David Memorial Education Society and Another vs Government of A.P. and Others

The first petitioner is an Educational Society and the second petitioner is an institute run by the first petitioner. The first petitioner applied to the Government, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the second respondent, seeking permission to establish a Post-Graduate College in MBA Course. It appears that the AICTE accorded approval through its letter dated 17-11-1997 and the first respondent-Government accorded permission through G.O. Ms. No.408, dated 9-12-1997 and granted minority status through G.O. Ms. No.413, dated 11-12-1997 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management), 1993 read with Andhra Pradesh Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988 made under the powers conferred u/s 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. The second respondent granted affiliation to the second petitioner-Institution through its letter dated 15-12-1997. Students were admitted in the second petitioner-Inslitution for the academic year 1997-98 in accordance with the relevant rules applicable for the admission of the students into Minority Institution.

On 28-9-1998, it appears that the second respondent addressed a letter to the petitioners stating that the second petitioner does not have the minority status for the academic year 1998-99 and as such the admission of students for the academic year 1998-99 into second petitioner-Institution, will have to be made in accordance with the rules applicable to the Non-Minority Educational Institutions. Confronted with the letter, the petitioners allege that they requested the first respondent to continue the minority status to the petitioners (what exactly are the steps taken in this regard, are not made explicit in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition); however, the petitioners allege that they were informed by the first respondent that the matter is pending consideration before a Committee comprising of five Secretaries of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for laying down the norms in that regard.

In the meanwhile, it appears that the second respondent proposed to allot the candidates for the first year MBA course for the academic year, treating the second petitioner-Institution as a Non-Minority Institution. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.31464 of 1998. A learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition, by an order dated 12-11-1998. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"Under the above circumstances, I have to necessarily allow the writ petition and it is accordingly allowed with a direction to treat the 2nd petitioner- institution as a minority institution for the purpose of admission of candidates to MBA course for the academic year 1998-99 and the respondents shall allow the petitioners'' to make admissions to the 2nd petitioner-institution treating the 2nd petitioner-institution as a minority institution. No costs."

Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent herein filed Writ Appeal No.2002 of 1998. A Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 7-12-1998 disposed of the writ appeal, with an order as follows :

"Upon consideration of the facts of the matter under consideration, in our view, to subserve the ends of justice, the matter ought to be considered by the respondent-authorities with utmost expedition, moreso by reason of the fact that the matter pertains to University education. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondent-authorities to consider the issue in its entirety, being the subject-matter of the writ petition including the grant of certificate of minority institutions within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. While considering the matter, due regard be had to the factum of non-issuance of the minority status to the institution or institutions and in the event the concerned institute or institutes have already admitted students by reason of the non-grant of the minority stains as noticed above, the respondent-authorities as also the University should consider the issue having due regard to the future of the students, who have already been admitted into the college/colleges. If occasion so arises, the All India Council for Technical Education may relax the number of seats if they deem it fit in their discretion to do so. As noticed above, this Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion about the grant of minority status to institutions or their eligibility and the same be dealt with by the appropriate authority having due regard to the circumstances already in existence and the future of the student community. We have been informed that the University had already allotted some students. It is for the University to decide the issue including the feasibility of allotting those students to other institutions and we do not wish to express any opinion in regard thereto. Status quo as of date, however, shall continue as regards the thirty students admitted by the concerned institutions and liberty is given to the college authorities to approach the appropriate authority for appropriate orders having due regard to the observations as above.

The writ appeals and the contempt case stand disposed of as above. No order as to costs."

Thereafter, the petitioners approached the first respondent to finalise the issue relating to the grant of minority status certificate of the petitioner and so far no decision is taken in this regard.

In the meanwhile, it appears from the Division Bench judgment referred to above, that the second petitioner-Institute admitted 30 students in accordance with the rules applicable to the Institutions belonging to the Minority category. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ appeal directed, as I have already noticed, with reference to those 30 students, status quo as of date of the order, shall be maintained and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities for appropriate orders.

As ultimately, the students will have to appear for the examination to be conducted by the second respondent-University and as required under the regulations of the University, the second petitioner-Institute forwarded a list of the said 30 candidates admitted into first year MBA course for the academic year 1998-99, to the second respondent, for the approval ofthe second respondent but, however, the second respondent by his order dated 15-12-1998, refused to approve the list of the 30 students. The said letter reads as follows:

"This has reference to your letter dated 10-12-1998 addressed to the Head, Department of Business Management, Osmania University requesting to verify the list of students admitted by you into MBA and to countersign the same. In this connection, I am to inform you that since your college does not have the affiliation of the University to run MBA course for the year 1998-99, the question of verifying and counter-signing the lists of candidates admitted by you does not arise."

Questioning the said letter, the present writ petition is filed, with a prayer as follows:

"..... that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to accept the examination fee and forms and permit the students to appear in the examinations for the 1st Semester examinations of 1st Year MBA for the academic year 1998-99 pending disposal of writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

The matter came up for admission on 28-1-1999. Having regard to the gravity of the situation as the future of the thirty students, is involved and the examinations are going to be held by the University by the end of February, 1999 the second respondent was directed to file a counter-affidavit immediately and the matter was directed to be listed for admission on 4-2-1999. Accordingly, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent. The learned Counsel appearing on both sides urge that the matter, as well, as be disposed of finally.

