Karnataka High Court
Father Muller Charitable Institution vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
WP No. 16622 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 16622 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. FATHER MULLER CHARITABLE INSTITUTION,
FATHER MULLER ROAD, KANKANADY,
MANGALURU - 575 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
FR. AJITH MENEZES,
S/O VICTOR MENEZES,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. FATHER MULLER COLLEGE OF NUIRSING,
FATHER MULLER ROAD, KANKANADY,
MANGALURU - 575 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
SISTER JACINTHA D'SOUZA,
D/O RAYMOND D'SOUZA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
(BENEFITS OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH 3. FATHER MULLER NURSING COLLEGE THUMBAY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THUMBAY, BANTWAL,
GHUMBAY - 574 143.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
SISTER SELINAMMA DEVASIA,
D/O PAULOSE DEVASIA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN R. NAIK., SENIOR ADVOCATE;
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA., FOR ADVOCATE;
SRI.RAJENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
WP No. 16622 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
MEDICAL EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 002.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MAMATHA SHETTY., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI.N.K.RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO PUBLISH THE SEAT MATRIX
RESERVING 80 PERCENT SEATS TO THE STUDENTS
BELONGING TO KARNATAKA CHRISTIAN MINORITIES UNDER
(MC-I CATEGORY) AND IN THE EVENT IF MC-I CATEGORY
STUDENT NOT BEING AVAILABLE UNDER THE SAID CATEGORY
TO ALLOT SEATS TO CHRISTIAN MINORITY FROM OTHER
STATES DURING THE COUNSELLING FOR B.Sc. NURSING
COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-24 ANNEXURE-A TO
A6 AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
WP No. 16622 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are seeking for the following prayers:
"1. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or directions; directing
the Respondents to publish the 'seat matrix'
reserving 80%-'seats' to the students belonging to
Karnataka Christian minorities; under (MC-I
Category) and in the event if MC-I category student
not being available under the said category, to allot
seats to Christian Minority from other States during
the counselling for B.Sc Nursing Course for the
academic year 2023-24. Annexure A- A6.
2. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order of directions declaring the
action of the Respondents in not considering the
representation dated 28.07.2022 and 24.07.2023
(Annexure A-A6) as highly arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 19(1)(g), 21, 26 and 30 of the
Constitution of India.
2(A). Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ order or directions, declaring
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
the endorsement dated 8.08.2023 bearing
No.DME/2023-24 issued by Respondent no.2 is bad
in law and consequently direct the Respondents to
treat the Petitioners as religious minorities for the
purpose of grant of admissions in Petitioners
institutions.(Annx N)
2(B). Issue writ in the nature of Declaration or any
other appropriate writ order or directions, declaring
that the State has no such executive power to over
ride INC Regulations; deny constitutional protections
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and exercise
of any such powers to counsel for admission is
without authority of law and cannot be enforced as
against these petitioners.
3. Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Petitioner No.1 Father Muller Charitable
Institution is a registered society (hereinafter referred to
as the 'society' for short) established and is being
administered / managed by the members belonging to the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Mangaluru from the year 1960,
that the institution seeks to promote the interest and uplift
the minority Roman Catholic Community in the State of
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
Karnataka, that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are nursing
colleges established by the society and that for "grant of
admission" in the other professional educational
institutions, including medical and homeopathic colleges
are administered by the society and are treated as a
Minority Education Institutions ('MEI' for short) under the
government order dated 14.09.1993 and the admission
therein has been regulated accordingly.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that under the
Government Order way back on 14.09.1993, the
petitioners are duly recognized as a MEI and the
petitioner's status as a minority institution is under the
constitutional scheme for availing the
protection/guaranteed rights under Article 30 (1) of the
Constitution of India and is pursuant to the directions
issued by the Apex Court in the case of Shahal H.
Musaliar and another Vs. State of Kerala and others1
(Shahal H.) and post Unni Krishnan J.P. and others Vs.
