Pai Foundation & Ors etc. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors etc  INSC
377 (11 August 1995)
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Agrawal, S.C.
(J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
1995 AIR 2431 1995 SCC (5) 220 JT 1995 (6) 33 1995 SCALE (4)665
O R D
the orders we are now making are interim in nature, it is appropriate to set
out briefly the circumstances leading to the present stage for a proper
appreciation of the several directions we are making herein.
v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (1993 (1)
S.C.C.645), a Constitution Bench of this Court framed a scheme governing
admissions to professional colleges. This was done with a view to eliminate the
evil of capitation fee and the absolute discretion which the managements of
these colleges were exercising in the matter of admission of students. The main
objective was to ensure that merit prevails in the matter of admissions, both
in respect of what were called "free seats" as well as in respect of "payment
seats". This judgment was rendered on February 4, 1993. The scheme was to be effective
from the Academic Year 1993-94 onwards.
Petitions were filed by several institutions against the said judgment. They
were dismissed by the Constitution Bench on May 14, 1993 subject to one clarification, viz., that it shall be open
to the professional colleges to admit non-resident Indian students to the
extent of five percent of the total intake in a given year. These five percent
seats were to be out of fifty percent payment seats.
Government of Karnataka sought to apply the said scheme to Minority Educational
Institutions (M.E.Is.) as well, though the judgment did not purport to say so.
against the extension of the scheme to them, certain M.E.Is. approached this
Court by way of writ petitions. Writ petition (c) No.350 of 1993 was filed by
Islamic Academy of Education, Mangalore (claiming to be a religious M.E.I.) and
writ Petition (C) No.355 of 1993 was filed by S.Venkatesha Education Society
(claiming to be a linguistic minority). While the Islamic Academy of Education
was running a dental college in Karnataka, S. Venkatesha Education Society was
running an engineering college in that State. These writ petitions came up
before a Bench comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and one of us (B.P. Jeevan
Reddy, J.) on May 14,
1993. The Bench made
the following interim order:
There will be an interim order in the following terms:-
Fifty per cent of the total intake in the petitioner's educational institutions
shall be permitted to be filled up by candidates selected by the agencies of
the State Government on the basis of a competitive examination/test.
candidates so selected and admitted shall pay scales of fee as applicable to
this class of students as determined by the State Government from time to time.
The remaining fifty per cent of the intake may be regulated by the petitioners
to admit candidates belonging to the particular religious or linguistic
minority. However, the selection shall be made strictly on the basis of merit
among the candidates seeking admission to the institutions.
merit shall be determined on the basis of the academic performance of the
qualifying examination; or on the basis of any objective test that the institution
might itself apply to determine such relative and competing merits; or on the
basis of performance of the results of the selection tests that the State
Government may itself hold for selecting candidates for admission to technical
colleges in the State. It is optional for the petitioners to adopt any one of
these three modes and apply it uniformly.
so selected on the basis of merit amongst the minorities shall, however, abide
by such condition in the matter of payment of tution and other fee as may be
permitted by the State Government.
is made clear that this order is made on the assumption that the petitioners
are minority institutions.
open to the respondents to question this status claimed by the
petitioners." Several other Educational Institutions claiming to be M.E.Is.
filed writ petitions questioning the application of the said scheme to them.
All these writ petitions including Writ Petition (C) Nos.350 and 355 of 1993
were heard by a Constitution Bench. On August 18, 1993, it passed interim
orders applicable to Academic Year 1993-94, which orders were based upon the
order dated May 14, 1993 (made in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 350 and 355 of 1993)
coupled with certain modifications and clarifications. After hearing the parties,
the Constitution Bench framed three questions and referred the same to a larger
Bench by its order dated October 7, 1993. The order of reference is reported in
1993 (4) S.C.C.286. The three questions referred are:
What is the meaning and content of the expression `minorities' in Article 30 of
the Constitution of India?
What is the meaning of the expression `Minority Educational Institution' and
what is the indicia to determine whether an educational institution is a
Minority Educational Institution?
Whether the decision of this Court in St.Stephens is right in saying that
Article 30 clothes a Minority Educational Institution with the power to admit
students by adopting its own method of selection and that the State or the
affiliating University has no power to regulate admission of students to such
Minority Educational Institution even while permitting the Minority Educational
Institution to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to the extent
of 50% of its intake capacity? The Seven-Judge Bench met and after hearing the
counsel for the parties, it re-framed the questions arising before it into
seven questions on March 18, 1994. The seven questions framed by the larger
(a) Where a religious or linguistic minority in State `A' established an
educational institution in the said State, can the member of that
religious/linguistic group in State `B' claim rights flowing from Article 30(1)
of the Constitution of India in respect of the abovesaid educational institution
established in State `A'?
Whether it would be correct to say that only the members of that minority
residing in State `A' will be treated as the members of the minority vis-a-vis
What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority
educational institution? Would an institution be regarded as a minority
educational institution only because it was established by a person(s)
belonging to a religious or linguistic minority or it is being administered by
a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority?
