system as provided under the rules. In response to
notification dated 18.06.2010, the petitioner and some other
associations of minority institutions opted to admit students
through a single window system, but some other
associations of minority unaided institutions did not join
this single window system of admission. The Committee,
however, did not agree to allow different associations to
have separate windows of counselling for admission to the
seats in the institutions and by a notification dated
01.07.2010, the Committee directed all the four
associations to form by 03.07.2010 a consortium of
associations to conduct a single window system of
admission. Pursuant to the notification dated 01.07.2010,
three of the associations joined together and formed a
consortium of associations to conduct single window system
and intimated the Committee accordingly by a letter dated
6
03.07.2010. The Committee, however, referred to Rule 6 of
the 2006 Rules and denied permission to conduct
admissions through separate windows by the Associations
of Private Unaided Minority Institutions for the academic
year 2010-2011.
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner and another filed Writ Petition
No.16424 of 2010 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court
praying for declaration that the 2006 Rules and in
particular Rule 6(b) read with 2(o) thereof were illegal,
arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a direction to permit
the petitioner along with other associations which had
consented to come together for conducting a separate single
window for admissions to the seats in the institutions
forming the consortium not only during the academic year
2010-2011 but also during the future academic years.
Petitioner also made interim prayers before the High Court
for suspending the proceedings of the Committee dated
05.07.2010 and for directing the Committee to permit the
petitioner-Association along with other associations
agreeing to come together to conduct counselling through a
separate single window during the academic year 2010-
7
2011 pending disposal of the writ petition. The Division
Bench of the High Court after hearing learned counsel for
the parties declined to suspend the decision of the
Committee dated 05.07.2010 and also declined to permit
the petitioner and associations which had consented to
come together as a consortium to admit students through a
separate single window.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we
find that the main reason which weighed with the High
Court for declining the interim reliefs was that it could not
conclude even prima facie that the 2006 Rules suffered from
any infirmity. Rule 6(i) of the 2006 Rules is quoted
hereinbelow:
"Each unaided minority institution who has
opted for ECET(FDH) as per clause (iv) of
sub-rule (a) in Rule 12 of the Andhra
Pradesh Engineering Common Entrance
Test for Diploma Holders for admission into
B.F., B.Tech. and B.Pharma courses Rules,
2004 shall indicate in writing to AFRC by a
cut-off date specified by it, as to whether the
institution would admit students through
the single window system to be operated by
the Convener of ECET(FDH) admissions
(ECET(FDH) Window) or the Convener of
ECET(FDH)-AC admissions (ECET(FDH)-AC
Widow."
8
We find on a reading of the Rule 6((i) of the 2006 Rules that
Private Unaided Educational Institutions can under the
2006 Rules either opt to fill up the seats in their institutions
through the single window operated by the
Commissioner/Director of Technical Education (Convener of
ECET(FDH) admissions) or the nominee of the Association of
Unaided Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH)-AC
admissions). If, therefore, all the associations of minority
institutions have not agreed to form a single window to
process the admissions of students to the seats in the
institutions, the reliefs as prayed for could not be granted to
the petitioner suspending the proceedings dated 05.07.2010
or permitting the petitioner along with other associations
which had come together to admit students through a
separate single window until the High Court, after hearing
the main writ petition, held that the 2006 Rules are ultra
vires Articles 19(1)(g) or Article 30 of the Constitution. The
High Court was, therefore, right in declining to grant the
interim reliefs prayed for the by the petitioner.
6. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the High Court and we
9
accordingly dismiss this Special Leave Petition. There shall
be no order as to costs.
..........................J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
..........................J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
New Delhi,
August 25, 2011.
