[2019] 12 S.C.R. 669 669 ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR. A v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 B [INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Constitution of India: Art. 30(1) – Right to administer minority institutions – Impugned Government Orders in respect of admission to B.Ed. C Course in the minority institutions challenged as violative of Art.30(1) – Held: G.O. No.57 prescribed a uniform criteria for determining the status of all minority students, in order to prevent misuse of status certificates – This rather safeguarded the interest of genuine minority students – G.O. No.98 by providing that unfilled D minority seats be filled with unreserved meritorious students, only ensured that vacant seats were not wasted – Thus, the G.Os. 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 institution and hence are not violative of Art.30(1) – The right of minority institution is not E absolute – The protection granted to them is amenable to reasonable restrictions.

Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. The impugned G.O.Ms are not violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 30(1) states F 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 G regulation. The protection granted to Minority Educational Institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions. [Para 5.5] [676-C-D] 2. G.O.M. No. 57 prescribed a uniform criteria for determination of the status of all minority students. It safeguards H 669 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A 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. [Para 5.1] [675-B-C] B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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. [Para 5.3] [675-E-H; 676-A] F 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. [Para 5.4] [676-B] G 5. 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 H ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 671

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the matter of A an individual’s choice of religion. [Para 5.6] [676-H; 677-A-B] T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 – followed. Case Law Reference B (2002) 8 SCC 481 followed Para 5.5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 106 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2006 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal C No. 928 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2005. With Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2011, Writ Petition (C) No. 244 of 2007. S. M. Vivekanandh, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Advs. for the Appellants. D Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, G. N. Reddy, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, Gopal Jha, M. P. Gupta, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The present Civil Appeals and Writ Petition have been filed to challenge the vires of the Rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005, G.O.M. No. 92 dated F16.11.2006, and G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned G.O.Ms”), for admission to the B. Ed. Course in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and became applicable from the Academic Year 2006 – 2007. The said G.O.Ms continue to remain in force even as on date.

At the time of final hearing, the Counsel appearing in Writ Petition G (Civil) No. 244 of 2007 only pressed this matter for hearing. We are therefore, deciding the case in light of the facts in the Writ Petition. 2. The Petitioner – Institution is a minority institution which was granted the status of a “Christian Minority Educational Institution” by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R. A As per G.O.M. No. 55 dated 20.03.2005, minority colleges were permitted to fill up 85% of their total seats, with students belonging to the minority community, as the Management Quota. 3. The Petitioner – Institution filed the present Writ Petition to challenge the impugned G.O.Ms on the following grounds :– B i) As per Clause 3(i) of the G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed that the criteria for determining the minority status of candidates would be as follows :– C “As there were reports of students/candidates obtaining religious conversion certificates overnight by exploiting the provisions contained in G.O. 6th above, the following condition is prescribed. For the purpose of determining the minority status of candidates seeking admission into 85% management quota in the B.Ed., minority colleges, D

the Secondary School Certificates or Transfer Certificates (T.C.) from the school from which they have studied shall be the basis. In the absence of a T.C., the candidate should obtain a certificate from the Head of the Institution in which he/she studies in the proforma E prescribed (Annexure-I) to this order. Further, the students submitting bogus minority community certificates shall be dealt with under the relevant sections of the I.P.C. apart from losing their seats following the due procedure.” F (emphasis supplied) ii) The second principal ground of challenge is that as per G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006, Clause 4(viii) provided as follows :-“(viii) The minority status of the students shall be G decided as per the orders issued in G.O.M. No. 57 School Education (Trg-A1) Department dated 21.03.2006.” Clause 5 set out the general guidelines for admission in the order of merit on the basis of the rank assigned in the Ed. CET to the H extent of sanctioned seats. ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 673 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] Clause 6 prescribed centralized counselling as the only mode for A admission even in respect of minority institutions. iii) The third ground of challenge is the amendment made to G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006 vide G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006. The following clause was incorporated by the amendment :– B

