Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21142 OF 2010

  Federation of A.P. Minority  Educational Institution                    … Petitioner

Versus

Admission & Fee Regulatory Committee for Matters relating To Fee Fixation in Pvt. Unaided Professional Colleges & Ors.             … Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This  Special  Leave  Petition  under  Article  136 of  the  

Constitution is against the order dated 13.07.2010 of the  

Division  Bench  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  

W.P.M.P.  No.20682 of  2010 declining to grant  an interim  

relief to the petitioner in W.P. No.16424 of 2010.

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  the  petitioner-

Association is a Society registered under the provisions of  

the  Andhra  Pradesh Societies  Registration  Act,  2001 and  

one of the objects of the petitioner-Association is to impart  

training  to  the  Muslim  Minority  Community  in  various  

technical  courses  like  Engineering,  MCA,  etc.   On  

12.08.2005, a seven-Judge Bench of this Court delivered a  

judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6  

SCC 537] clarifying the law laid down with regard to the  

admission  procedure  and  fee  structure  of  unaided  

educational  institutions  including  minority  institutions  in  

Pai  Foundation [(2002)  8  SCC 481].   In  para  137  of  the  

judgment in  P.A. Inamdar (supra), this Court has clarified  

that  Pai  Foundation has  held  that  minority  unaided  

institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental  

right to choose the students to be allowed admission and  

the procedure therefor subject to it being fair, transparent  

and non-exploitative.  This Court has further held in para  

137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra) that there may  

be  a  single  institution  imparting  a  particular  type  of  

education  which  is  not  being  imparted  by  any  other  

2

institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling  

the tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative or  

all  the  institutions  imparting  the  same  or  similar  

professional  education  can  join  together  for  holding  a  

common entrance  test  satisfying  the  triple  tests  of  being  

fair, transparent and non-exploitative.  This Court further  

observed in P.A. Inamdar that the State can also provide for  

a  procedure  of  holding  a  common  entrance  test  in  the  

interest  of  securing  fair  and  merit-based  admissions  and  

preventing maladministration.   

3.  Pursuant  to  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  P.A.  

Inamdar (supra),  the  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  in  

exercise  of  its  powers  under  Sections  3  and  15  of  the  

Andhra  Pradesh  Educational  Institutions  (Regulation  of  

Admission  and  Prohibition  of  Capitation  Fee)  Act,  1983  

issued a notification dated 26.05.2006 for making rules for  

admission of diploma holders into professional institutions  

imparting  under-graduate  professional  courses  in  

Engineering  (including Technology)  and Pharmacy in the  

State of Andhra Pradesh (for short ‘the 2006 Rules’).  The  

scheme of  the  2006 Rules  is  that  admission  to  available  

3

seats in all the institutions shall be offered through a single  

window  system  of  common  centralized  counselling  to  

qualified  candidates  in  order  of  merit  in  the  common  

entrance test.  The 2006 Rules contemplate that such single  

window system of common centralized counselling will  be  

conducted  either  by  Commissioner/Director  of  technical  

education  (Convener  of  ECET (FDH)  Admissions)  or  by  a  

nominee of the Association of Unaided Professional Colleges  

(Convener  of  ECET(FDH)  AC).   Rule  6 of  the  2006 Rules  

further provides that each unaided minority institution will  

opt for either of the two aforesaid procedures for admission  

of  students  through  single  window  system  for  filling  up  

seats  in  their  institutions.   The  Admission  and  Fee  

Regulatory Committee of the State of Andhra Pradesh (for  

short  ‘the  Committee’)  issued  a  notification  dated  

18.06.2010  inviting  the  management  of  each  Private  

Unaided  Minority  Engineering  and  Pharmacy  College  to  

state whether the institution would admit students of ECET  

rank  holders  through  the  Commissioner/Director  of  

Technical  Education (Convener of  ECET(FDH) admissions)  

