Madras High Court
The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2023
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in W.P.No.10973 of 2022
The Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College
for Women (Autonomous)
Rep. by its Correspondent
Mr.Faizur Rahman Sayeed
Old No.310, New No.56
K.B.Dasan Road Appellant / Petitioner
Teynampet in both
Chennai – 600 018. .. W.A. & W.P.
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to the Government
Department of Higher Educational
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Directorate of Collegiate Education
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education
Chennai Region, Saidapet
Chennai – 600 015.
4. The University of Madras
Rep. by its Registrar Respondents
University Centenary Building in both
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. .. W.A. & W.P.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
Prayer in W.A.No.2353 of 2022: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent against the order dated 27.04.2022 in W.M.P.No.10533
of 2022 in W.P.No.10973 of 2022;
Prayer in W.P.No.10973 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order
passed by the first respondent Principal Secretary, Higher
Education, Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.232, Higher
Education (E1) Department dated 20.11.2021 rejecting extension of
Religious Minority Status to the petitioner College and also
consequently Clause 8(v) of G.O.Ms.No.270 Higher Education (J1)
Department dated 17.06.1998, imposing the condition of restricting
admission of minority students upto 50 percent to quash the same
and further to direct the first respondent to issue the Permanent
Religious Minority Status Certificate to the petitioner College.
[Prayer amended vide order dated 07.07.2023 in W.M.P.No.19308
of 2023 in W.P.No.10973 of 2022]
For the Appellant \ Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan
in both W.A. & W.P. Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Senthilnathan
For the Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
in both W.A. & W.P. Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
for respondents 1 to 3
: Mr.A.S.Vijaya Raghavan
for respondent 4
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellant/petitioner, claiming to be a Minority Institution,
filed W.P.No.10973 of 2022 assailing the Government Order dated
20.11.2021, rejecting the extension of Religious Minority status to
the appellant/petitioner College and further sought a direction to
issue the Permanent Religious Minority status certificate to the
appellant/petitioner College.
2. The learned Single Judge ordered status quo to be
maintained till the next date of hearing upon a condition that the
appellant/petitioner faithfully adheres to the maximum threshold.
But, the appellant/petitioner breaches the condition of maximum
threshold of 50 percent students to be admitted from the Minorities.
The W.A.No.2353 of 2022 is filed by the appellant/petitioner against
the said order.
3. W.P.No.10971 of 2022 was initially filed by the
appellant/petitioner challenging the G.O.Ms.No.232 dated
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
20.11.2021, rejecting the extension of Religious Minority status to
the appellant/petitioner College. However, during the pendency of
the writ petition, on or about 07.07.2023, the appellant/petitioner
amended the petition by raising additional grounds, so also the
prayer. By amendment, the appellant/petitioner now challenges
Clause 8(v) of G.O.Ms.No.270, issued by the Higher Education (J1)
Department dated 17.06.1998, imposing the condition of restricting
the admission of Minority students up to 50 percent and also seeks
a direction against the respondents to issue Permanent Religious
Minority status certificate to the appellant/petitioner College.
4. As both the writ appeal and the writ petition are based on
the same set of facts and involves similar question of law, to avoid
rigmarole, are decided together.
5.1. The appellant/petitioner claims to be a Religious Minority
Institution and runs an Arts & Science College (Autonomous) for
Women. The appellant/petitioner claims to be a Society established
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
and administered by the members of the Muslim Minority
Community and is registered under the provisions of the erstwhile
Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 23.10.2021 and after the repeal
of the Act of 1860, it is now governed by the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act, 1975.
5.2. The appellant/petitioner College is affiliated to the
University of Madras. The College became fully autonomous in the
year 2006. It functions in two sessions viz., forenoon session and
afternoon session. According to the appellant/petitioner, the
forenoon session of the College receives grant-in-aid from the
Government. The G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 17.06.1998 provides that in
case of self-financing Educational Institutions imparting Professional
Courses of Education, established and administered by any Minority,
shall admit students of that Minority alone in the existing 50% of
the sanctioned strength.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
5.3. The appellant/petitioner was conferred with minority
status for the Academic Year 2006-07, which was thereafter
extended for a further period of five years from 2007-08 to
2011-12 vide Government Order dated 20.05.2009. The
appellant/petitioner, under letter dated 03.03.2021, requested the
first respondent for grant of Permanent Minority status to the
College. The first respondent issued the impugned order dated
20.11.2021, rejecting the extension of Religious Minority status to
the appellant/petitioner College on the ground that it has admitted
more than 50% of the Muslim Minority students during the year
2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20 to the Courses run by it, ergo the
writ petition.
6. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner, in his usual erudite-self canvassed the
following propositions:
(i) The Government does not have the Right and
authority to fix the cap for admission of students
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
belonging to a Minority Community in a Minority
Institution. It cannot direct a Minority Institution not to
admit more than 50% of the sanctioned strength from
the students belonging to the Minority Community;
(ii) By the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution of India,
Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India was
incorporated and based on that, subsequently, the Tamil
Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Private
Educational Institutions) Act, 2006 (for brevity,
hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 2006”) came to be
passed. As per Section 2(d) of the Act of 2006, the
Minority Educational Institutions, both Aided and
Unaided by the State, are excluded from the definition of
Private Educational Institutions. The maximum cap of
not admitting students more than 50% from the Muslim
Minority Community cannot be imposed;
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
(iii) The State has no power to interfere with the
administration of the Minority Educational Institutions,
both aided and unaided, which affects the Minority
character of such Institutions and is absolutely unlawful
and unconstitutional;
(iv) The impugned G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 17.06.1998
was passed prior to the 93rd Amendment to the
Constitution of India, by virtue of which, Article 15(5)
was incorporated in the Constitution of India. Article
15(5) of the Constitution of India exempts Minority
Educational Institutions from the ambit of Communal
Reservation. The guidelines compelling the Minority
Colleges to follow the conditions of reservation has
become null and void and as it has been superseded by
incorporation of Article 15(5) to the Constitution of
India. Learned Senior Counsel buttressed his
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
submissions by relying upon the cases of (a) Pramati
Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India1; (b)
The Federation of Catholic Faithful, represented by its
General Secretary vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and 4
others2; (c) The Institute of the Franciscan Missionaries
of Mary, represented by its President St.Thomas
Convent, Mylapore vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.
by its Principal Secretary, Department of School
Education and others3;
(v) Reliance by the respondents in their affidavit on the
Grant-in-Aid Code and Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu
Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976 are
inapplicable, as Section 2(d) of the Act of 2006 nullifies
the same;
1 2014 (4) MadLJ 486
2 2014 (3) LW 594
3 2019 SCC Online Mad 31519
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
(vi) The contention of the respondents that Permanent
Minority status has not been granted to any Educational
Institutions as on date or cannot be granted is
misconceived. A Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.113 of 2013 dated 11.09.2017 (State of Tamil
Nadu Vs. Secretary & Correspondent, Loyola College)
held that the Minority Status of an Educational
Institution cannot be restricted for a limited period. This
was affirmed in Rev.Appl.No.236 of 2019 dated
21.02.2020. A Division Bench of this Court had followed
the said judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs.
Syed Ammal Engineering College4. Relying upon the
judgment of the Division Bench, a Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Rabiammal Ahamed Maideen
College for Women vs. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department and Another5 quashed the
Government Order restricting the Minority status of the
College for a limited period and directed the Government
4 2020 6 MLJ 357
5 2021 SCC Online Mad 12365
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
to pass a fresh order granting permanent Minority status
to the concerned College;
(vii) The reasons given by the first respondent for
rejecting the extension of Religious Minority status to
the appellant/petitioner College by referring to Clause
8(v) of G.O.Ms.No.270, Higher Education (J1)
Department dated 17.06.1998 stating that the College
has exceeded the maximum threshold of 50% in
admission of the Muslim students to the Courses run by
it during the three Academic Years, is illegal, as it
compelled the Minority Educational Institutions to follow
the Communal Reservation to admit Minority students to
the Courses run by it. More over, G.O.Ms.No.270 dated
17.06.1998 would apply only to Professional Institutions;
(viii) In the guidelines provided under Clause 8(v) of
G.O.Ms.No.270, the Government imposed the condition
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
in admission of Minority students to only self-financing
Educational Institutions imparting Professional
Education, but the appellant/petitioner College is purely
an Arts & Science College. The impugned Government
Order and the impugned decision deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
7. Mr.Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General
appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, in a lucid manner, countered
the submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner and canvassed the following submissions:
(i) The judgment of the learned Single Judge, relied on
by the appellant/petitioner in W.P.No.8164 of 1998 with
connected writ petitions dated 12.08.1998 would not
apply to the present case. The challenge before the
Court was to G.O.Ms.No.253, Higher Education (D2)
Department dated 10.06.1998 and not the Government
Order impugned in the present matter;
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
(ii) The appellant/petitioner Institution is an Aided
Minority Institution, receiving 100% aid from the State
Government. The Right to admit students in Minority
Institutions is not an absolute Right of a Minority
Institution. The Admissions to the Aided Institutions,
whether a Minority or a Non-Minority, cannot be at the
sweet will and pleasure of the Management of the
Minority Educational Institution;
(iii) Learned Advocate General relied upon on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TMA Pai
Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.6. It
is submitted that the activities of Education being
essentially charitable in nature, the Educational
Institutions, both of a Non-Minority and Minority
character, can be regulated and controlled.