1993 (4) SCC 112
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
State of Andhra Pradesh and others2 (Unni Krishnan).
It is submitted that the government order dated
14.09.1993 the recognition as MEI of its institutions was
subject to the review in light of the judgment that has
been judicially reviewed, under Unni Krishnan's case.
4. It is stated that in light of the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and
others Vs. State of Karnataka and others3 (T.M.A. Pai
Foundation) law being settled, there was no occasion for
the State to "so review", on the contrary accepting its
right under Article 30 (1) of the constitution and treating
all the institutions of the society as MEI for the purpose of
regulating admissions in the institutions.
5. Sri Madhusudhan R. Naik, learned senior
counsel along with Smt.Farah Fathima learned Counsel for
the petitioners submits that by the government order
dated 13.04.2023, the Karnataka Examination Authority
(1993) SCC 645
2002 (8) SCC 481
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
(KEA) is designated for conducting the examination and
seat allotment in B.SC Nursing courses in Karnataka.
Pursuant to the government order dated 13.04.2023, the
KEA has conducted the entrance examinations and
declared the results. Thereafter, respondent No.2 -
Directorate of Medical Education published an information
bulletin for the process of admission for the B.SC nursing
course for the academic year 2023-24. It is contended
that there is no reference made with respect to the
"reservation" and the "allotment of seats" at the minority
institutions. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 - institutions made
representation dated 24.07.2023 and 28.07.2023 to
respondent No.2 regarding the seat matrix for admissions
and allotment of seats to the B.SC nursing course for the
academic year 2023-24. It is submitted that pursuant to
which, the petitioners were informed that 80% of the
seats in petitioner Nos.2 and 3 colleges will be under the
"general merit" category and 20% of the seats are
reserved for various categories and reservation for
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
"minorities" as requested by the petitioners cannot be
considered.
6. It is submitted that during the pendency of the
writ petition, by an interim order dated 03.08.2023
directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation of
the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law.
7. Respondent No.2 - Directorate of Medical
Education by the impugned order dated 08.08.2023,
rejected the petitioner's request to treat them as minority
institutions and the petitioner has also challenged the
impugned endorsement dated 08.08.2023. It is submitted
by the learned senior counsel that the impugned
endorsement dated 08.08.2023 is contrary to law and the
very provisions of the Karnataka Professional Educational
Institution (Recognition of Minority Educational Institutions
terms and conditions) (Professional Education) Rules,
2016, ('2016 Rules' for short)) and by Rule 4 of 2016
Rules which clearly states that the professional educational
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
institutions which have been already declared as a MEI by
the Department/State Government by a specific order,
need not apply again for the declaration of minority status
under these rules, but shall have to file "periodical reports"
on compliance of the conditions specified in Sub-Rule 5
and 6 of 2016 Rules. It is submitted that the petitioners
have already been declared as a MEI by the State
Government, the 2016 Rules are not applicable to the
petitioners and in terms of Rule 4 they need not seek for
declaration of their status and hence, the stand of the
respondents that the petitioners have not renewed their
status in terms of the 2016 Rules is untenable.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the
petitioners who claims to be the MEI has failed to produce
renewal status of the order passed by the Government on
04.09.1993 and in order to substantiate that it is a
minority status, the renewal status is a prerequisite for
claiming the relief as claimed for in the petition. It is
submitted that in terms of Rule 4 of Rules 2016, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
existing institution which have already been conferred the
minority status either by the state government or by the
national minority commission is required to file periodic
returns in respect of the members of the said institutions
and the returns to be presented for verification to the
competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 - Directorate of
Medical Education, in order to ascertain whether such
institution is to be conferred and continue its minority
status. It is submitted that the minority status to be
accorded to the institutions so concerned and not to his
parent body and the minority status accorded to the
parent body i.e., petitioner No.1, the institution in
question cannot claim protection of status accorded to the
parent body and thus, justifying the impugned
endorsement submits that the same has been rightly
rejected by the respondents herein, that the respondents
without complying the requirement to file periodical
returns to respondent No.2 cannot claim as a matter of
right for allocation of seat matrix.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
9. It is submitted that in term of Rule 13 of Rules
2016, the tenure of the minority status granted shall be
valid for a period of 5 years thereof and that the petitioner
apart from producing the minority status granted in the
year 1993 that too in respect of the parent body has failed
to substantiate or demonstrate by any documentary
material of having the valid minority status and sought for
dismissal of the petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the point for consideration is; whether the
petitioner needs to seek a declaration of minority status
under the 2016 Rules, when the petitioner has already
been declared as a MEI by a specific order?
