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

Image via Wikipedia

 Non-Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21142 OF 2010

Federation of A.P. Minority 

Educational Institution ... Petitioner

 Versus

Admission & Fee Regulatory

Committee for Matters relating

To Fee Fixation in Pvt. Unaided

Professional Colleges & Ors. ... Respondents

 O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

 This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the 

Constitution is against the order dated 13.07.2010 of the 

Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 

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

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

 2

2. The facts very briefly are that the petitioner-

Association is a Society registered under the provisions of 

the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and 

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

training to the Muslim Minority Community in various 

technical courses like Engineering, MCA, etc. On 

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

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

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

admission procedure and fee structure of unaided 

educational institutions including minority institutions in 

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

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

that Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided 

institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental 

right to choose the students to be allowed admission and 

the procedure therefor subject to it being fair, transparent 

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

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

be a single institution imparting a particular type of 

education which is not being imparted by any other 

 3

institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling 

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

all the institutions imparting the same or similar 

professional education can join together for holding a 

common entrance test satisfying the triple tests of being 

fair, transparent and non-exploitative. This Court further 

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

a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the 

interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and 

preventing maladministration. 

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

Inamdar (supra), the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 

exercise of its powers under Sections 3 and 15 of the 

Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of 

Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 

issued a notification dated 26.05.2006 for making rules for 

admission of diploma holders into professional institutions 

imparting under-graduate professional courses in 

Engineering (including Technology) and Pharmacy in the 

State of Andhra Pradesh (for short `the 2006 Rules'). The 

scheme of the 2006 Rules is that admission to available 

 4

seats in all the institutions shall be offered through a single 

window system of common centralized counselling to 

qualified candidates in order of merit in the common 

entrance test. The 2006 Rules contemplate that such single 

window system of common centralized counselling will be 

conducted either by Commissioner/Director of technical 

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

nominee of the Association of Unaided Professional Colleges 

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

further provides that each unaided minority institution will 

opt for either of the two aforesaid procedures for admission 

of students through single window system for filling up 

seats in their institutions. The Admission and Fee 

Regulatory Committee of the State of Andhra Pradesh (for 

short `the Committee') issued a notification dated 

18.06.2010 inviting the management of each Private 

Unaided Minority Engineering and Pharmacy College to 

state whether the institution would admit students of ECET 

rank holders through the Commissioner/Director of 

Technical Education (Convener of ECET(FDH) admissions) 

or through the nominee of the Association of Unaided 

 5

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

notification dated 18.06.2010 of the Committee, it was 

stated that in case more than one association is formed for 

conducting counselling to admit the students, they should 

join together and conduct counselling through a single 

window system as provided under the rules. In response to 

notification dated 18.06.2010, the petitioner and some other 

associations of minority institutions opted to admit students 

through a single window system, but some other 

associations of minority unaided institutions did not join 

this single window system of admission. The Committee, 

however, did not agree to allow different associations to 

have separate windows of counselling for admission to the 

seats in the institutions and by a notification dated 

01.07.2010, the Committee directed all the four 

associations to form by 03.07.2010 a consortium of 

associations to conduct a single window system of 

admission. Pursuant to the notification dated 01.07.2010, 

three of the associations joined together and formed a 

consortium of associations to conduct single window system 

and intimated the Committee accordingly by a letter dated 

 6

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

the 2006 Rules and denied permission to conduct 

admissions through separate windows by the Associations 

of Private Unaided Minority Institutions for the academic 

year 2010-2011.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner and another filed Writ Petition 

No.16424 of 2010 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court 

praying for declaration that the 2006 Rules and in 

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

arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a direction to permit 

the petitioner along with other associations which had 

consented to come together for conducting a separate single 

window for admissions to the seats in the institutions 

forming the consortium not only during the academic year 

2010-2011 but also during the future academic years. 

Petitioner also made interim prayers before the High Court 

for suspending the proceedings of the Committee dated 

05.07.2010 and for directing the Committee to permit the 

petitioner-Association along with other associations 

agreeing to come together to conduct counselling through a 

separate single window during the academic year 2010-

 7

2011 pending disposal of the writ petition. The Division 

Bench of the High Court after hearing learned counsel for 

the parties declined to suspend the decision of the 

Committee dated 05.07.2010 and also declined to permit 

the petitioner and associations which had consented to 

come together as a consortium to admit students through a 

separate single window.

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

find that the main reason which weighed with the High 

Court for declining the interim reliefs was that it could not 

conclude even prima facie that the 2006 Rules suffered from 

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

hereinbelow: 

 "Each unaided minority institution who has 

 opted for ECET(FDH) as per clause (iv) of 

 sub-rule (a) in Rule 12 of the Andhra 

 Pradesh Engineering Common Entrance 

 Test for Diploma Holders for admission into 

 B.F., B.Tech. and B.Pharma courses Rules, 

 2004 shall indicate in writing to AFRC by a 

 cut-off date specified by it, as to whether the 

 institution would admit students through 

 the single window system to be operated by 

 the Convener of ECET(FDH) admissions 

 (ECET(FDH) Window) or the Convener of 

 ECET(FDH)-AC admissions (ECET(FDH)-AC 

 Widow."

 8

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

Private Unaided Educational Institutions can under the 

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

through the single window operated by the 

Commissioner/Director of Technical Education (Convener of 

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

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

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

institutions have not agreed to form a single window to 

process the admissions of students to the seats in the 

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

the petitioner suspending the proceedings dated 05.07.2010 

or permitting the petitioner along with other associations 

which had come together to admit students through a 

separate single window until the High Court, after hearing 

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

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

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

interim reliefs prayed for the by the petitioner. 

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

impugned order passed by the High Court and we 

 9

accordingly dismiss this Special Leave Petition. There shall 

be no order as to costs.

 ..........................J.

 (R. V. Raveendran)

 ..........................J.

 (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,August 25, 2011. 

Related articles

• Single Medical Entrance- what to follow? (ahstaidukki.wordpress.com)
• Lessons in equity (indialawyers.wordpress.com)
• BTEUP announces results of polytechnic 2011 (panasianbiz.com)