6 2002 8 SCC 481
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
(iv) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Sk. Mohd. Rafique vs. Contai Rahamania High
Madrasah7. It is submitted that the Apex Court, in the
said case held that reverse discrimination was not the
intention of Article 30;
(v) The Right to admission is not an absolute Right.
There cannot be reverse discrimination against anyone
and in order to regulate the same, the State has
regulated all Minority Educational Institutions imparting
Higher Education to reserve 50% of the seats for the
Minority to safeguard their Minority character and
earmarking of seats to a maximum threshold of 50%
was adopted by the State Government to safeguard
merit based admission;
(vi) In Professional Educational Institutions or those
imparting Higher Education, merit-based selection has
7 (2020) 6 SCC 689
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
been taken to be in the interest of the Nation. A Minority
Institution cannot, in the name of Right under Article
30(1) of the Constitution, disregard merit or merit-based
selection of students;
(vii) Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs.
State of Maharashtra8 to state that the Apex Court held
that fixation of the percentage of 50% cannot be said to
be unreasonable and it is to attain the objective of
equality. Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India speaks
about the adequate representation and not
proportionate representation;
(viii) It is further argued that an Educational Institution
has the Right to apply for Minority Status under the
National Commission for Minority Educational
Institutions Act, 2004 (in short, hereinafter referred to
8 (2021) 8 SCC 1
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
as “the Act of 2004”) or approach the State Government
as per the provisions of Section 2(aa) of the Act of 2004
and as the State Government has already taken a
decision, the appellant/petitioner has a remedy of appeal
and the appellant/petitioner ought to have preferred the
remedy of appeal;
(ix) The Minority status can be granted for a limited
period so as to review that whether the Minority status
can be in vogue and that no violation occurs. The
appellant/petitioner College has violated the maximum
threshold of 50% for three Academic Years. In view of
the gross violation, the Government decided not to
extent the Minority Status to the appellant/petitioner
College. The appellant/petitioner College ought to have
approached the National Commission of Minority
Educational Institutions by virtue of Section 12B of the
Act of 2004.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
(x) Learned Advocate General relied on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Christian Medical College
Vellore Association vs. Union of India9 and submitted
that the choice of Institution does not mean that the
Minorities could establish Educational Institution for the
benefit of their own Community. It is further submitted
that the intake for the Community cannot exceed 50%
of the annual admission, which is to be provided to
others than the Minority Community;
8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and learned Advocate
General for the State of Tamil Nadu.
9. The spectrum and the canvass of the debate would revolve
around the following issues:
9 (2020) 8 SCC 705
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
(i) whether the Minority Status can be granted
only for a limited period;
(ii) whether Social Reservation has to be
maintained by the Institutions administered and
managed by Linguistic Minorities;
(iii) whether the State Government could impose
threshold cap of not admitting students from the
concerned Minority Community beyond 50 percent.
10. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India bestows the Right
on all Minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish
and administer Educational Institutions of their choice. The Right of
the Minorities to establish and administer Educational Institutions
flows from Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
11.1. The Act of 2004 is enacted so as to constitute a National
Commission for Minority Educational Institutions and to provide for
the matters connected therewith. The Act of 2004 creates the Right
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
of a Minority Educational Institution to seek recognition as an
affiliated College to a Scheduled University. It also enables the
Commission to decide on all questions relating to the status of any
Institution as a Minority Educational Institution. The Commission is
also empowered to cancel the recognition as a Minority Educational
Institution, when it is found by the Commission that the purpose or
character on which the Minority Educational Institution status was
granted and also in admitting the students belonging to the Minority
Community as per the Rules and the prescribed percentage is failed.
11.2. Under Section 10 of the Act of 2004, a person who
desires to establish a Minority Educational Institution may apply to
the Competent Authority for grant of No Objection Certificate for
the said purpose. The Competent Authority is empowered to grant
or reject such application. Upon grant of No Objection Certificate,
the applicant shall be entitled to commence and proceed with the
establishment of a Minority Educational Institution, in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations, as the case may be, laid down by or
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
under any Law for the time being in force.
11.3. Under Section 11(f) of the Act of 2004, the Commission
can decide all questions relating to the status of any Institution as a
Minority Educational Institution.
11.4. Under Section 12-C of the Act of 2004, the Commission
has powers to cancel the Minority status accorded to the Institution
in the circumstances, (a) if the constitution, aims and objects of the
Educational Institution, which has enabled it to obtain the Minority
status has subsequently been amended in such a way that it no
longer reflects the purpose and interest of the Minority Education
and (b) if, on verification of the records during the inspection or
investigation, it is found that the Minority Educational Institution
has failed to admit students belonging to the Minority Community in
the Institution as per the Rules and the prescribed percentage
governing the admissions during any Academic Year.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
11.5. The scheme of the Act of 2004 no way envisages grant
of Minority status for a temporary period or for a restricted period.
The grant of Minority status is not for a particular tenure. The
Minority status of an Institution, accorded by the Competent
Authority or the Commission, would subsist until the Commission
cancels the same, as provided under Section 12-C of the Act of
2004.
11.6. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the State
would have the Right to restrict the grant of Minority status for a
limited period. Of course, in case, the constitution and/or the aim
and objective of the Educational Institution, which has enabled it to
obtain the Minority status, has subsequently been amended in a
manner that it no longer reflects the purpose and character of the
Minority Educational Institution, the Commission has the power to
cancel the Minority status of that Institution. It does not empower
the State to do so in that regard. In view thereof, it will have to be
held that the Minority status, once granted to an Educational
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
Institution, would continue until the same is cancelled.
11.7. This Court has also consistently held that the Minority
status of an Educational Institution cannot be restricted for a limited
period. For the said proposition, reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.113 of 2013 dated
11.09.2017 (State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Secretary & Correspondent,
Loyola College) and another judgment of the Division Bench in the
case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Syed Ammal Engineering College4
(supra).
12.1. This takes us to the next question: whether social
reservation has to be maintained by the Institution administered
and managed by the Linguistic Minorities. The Constitution (93rd
Amendment) Act, 2005 introduced Article 15(5) to the Constitution
of India, thereby empowering the State to make special provision,
by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally
Backward Classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the
4 2020 6 MLJ 357
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their
admission to Educational Institutions including Private Educational
Institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the
Minority Educational Institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article
30 of the Constitution of India. Though reservation is made
applicable to the socially and educationally Backward Classes of
citizens, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for
admission, from the Educational Institutions including Private
Educational Institutions, the Minority Educational Institutions are
consciously excluded from the operation of Article 15(5) of the
Constitution of India. Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India does
not empower the State to compel a Minority Educational Institution
to admit students from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or
Backward Classes of citizens.
12.2. Pursuant to Clause 5 of Article 15 of the Constitution of
India, enabling the State Government to make special provisions by
law for the advancement of any socially or educationally Backward
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
Classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
relating to their admission to Educational Institutions, the State of
Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Private
Educational Institutions) Act, 2006, (for brevity, hereinafter referred
to as “the Act of 2006”) so as to provide for reservation of seats.