“(8). In clause (iii) (b), after sub-clause para (10), the following shall be inserted, namely :-(10 A). The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shall conduct the counselling in phases if required till the last C rank of Ed. CET. The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shall fill the left over seats of the un-aided colleges in the presence of a Government nominee by following rule of reservation through counselling process, in case the seats in minority colleges are to be filled up with non-D minority candidates.” (emphasis supplied) iv) It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner – Institution that the direction under G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 that unfilled seats in the 85% Management Quota, be allotted by the E Convenor, Ed. CET to non-minority students on merit, is an intrusion on the right to administer the minority institutions conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 4. The Respondent – State contended that the impugned G.O.Ms do not in any manner violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioner – F Institutions whatsoever. 4.1. The condition making the SSC Certificate as the basis for proving the minority status of the student, was imposed in light of the statistical data, which revealed that many students were converting over-night so as to obtain admission in the G Management Quota of Minority Educational Institutions.

4.2. The Petitioner – Institution had an unhindered right to select minority students to fill up the 85% of the seats by the Management Quota, subject to merit in the Common Entrance Test. H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R. A If however, seats in the Management Quota of the Minority Education Institution, remained unfilled by students from the minority community, the unfilled seats would be allotted by the Convenor to candidates on the basis of merit in the Common Entrance Test. B 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the material on record, as also the written submissions filed by the parties. We would observe :– 5.1. G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 had been issued for the purpose of determining the minority status of candidates C 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 D 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. E 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; F 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 G 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. H No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 making the SCC Certificate as the ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 675 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] basis for determining the minority status of a student, in order A 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 B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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 F

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 G 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 H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R. A 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 B 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 C 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 D 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.,1 this Court held that :– E “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 F 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 G 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, H 1 (2002) 8 SCC 481. ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 677 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

and practice their religion, or the right to establish and A 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. B 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 C 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 D this stage. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Appeals and the Writ Petition are dismissed as being devoid of any merit. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. E Ordered accordingly. Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of. F G H

[2019] 12 S.C.R. 669 669 ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR. A v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 B [INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Constitution of India: Art. 30(1) – Right to administer minority institutions – Impugned Government Orders in respect of admission to B.Ed. C Course in the minority institutions challenged as violative of Art.30(1) – Held: G.O. No.57 prescribed a uniform criteria for determining the status of all minority students, in order to prevent misuse of status certificates – This rather safeguarded the interest of genuine minority students – G.O. No.98 by providing that unfilled D minority seats be filled with unreserved meritorious students, only ensured that vacant seats were not wasted – Thus, the G.Os. 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 institution and hence are not violative of Art.30(1) – The right of minority institution is not E absolute – The protection granted to them is amenable to reasonable restrictions.

Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. The impugned G.O.Ms are not violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 30(1) states F 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 G regulation. The protection granted to Minority Educational Institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions. [Para 5.5] [676-C-D] 2. G.O.M. No. 57 prescribed a uniform criteria for determination of the status of all minority students. It safeguards H 669 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A 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. [Para 5.1] [675-B-C] B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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. [Para 5.3] [675-E-H; 676-A] F 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. [Para 5.4] [676-B] G 5. 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 H ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 671

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the matter of A an individual’s choice of religion. [Para 5.6] [676-H; 677-A-B] T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 – followed. Case Law Reference B (2002) 8 SCC 481 followed Para 5.5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 106 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2006 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal C No. 928 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2005. With Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2011, Writ Petition (C) No. 244 of 2007. S. M. Vivekanandh, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Advs. for the Appellants. D Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, G. N. Reddy, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy, Gopal Jha, M. P. Gupta, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. The present Civil Appeals and Writ Petition have been filed to challenge the vires of the Rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005, G.O.M. No. 92 dated F16.11.2006, and G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned G.O.Ms”), for admission to the B. Ed. Course in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and became applicable from the Academic Year 2006 – 2007. The said G.O.Ms continue to remain in force even as on date.