11. Rule 4 of 2016 Rules reads as under:
"4. Eligibility Criteria for Recognition:- (1)
Those Professional Educational Institutions which
have been already declared as a Minority
Educational Institution, by the department or by the
State Government by a specific order or by the
National Commission for Minority Educational
Institutions, New Delhi or by the order of any Court
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
need not apply again for declaration of minority
status under these rules, but shall have to file
periodical reports on compliance of conditions
specific in sub-rule (5) and (6) and regarding any
change in Management Committee or Governing
Council of the Institution or any shortfall in the
students strength belonging to minority community.
Provided that, such Professional Educational
Institutions shall be subjected to compliance of Rule
10 and for renewal of the provisions of rule 12 and
for periodical review by the competent authority
about the compliance of the conditions specified in
sub-rule (5) and (6).
(2) The new Professional Educational
Institution applying for the Minority status shall be
registered under the Act or as a Trust under the
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 or as a Society under
the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, or
under any other relevant law. The institution shall
indicate in its bye laws or rules that it has been
formed to serve the interest of the minority
community to which it belongs.
(3) A Professional Educational Institution
established by a Religious Minorities notified by the
Government of India and the Government of
Karnataka, shall be eligible to apply for declaration of
minority status to such Professional educational
institution as Religious Minority Education Institution.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
(4) A Professional Educational Institution
established by the linguistic minorities shall be
eligible to apply for the declaration of minority status
to such institutions run by them, as Linguistic
Minority Professional Educational Institutions.
5) At least two-third of the trustees or
members of the managing committee of the Society,
of the Professional Educational Institution shall
belong to the Minority.
6) Out of Institution quota in an Institution
not less than sixty six percent of the students
enrolled in the said Institution shall belong to the
persons belonging to linguistic or religious minority
of the state to which applicant institution belongs
to."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. A cursory reading of Rule 4 of 2016 Rules
clearly state that the Professional Educational Institutions
(PEI) which have already been declared as a MEI, by the
department or by the State Government by a specific
order or by the National Commission of Minority
Educational Institution, New Delhi or by the order of any
Court, need not apply again for declaration of minority
status under these Rules, but shall have to file "periodical
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
reports" on compliance of the conditions specified in
sub-rule 5 and 6 of 2016 Rules regarding any change in
the Managing Committee or Governing Counsel of the
Institutions or any shortfall in the students strength
belonging to the Minority Community. The proviso to Rule
4 speaks of "renewal" and "periodical review", the proviso
to the main Rule 4 cannot control or negate the Rule 4
which specifically states that already declared Educational
Institutions which have already been declared as a MEI
need not apply again for declaration of minority status
under these Rules. Under the Government Order dated
14.09.1993 the State Government had conferred the MEI
status to the petitioners Institutions and recognized the
founder institution i.e., petitioner No.1 - Father Muller
Charitable Institution "as a religious Minority Institution"
and that was subject to the order that was passed in the
case of Shahal H., stated supra, in light of the petitioners
being already declared as a MEI by the State Government,
the 2016 Rules are not applicable to the petitioners and in
terms of Rule 4 they need not seek for declaration of their
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
status and hence the stand of the respondent that the
petitioners have not renewed by the status in terms of the
Rules 2016 is unsustainable.
13. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Apex
Court in the case of Shahal H., stated supra, the State
Government after being after satisfied that the Christian
Community is duly recognized as one of the "religious
minorities" in the State and petitioner No.1 - Society has
been established and is being managed by members
belonging to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mangalore
from the year 1960 and that the main objects of the
Society is to promote the interests and uplift the minority
Roman Catholic Community passed an order dated
14.09.1993 and recognizing petitioner No.1 - Society as a
Religious Minority Institution and in the said
circumstances, the question of reviewing it at any point of
time does not arise.
14. The Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai
Foundation stated supra it is observed that that there is
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
no question of "any role or quota" for the State
Government, in the matter of grant of admission in the
private unaided institutions, more particularly in MEI,
which have constitutional protection guaranteed under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and at para
Nos.57 to 59, 65 and 66 held as under:
"57. We, however, wish to emphasize one point,
and that is that inasmuch as the occupation of
education is, in a sense, regarded as charitable,
the Government can provide regulations that will
ensure excellence in education, while forbidding
the charging of capitation fee and profiteering by
the institution. Since the object of setting up an
educational institution is by definition "charitable",
it is clear that an educational institution cannot
charge such a fee as is not required for the
purpose of fulfilling that object. To put it
differently, in the establishment of an educational
institution, the object should not be to make a
profit, inasmuch as education is essentially
charitable in nature. There can, however, be a
reasonable revenue surplus, which may be
generated by the educational institution for the
purpose of development of education and
expansion of the institution.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
58. For admission into any professional institution,
merit must play an important role. While it may
not be normally possible to judge the merit of the
applicant who seeks admission into a school, while
seeking admission to a professional institution and
to become a competent professional, it is
necessary that meritorious candidates are not
unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by
preferences shown to less meritorious but more
influential applicants. Excellence in professional
education would require that greater emphasis be
laid on the merit of a student seeking admission.
Appropriate regulations for this purpose may be
made keeping in view the other observations
made in this judgment in the context of
admissions to unaided institutions.
59. Merit is usually determined, for admission to
professional and higher education colleges, by
either the marks that the student obtains at the
qualifying examination or school-leaving certificate
stage followed by the interview, or by a common
entrance test conducted by the institution, or in
the case of professional colleges, by government
agencies.
65. The reputation of an educational institution is
established by the quality of its faculty and
students, and the educational and other facilities
that the college has to offer. The private
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
educational institutions have a personality of their
own, and in order to maintain their atmosphere
and traditions, it is but necessary that they must
have the right to choose and select the students
who can be admitted to their courses of studies. It
is for this reason that in St. Stephen's College case
[(1992) 1 SCC 558] this Court upheld the scheme
whereby a cut-off percentage was fixed for
admission, after which the students were
interviewed and thereafter selected. While an
educational institution cannot grant admission on
its whims and fancies, and must follow some
identifiable or reasonable methodology of
admitting the students, any scheme, rule or
regulation that does not give the institution the
right to reject candidates who might otherwise be
qualified according to, say, their performance in an
entrance test, would be an unreasonable
restriction under Article 19(6), though appropriate
guidelines/modalities can be prescribed for holding
the entrance test in a fair manner. Even when
students are required to be selected on the basis
of merit, the ultimate decision to grant admission
to the students who have otherwise qualified for
the grant of admission must be left with the
educational institution concerned. However, when
the institution rejects such students, such
rejection must not be whimsical or for extraneous
reasons.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
66. In the case of private unaided educational
institutions, the authority granting recognition or
affiliation can certainly lay down conditions for the
grant of recognition or affiliation; these conditions
must pertain broadly to academic and educational
matters and welfare of students and teachers −
but how the private unaided institutions are to run
is a matter of administration to be taken care of by
the management of those institutions."
15. The same was reiterated in the case of P.A.
Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others4 (P.A. Inamdar) and at para Nos.91, 92, 96 and
133 to 138 held as under:
"91. The right to establish an educational
institution, for charity or for profit, being an
occupation, is protected by Article 19(1)(g).