The Preamble of the Act of 2006 suggests that it is an Act to
provide for reservation of seats in Private Educational Institutions in
the State of Tamil Nadu for the Backward Classes of citizens and for
the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes. Section 2(d) of the Act of 2006 reads thus:
“2(d) "private educational institution" means any
deemed University or any private college or other
private educational institution, including any institute
or training center recognised or approved by the
Government, whether aided or unaided by the State,
other than the minority educational institution
referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the
Constitution established with the object of preparing,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
training or guiding its students for any certificate,
degree or diploma or other academic distinctions
granted or conferred by any University or authority
established or approved in this behalf by the
Government.”
12.3. The definition of Private Educational Institutions, as
reproduced supra, would demonstrate that a Minority Educational
Institution referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of
India established with the object of preparing, training or guiding its
students for any certificate, degree or diploma or other academic
distinctions established is excluded. The Act of 2006 has excluded from
its fold the Minority Educational Institution established.
12.4. Reading Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India and also
Section 2(d) of the Act of 2006, it is manifest that the State would not
have any authority to make any special provision, providing for the
reservation to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the
Backward Classes of citizens for admission in a Minority Educational
Institution. More over, even as per the respondents, a Minority
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
Institution is permitted to admit 50% of the students from a Minority
Community and only the remaining 50% was permitted to the Minority
Institution for admitting students other than the Minorities. In view of
that also, the policy of Communal Reservation cannot be implemented
i.e., reservation for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and
the Other Backward Classes.
12.5. In the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust
(supra) it was held that the Right to Education Act, 2009 does not
apply to Minority Institutions, however, the Apex Court was dealing
with primary education in the said case. In the case of Ashok Kumar
Thakur vs. Union of India10, It is held by the Apex Court that exclusion
of Minority Educational Institution from Article 15(5) of the
Constitution of India is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, as the Minority Educational Institution, by themselves, are a
separate class and the Rights are brought by other Constitutional
provisions.
10 2008(3) MLJ 1105
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
12.6. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold
that the concept of Communal reservation or reservation for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes of citizens would
not apply to Minority Institutions.
13.1. This leads us to the more contentious issue as to whether
the State Government can impose threshold cap of not admitting
students of the concerned Minority Community beyond 50%. In the
case of St.Stephen's College vs. University of Delhi11, the Apex Court
held that the State may regulate the intake of admission of students in
respect of the Minority Community, but in no case, such intake shall
exceed 50% of the annual admission. The balance admission shall be
made available to the members of the Communities other than the
Minority.
13.2. In the case of T.M.Pai Foundation (supra), the Apex Court
observed that the Right to admit students is not to be considered as an
abstract and unqualified Right and it also held that the rigid percentage
of 50%, with respect to intake of Minority students stipulated in
11 1992 (1) SCC 588
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
St.Stephen's College case (supra), is not correct. It has to be left to
the authorities to prescribe a reasonable percentage, having regard to
the type of Institution and the educational needs of the Minorities.
13.3. In the case of P.A.Inamdar & Others vs. State of
Maharashtra12, the Apex Court observed that in Professional
Educational Institution or those imparting Higher Education, merit
based selection has been taken to be in the interest of the Nation and
sub-serving and strengthening National welfare. Selection of
meritorious students have been accepted to be of National Interest. A
Minority Educational Institution cannot, in the name of Right under
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, degrade merit or merit based
selection of students with regard to Professional and Higher Education.
13.4. In the case of SK.Mohd. Rafique (supra) the Apex Court
held that excellence and merit must be the governing criteria both in
relation to the intake of students and the appointment of teachers. It is
further held that the regulatory measures for ensuring educational
standards and maintaining excellence thereof are no anathema to the
12 2005 (6) SCC 537
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
protection conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
13.5. Under the G.O.(MS) No.270 dated 17.06.1998, the
threshold cap of 50% was imposed. The State Government Order
provided that in the case of self-financing Institutions, imparting
Professional courses of Education, established and administered by the
Minority, they shall admit students of that Minority alone, not
exceeding 50% of the sanctioned strength. The said Government
Order is issued exercising its power under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India. The policy does not appear to be arbitrary or
unreasonable or against the provisions of any Statute, Rules or
Regulations in force.
13.6. In view of that, the petitioner, running a Minority
Educational Institution has to abide by the said Government Order and
admit students from the Minority Community, not exceeding 50%.
However, while calculating the 50% of the Minority students, those
students who are admitted on merit in the remaining 50%, belonging
to the Minority Community, has to be excluded, because they have
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
been admitted on their own merit competing with the others and not
as students of Minority Community.