Broadly, the stand of the University is that the minority status was granted to the -petitioners only for the academic year 1997-98 under the relevant rules and thereafter it was not continued and the Division Bench while disposing of the writ appeal, did not pass any positive direction, to treat the petitioner-Institution as minority institution, and therefore the admissions made by the petitioner are in contravention of the law and the same cannot be recognised by the University for the purpose of enabling those students who appear for the examination.

A reading of the counter-affidavit of the second respondent, shows that utter confusion prevailing in the second respondent-University. On one hand, the University says that they are not competent to decide the minority status of the petitioner-Society and on the other hand, they state in the counter-affidavit "that the University did not grant affiliation as the petitioner-Institute, inter alia, has no minority status certificate".

In the entire counter-affidavit, the University has not given any information as to what are the rules and regulations of the University with regard to the grant or denial of affiliation to any particular institution nor does the University explain the allegation of the petitioner that the Institution was granted affiliation by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 15-12-1997. In the absence of any such explanation and in view of the fact that the affiliation was once granted to the petitioner-Institution, unless the affiliation is either withdrawn or comes to an end by the operation of the Regulations of the University, I do not understand how the University can come forward with a plea that the petitioner-Institution does not have the affiliation. On the other hand, at paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, the University took a stand that as the petitioner does not have the minority status, affiliation could not be granted. This is equally inexplicable. Not only the minority educational institutions, but also non-minority educational institutions are entitled for affiliation to the University, subject to the fulfilment of the norms in that regard. The mere fact that the petitioner-Institution did not produce the requisite minority status certificate cannot be a ground for the University to refuse affiliation. It is not the case of the University, as can be seen from the University-affidavit, that the institution is not entitled for such an affiliation on the ground that it did not fulfil the requisite conditions for affiliation.

Coming to the minority status certificate, admittedly, it is to be granted by the competent authority under the rules referred to earlier and it is an admitted case that for the academic year 1997-98 the minority status certificate was granted to petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here, the Government has neither filed a counter in this case nor was there any appearance on behalf of the Government, when the matter was taken, up for hearing. No explanation comes forward as to the duration of the validity of the minority status certificate once it is granted. Under Rule 6(3)(a)(ii) of the Andhra Pradcsh Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988, a certificate, once granted, was valid for a period of five academic years. No effort was made as to how such a certificate was granted only for one academic year in the case of the petitioner. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that the Government has the power to revise it, periodically or restrict the validity for one year in the matter like this, where the career of the students is involved, inaction on the part of the Government in seeking to control the activity of education, more particularly in the context of the constitutionally protected rights of minorities, without deciding the issue, is highly arbitrary.

It must be remembered that the minorities have certain guaranteed rights under the Constitution to establish and administer educational institutions. All that the State is permitted to do in the context is to lay down appropriate norms to identify whether a particular body, is a minority institution or not, as certain concessions are attached to such institutions. This power resides in the State only to avoid misuse of the claim of the minority status by unscrupulous elements, but that does not mean the State by its inaction could defeat the constitutionally guaranteed rights to the minorities. If it is the solemn responsibility of the State to see such claims of minority status are not claimed by the persons or associations, to obtain an undue advantage by availing the concessions granted by the law to them. It is equally the bounden duty of the State to act expeditiously in deciding such claims. Any delay in taking such decisions, would either defeat a genuine claim of minority status or result in litigations such as this expousing innocent students, to uncertainty and trauma. Realising this situation, the Division Bench of this Court, on the earlier occasion, while disposing of Writ Appeal No.2002 of 1998, directed the respondents to decide the issue expeditiously, and at the same time, having regard to the future of the students who are already admitted into the petitioner-Institute in the background of the facts of this case, directed the status quo in the meantime with regard to the students.

The respondents, without deciding the issue, which they are obliged under the law, have acted arbitrarily and violated the duties required by them to be discharged under the law.

I am reminded by the learned Counsel for the second respondent, on the basis of the various judgments of the Supreme Court that the personal sympathies of a Judge, have no role in matters like this, I am also conscious of the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, , that the institutions such as the one before me, could be reckless "financial adventures" without any semblance of a constitutional right. That depends on the facts of the case, and it is the duty of the State to decide the nature of the claim having due regard to the facts and the law. I am only pointing out that the respondents who were entrusted with the duty to decide the issue, have acted absolutely callously, and espoused the students to uncertainty.

It is open for the respondents to take a decision, as to the status of the petitioner-institution in accordance with law; but in the facts and the circumstances of the case, more particularly, that the petitioner enjoyed the minority status affiliation and recognition from the Government, the University and the AICTE, for the academic year 1997-98, the future of at least those 30 students who are admitted in the first year MBA course for the academic year 1998-99, should be protected, as in my view, they are in no way responsible for the existing state of affairs with regard to the petitioner-institution.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondents to permit the 30 students admitted by the petitioner-Institution for the academic year 1998-99, to appear for the examination to be conducted by second respondent-University.