Notwithstanding the fact that the right of a
minority to establish and administer an
educational institution would be protected by
Article 19(1)(g) yet the founding fathers of the
Constitution felt the need of enacting Article 30.
The reasons are too obvious to require
elaboration. Article 30(1) is intended to instil
confidence in minorities against any executive or
2005 (6) SCC 537
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
legislative encroachment on their right to establish
and administer educational institution of their
choice. Article 30(1) though styled as a right, is
more in the nature of protection for minorities. But
for Article 30, an educational institution, even
though based on religion or language, could have
been controlled or regulated by law enacted under
clause (6) of Article 19, and so, Article 30 was
enacted as a guarantee to the minorities that so
far as the religious or linguistic minorities are
concerned, educational institutions of their choice
will enjoy protection from such legislation.
However, such institutions cannot be discriminated
against by the State solely on account of their
being minority institutions. The minorities being
numerically less qua non-minorities, may not be
able to protect their religion or language and such
cultural values and their educational institutions
will be protected under Article 30, at the stage of
law-making. However, merely because Article
30(1) has been enacted, minority educational
institutions do not become immune from the
operation of regulatory measures because the
right to administer does not include the right to
maladminister. To what extent the State
regulation can go, is the issue. The real purpose
sought to be achieved by Article 30 is to give
minorities some additional protection. Once aided,
the autonomy conferred by the protection of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
Article 30(1) on the minority educational
institution is diluted as provisions of Article 29(2)
will be attracted. Certain conditions in the nature
of regulations can legitimately accompany the
State aid.
92. As an occupation, right to impart education is
a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) and,
therefore, subject to control by clause (6) of
Article 19. This right is available to all citizens
without drawing a distinction between minority
and non-minority. Such a right is, generally
speaking, subject to the laws imposing reasonable
restrictions in the interest of the general public. In
particular, laws may be enacted on the following
subjects : (i) the professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practising any
profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or
business; (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a
corporation owned or controlled by the State of
any trade, business, industry or service whether to
the exclusion, complete or partial of citizens or
otherwise. Care is taken of minorities, religious or
linguistic, by protecting their right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice
under Article 30. To some extent, what may be
permissible by way of restriction under Article
19(6) may fall foul of Article 30. This is the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
additional protection which Article 30(1) grants to
the minorities.
96. Such definition of minority resolves one issue
but gives rise to many a questions when it comes
to defining "minority educational institution".
Whether a minority educational institution, though
established by a minority, can cater to the needs
of that minority only? Can there be an enquiry to
identify the person or persons who have really
established the institution? Can a minority
institution provide cross-border or inter-State
educational facilities and yet retain the character
of minority educational institution?
133. So far as the minority unaided institutions are
concerned to admit students being one of the
components of "the right to establish and
administer an institution", the State cannot
interfere therewith. Up to the level of
undergraduate education, the minority unaided
educational institutions enjoy total freedom.
134. However, different considerations would
apply for graduate and postgraduate level of
education, as also for technical and professional
educational institutions. Such education cannot be
imparted by any institution unless recognised by
or affiliated with any competent authority created
by law, such as a university, Board, Central or
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
State Government or the like. Excellence in
education and maintenance of high standards at
this level are a must. To fulfil these objectives, the
State can and rather must, in national interest,
step in. The education, knowledge and learning at
this level possessed by individuals collectively
constitutes national wealth.
135. Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] has
already held that the minority status of
educational institutions is to be determined by
treating the States as units. Students of that
community residing in other States where they are
not in minority, shall not be considered to be
minority in that particular State and hence their
admission would be at par with other non-minority
students of that State. Such admissions will be
only to a limited extent that is like a "sprinkling" of
such admissions, the term we have used earlier
borrowing from Kerala Education Bill, 1957 [1959
SCR 995 : AIR 1958 SC 956] . In minority
educational institutions, aided or unaided,
admissions shall be at the State level.