13.7. While issuing the impugned Government Order dated
20.11.2021, the Government rejected the extension of Religious
(Muslim) Minority status to the petitioner Institution on the sole ground
that the petitioner Institution admitted more than 50% of the Muslim
Minority students during the Academic Years 2016-17, 2018-19 &
2019-20. The percentage of the Minority students admitted is charted
out in the said Government Order. The said chart reads thus:
S.No. Year Sanctioned Total No. of Percentage of
Strength concerned Minority students
Minority students admitted against the
admitted against sanctioned strength
the sanctioned
strength
1. 2012-13 2575 1146 45%
2. 2013-14 2577 1216 47%
3. 2014-15 2585 1241 48%
4. 2015-16 2672 1277 48%
5. 2016-17 2672 1468 55%
6. 2017-18 2733 1371 50%
7. 2018-19 2712 1402 52%
8. 2019-20 2756 1424 52%
9. 2020-21 2795 1381 49%
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
13.8. Under the G.O.(MS).No.232 dated 20.11.2021, it has been
observed that the Members of the Governing Body of the petitioner
College belong to the Muslim Minority, which has been established and
continuously administered by the Religious (Muslim) Minority
concerned. The Memorandum bylaws of the petitioner's Association
stipulates that the Society has to serve the interest of the Muslim
Minority Community. However, only on the ground that the 50% of the
maximum sanctioned strength has been violated, the State has
rejected the request for extension of Religious (Muslim) Minority status
to the petitioner Institution.
13.9. As discussed above, the Right to cancel the recognition as
a Minority Educational Institution vests only with the Commission,
established under the Act of 2004. Admitting more students than the
sanctioned 50% threshold would not ipso facto permit the cancellation
of Minority status of the Educational Institution. More over, it is not
clear from the impugned Order as to whether some of the students
belonging to the Minorities are admitted on the basis of their own
merit, while competing with the 50% students of non-Minorities. The
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
same also has to be taken into consideration.
13.10. When the threshold cap of 50% is placed, that would
mean that the 50% seats are exclusively meant for the Minority
students and the remaining 50% admission would be open to all other
non-Minorities, and in the same, even the students of the said Minority
Community can compete. The impugned Order does not clarify the
same.
14. In the light of that, the impugned G.O.(Ms).No.232 dated
20.11.2021, refusing the extension of Religious (Muslim) Minority
status to the petitioner Institution is quashed and set aside. In case
the petitioner complies with all other requirements, then the
respondents shall permit the petitioner to function as a Minority
Educational Institution, unless the Minority status is cancelled by the
Commission under the Act of 2004.
15. Though we have held that Minority status accorded to the
Educational Institution is not for a limited period, the regulatory
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
measures may be adopted by the Commission or the Competent
Authority, such as periodical calling for the list of Members of the
Governing Board of the College, Memorandum and Bylaws, so as to
monitor that the Institution is manned by the Members of the Muslim
Minority.
16. In the result, we summarize our observation as under:
i. The Minority status is not a tenure status, ergo is not
for a limited period;
ii. The Competent Authority may adopt regulatory
measures and supervisory measures, such as
periodical calling for the list of Members of the
Governing Board of the College and the
Memorandum and Bylaws, so as to monitor that the
Institution is manned by the Members of the
Minority;
iii. The social reservation need not be maintained by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
Educational Institution, administered and managed
by the Minorities; and
iv. The State Government would be within its Right to
impose the threshold cap of admitting students from
the Minority Community to 50%. However, in the
remaining 50% seats, filled on merit from the
General Category, the students of the Minority
Community can also compete and be admitted on
merit and the same would not be counted in the 50%
threshold cap meant for the Minority students.
17. With these observations, the writ appeal and the writ petition
stand partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
W.M.P.Nos.10553 & 14180 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.17870 of 2022 are
closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
29.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to the Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Department of Higher Educational
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Directorate of Collegiate Education
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education
Chennai Region, Saidapet
Chennai – 600 015.
4. The Registrar
The University of Madras
University Centenary Building
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(drm)
W.A.No.2353 of 2022 in
W.P.No.10973 of 2022
29.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