At the time of final hearing, the Counsel appearing in Writ Petition G (Civil) No. 244 of 2007 only pressed this matter for hearing. We are therefore, deciding the case in light of the facts in the Writ Petition. 2. The Petitioner – Institution is a minority institution which was granted the status of a “Christian Minority Educational Institution” by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R. A As per G.O.M. No. 55 dated 20.03.2005, minority colleges were permitted to fill up 85% of their total seats, with students belonging to the minority community, as the Management Quota. 3. The Petitioner – Institution filed the present Writ Petition to challenge the impugned G.O.Ms on the following grounds :– B i) As per Clause 3(i) of the G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed that the criteria for determining the minority status of candidates would be as follows :– C “As there were reports of students/candidates obtaining religious conversion certificates overnight by exploiting the provisions contained in G.O. 6th above, the following condition is prescribed. For the purpose of determining the minority status of candidates seeking admission into 85% management quota in the B.Ed., minority colleges, D

the Secondary School Certificates or Transfer Certificates (T.C.) from the school from which they have studied shall be the basis. In the absence of a T.C., the candidate should obtain a certificate from the Head of the Institution in which he/she studies in the proforma E prescribed (Annexure-I) to this order. Further, the students submitting bogus minority community certificates shall be dealt with under the relevant sections of the I.P.C. apart from losing their seats following the due procedure.” F (emphasis supplied) ii) The second principal ground of challenge is that as per G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006, Clause 4(viii) provided as follows :-“(viii) The minority status of the students shall be G decided as per the orders issued in G.O.M. No. 57 School Education (Trg-A1) Department dated 21.03.2006.” Clause 5 set out the general guidelines for admission in the order of merit on the basis of the rank assigned in the Ed. CET to the H extent of sanctioned seats. ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 673 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] Clause 6 prescribed centralized counselling as the only mode for A admission even in respect of minority institutions. iii) The third ground of challenge is the amendment made to G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006 vide G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006. The following clause was incorporated by the amendment :– B

“(8). In clause (iii) (b), after sub-clause para (10), the following shall be inserted, namely :-(10 A). The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shall conduct the counselling in phases if required till the last C rank of Ed. CET. The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shall fill the left over seats of the un-aided colleges in the presence of a Government nominee by following rule of reservation through counselling process, in case the seats in minority colleges are to be filled up with non-D minority candidates.” (emphasis supplied) iv) It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner – Institution that the direction under G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 that unfilled seats in the 85% Management Quota, be allotted by the E Convenor, Ed. CET to non-minority students on merit, is an intrusion on the right to administer the minority institutions conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 4. The Respondent – State contended that the impugned G.O.Ms do not in any manner violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioner – F Institutions whatsoever. 4.1. The condition making the SSC Certificate as the basis for proving the minority status of the student, was imposed in light of the statistical data, which revealed that many students were converting over-night so as to obtain admission in the G Management Quota of Minority Educational Institutions.

4.2. The Petitioner – Institution had an unhindered right to select minority students to fill up the 85% of the seats by the Management Quota, subject to merit in the Common Entrance Test. H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R. A If however, seats in the Management Quota of the Minority Education Institution, remained unfilled by students from the minority community, the unfilled seats would be allotted by the Convenor to candidates on the basis of merit in the Common Entrance Test. B 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the material on record, as also the written submissions filed by the parties. We would observe :– 5.1. G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 had been issued for the purpose of determining the minority status of candidates C 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 D 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. E 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; F 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 G 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. H No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 making the SCC Certificate as the ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 675 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] basis for determining the minority status of a student, in order A 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 B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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 F

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 G 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 H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R. A 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 B 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 C 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 D 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.,1 this Court held that :– E “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 F 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 G 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, H 1 (2002) 8 SCC 481. ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 677 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

and practice their religion, or the right to establish and A 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. B 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 C 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 D this stage. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Appeals and the Writ Petition are dismissed as being devoid of any merit. All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of. E Ordered accordingly. Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of. F G H