Transparency and merit shall have to be assured.
136. Whether minority or non-minority
institutions, there may be more than one similarly
situated institutions imparting education in any
one discipline, in any State. The same aspirant
seeking admission to take education in any one
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
discipline of education shall have to purchase
admission forms from several institutions and
appear at several admission tests conducted at
different places on the same or different dates and
there may be a clash of dates. If the same
candidate is required to appear in several tests, he
would be subjected to unnecessary and avoidable
expenditure and inconvenience. There is nothing
wrong in an entrance test being held for one group
of institutions imparting same or similar education.
Such institutions situated in one State or in more
than one State may join together and hold a
common entrance test or the State may itself or
through an agency arrange for holding of such
test. Out of such common merit list the successful
candidates can be identified and chosen for being
allotted to different institutions depending on the
courses of study offered, the number of seats, the
kind of minority to which the institution belongs
and other relevant factors. Such an agency
conducting the common entrance test ("CET" for
short) must be one enjoying utmost credibility and
expertise in the matter. This would better ensure
the fulfillment of twin objects of transparency and
merit. CET is necessary in the interest of achieving
the said objectives and also for saving the student
community from harassment and exploitation.
Holding of such common entrance test followed by
centralized counseling or, in other words, single-
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
window system regulating admissions does not
cause any dent in the right of minority unaided
educational institutions to admit students of their
choice. Such choice can be exercised from out of
the list of successful candidates prepared at CET
without altering the order of merit inter se of the
students so chosen.
137. Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] has held
that minority unaided institutions can legitimately
claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the
students to be allowed admission and the
procedure therefore subject to its being fair,
transparent and non-exploitative. The same
principle applies to non-minority unaided
institutions. There may be a single institution
imparting a particular type of education which is
not being imparted by any other institution and
having its own admission procedure fulfilling the
test of being fair, transparent and non-
exploitative. All institutions imparting same or
similar professional education can join together for
holding a common entrance test satisfying the
abovesaid triple tests. The State can also provide
a procedure of holding a common entrance test in
the interest of securing fair and merit-based
admissions and preventing maladministration. The
admission procedure so adopted by a private
institution or group of institutions, if it fails to
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated
hereinabove, can be taken over by the State
substituting its own procedure. The second
question is answered accordingly.
138. It needs to be specifically stated that having
regard to the larger interest and welfare of the
student community to promote merit, achieve
excellence and curb malpractices, it would be
permissible to regulate admissions by providing a
centralised and single-window procedure. Such a
procedure, to a large extent, can secure grant of
merit-based admissions on a transparent basis. Till
regulations are framed, the Admission Committees
can oversee admissions so as to ensure that merit
is not the casualty."
16. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in
the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar
stated supra, the Government has enacted the Karnataka
Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of
Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 (Act
No.8/2006), which provides for "reservations" / "special
provisions" in respect of admission to educational
institutions, including private educational institutions
established and being administered by the minorities.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
17. Petitioner No.1 - Society has been categorized
as a MEI. The self-financed Institutions, Private unaided
Institutions of petitioner No.1 - Society have to be
categorized as a MEI and the contention of the learned
AGA that the parent body has only been accorded the
status of MEI and not the institutions falls to ground. For
the foregoing reasons the points framed for consideration
is answered in the affirmative and this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated
08.08.2023 issued by respondent No.2 -
Directorate of Medical Education is hereby
quashed.
iii. Petitioner No.1 - Society along with the
institutions of the Petitioner No.1 -
Society is recognised as a MEI. The
petitioner need not apply for the
declaration of minority status under the
Rule 4 in light of the petitioner being
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7731
declared by the State Government by a
specific order and in light of the decision
of the Apex Court in case of Shahal H.,
stated supra, however the petitioner shall
file "periodic reports" in compliance of the
conditions as indicated in Rule 5 and 6 of
2016 Rules.
Sd/-
____________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
KVR