or  through  the  nominee  of  the  Association  of  Unaided  

4

Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH) AC).  In the  

notification  dated  18.06.2010  of  the  Committee,  it  was  

stated that in case more than one association is formed for  

conducting counselling to admit the students, they should  

join  together  and  conduct  counselling  through  a  single  

window system as provided under the rules.  In response to  

notification dated 18.06.2010, the petitioner and some other  

associations of minority institutions opted to admit students  

through  a  single  window  system,  but  some  other  

associations  of  minority  unaided  institutions  did  not  join  

this  single  window system of  admission.  The  Committee,  

however,  did  not  agree  to  allow  different  associations  to  

have separate windows of counselling for admission to the  

seats  in  the  institutions  and  by  a  notification  dated  

01.07.2010,  the  Committee  directed  all  the  four  

associations  to  form  by  03.07.2010  a  consortium  of  

associations  to  conduct  a  single  window  system  of  

admission.  Pursuant to the notification dated 01.07.2010,  

three  of  the  associations  joined  together  and  formed  a  

consortium of associations to conduct single window system  

and intimated the Committee accordingly by a letter dated  

5

03.07.2010.  The Committee, however, referred to Rule 6 of  

the  2006  Rules  and  denied  permission  to  conduct  

admissions through separate windows by the Associations  

of  Private  Unaided  Minority  Institutions  for  the  academic  

year 2010-2011.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner and another filed Writ Petition  

No.16424  of  2010  in  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  

praying  for  declaration  that  the  2006  Rules  and  in  

particular  Rule  6(b)  read  with  2(o)  thereof  were  illegal,  

arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a direction to permit  

the  petitioner  along  with  other  associations  which  had  

consented to come together for conducting a separate single  

window  for  admissions  to  the  seats  in  the  institutions  

forming the consortium not only during the academic year  

2010-2011  but  also  during  the  future  academic  years.  

Petitioner also made interim prayers before the High Court  

for  suspending  the  proceedings  of  the  Committee  dated  

05.07.2010 and for directing the Committee to permit the  

petitioner-Association  along  with  other  associations  

agreeing to come together to conduct counselling through a  

separate  single  window  during  the  academic  year  2010-

6

2011 pending disposal  of  the  writ  petition.   The  Division  

Bench of the High Court after hearing learned counsel for  

the  parties  declined  to  suspend  the  decision  of  the  

Committee  dated 05.07.2010 and also  declined  to  permit  

the  petitioner  and  associations  which  had  consented  to  

come together as a consortium to admit students through a  

separate single window.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we  

find  that  the  main  reason  which  weighed  with  the  High  

Court for declining the interim reliefs was that it could not  

conclude even prima facie that the 2006 Rules suffered from  

any  infirmity.  Rule  6(i)  of  the  2006  Rules  is  quoted  

hereinbelow:  

“Each unaided minority institution who has  opted  for  ECET(FDH)  as  per  clause  (iv)  of  sub-rule  (a)  in  Rule  12  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Engineering  Common  Entrance  Test for Diploma Holders for admission into  B.F., B.Tech. and B.Pharma courses Rules,  2004 shall indicate in writing to AFRC by a  cut-off date specified by it, as to whether the  institution  would  admit  students  through  the single window system to be operated by  the  Convener  of  ECET(FDH)  admissions  (ECET(FDH)  Window)  or  the  Convener  of  ECET(FDH)-AC admissions (ECET(FDH)-AC  Widow.”

7

We find on a reading of the Rule 6((i) of the 2006 Rules that  

Private  Unaided  Educational  Institutions  can  under  the  

2006 Rules either opt to fill up the seats in their institutions  

through  the  single  window  operated  by  the  

Commissioner/Director of Technical Education (Convener of  

ECET(FDH) admissions) or the nominee of the Association of  

Unaided Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH)-AC  

admissions).   If, therefore, all  the associations of minority  

institutions  have  not  agreed  to  form  a  single  window  to  

process  the  admissions  of  students  to  the  seats  in  the  

institutions, the reliefs as prayed for could not be granted to  

the petitioner suspending the proceedings dated 05.07.2010  

or  permitting  the  petitioner  along with other  associations  

which  had  come  together  to  admit  students  through  a  

separate single window until the High Court, after hearing  

the main writ petition, held that the 2006 Rules are  ultra  

vires Articles 19(1)(g) or Article 30 of the Constitution.  The  

High Court  was, therefore,  right  in declining to grant the  

interim reliefs prayed for the by the petitioner.  

6. We,  therefore,  do  not  find  any  infirmity  in  the  

impugned  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  and  we  

8

accordingly dismiss this Special Leave Petition. There shall  

be no order as to costs.

……………………..J.                                                                (R. V. Raveendran)

……………………..J.                                                                (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, August 25, 2011.    

9