Whether the minority's `right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice' will include the procedure and method of
admission and selection of a student?
Whether the admission of students to minority educational institution, whether
aided or unaided, can be regulated by the State Govt. or by the University to
which the Institution is affiliated?
Whether the decision of this Court in St.Stephens is right in saying that
Article 30 clothes a minority educational institution with the power to admit
students by adopting its own method of selection and that the State or the
affiliated University has the power to regulate admission of students to such
minority educational institution even while permitting the minority educational
institution to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to the extent
of 50% of intake capacity. We make it clear that the percentage decided in St.Stephens
case will equally be open for re- consideration.
What is meant by the expression `religion' in Article 30(1)? Can the followers
of a sect or denomination of a particular religion claim protection under
Article 30(1) on the basis that they constitute a minority in the State even though
the followers of that religion are in majority in that State?
What is meant by the expression `language' in Article 30(1)? Does it include a
language which is not included in the Eight Schedule to the Constitution?"
The Bench could not, however, complete the hearing. The matters remained part
view of the approaching Academic Year 1994-95, the larger Bench directed on April 5, 1994 that the interim order made by this
Court for the year 1993-94 shall continue to govern admissions for the Academic
Year 1994-95 as well, both M.E.Is. and others. The directions included the fees
to be charged from the `free' students and `payment' students.
as N.R.I. quota is concerned, while it was fixed at fifteen percent for the
Academic Year 1993-94, it was fixed at ten percent for the Academic Year
view of the fact that the Academic Year 1995-96 was commencing, certain
institutions approached this Court again for appropriate directions. This Court
directed that the orders made earlier with respect to Minority Educational
Institutions shall continue to govern the admissions for the Academic Year
1995-96 as well. While so, the Karnataka Government brought about a change in
law which has made several institutions to approach this Court again for
appropriate directions. As is well-known, the bulk of these private
professional colleges are situated in the State of Karnataka and to a lesser
extent in Maharashtra. Private professional colleges are there in Tamil Nadu,
Andhra Pradesh and other states as well but the problem now before us mainly
concerns the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra.
shall first state the change in law brought about by the Karnataka Government
in the matter of admissions to private colleges.
year 1984, the Karnataka Legislature had enacted the Karnataka Educational
Institutions (Prohibition of Capital Fee) Act, 1984. Rules were made under this
Act called "Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to
Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993" on
March 10, 1993. The rules contained inter alia the definition of
"Karnataka students". The rules provided certain preference in favour
of Karnataka students in the matter of admission to these professional
amendments effected on May 20, 1995, however, two major changes were brought
about, viz., (a) definition of "Karnataka student" was amended to
read as follows:
"Karnataka Student" means a student who has studied in one or more
Government or Government recognised educational institutions located within the
State of Karnataka for a minimum period of ten academic years (commencing from
first standard to twelth standard, both standards inclusive or qualifying
examination, either continuously or in broken periods) as on first July of the
year in which Entrance Test is held and has studies, appeared and passed the
Secondary Leaving Certificate Examination or Tenth Standard Examination and the
Second Pre- University Examination or the 12th standard Examination in a Government
or Government recognised educational institution located within the State of
Rule 5 was amended providing that all free seats shall be filled only by
Karnataka students and that all payment seats, except as otherwise provided in
the said Rules, shall be filled by Karnataka students only. The result of these
amendments is that no non-Karnataka student can be admitted to these
institutions- except perhaps the non-resident Indians and that too under and by
virtue of the orders of this Court.
educational institutions both belonging to minorities and others are
complaining that all these years they were admitting students from all over the
country, N.R.Is. and even foreign students and that the present restriction
causes grave prejudice to them inasmuch as they will not be able to fill up all
the payments seats. They submit that after the scheme in Unnikrishnan was
implemented, the Karnataka Government was alloting only Karnataka students
against free seats while the payment seats were divided between Karnataka
students and non- Karnataka students in a certain proportion, besides, of
course, the N.R.I. quota. The Minority Educational Institutions complain that
they are entitled to admit students belonging to their minority community (whether
religious or linguistic) from all over the country and that they cannot be
confined to Karnataka alone. They point out that one of the questions before
the seven-Judge Bench is whether a M.E.I. is entitled to draw students
belonging to that minority from outside the State or whether it is restricted
to that particular State alone. By amending the said Rules in the above manner,
they complain, the Karnataka Government has pre-empted the answer to the
is no change in law so far as State of Maharashtra is concerned. The Maharashtra
Government has, of course, filed an application seeking specific directions
from this Court with respect to the extent of N.R.I. quota for the Academic
Year 1995-96 and with respect to the manner in which the M.E.Is. should be
allowed to make admissions.
here we must mention a change in law brought about by the Regulations framed by
the Dental Council under the Dentists Act, 1948. This change, of course, is
relevant insofar as dental colleges alone are concerned. But having regard to
the fact that there are a large number of dental colleges in Karnataka - and
may be some in other States - this question has become relevant. In the year
1948, Dentists Act was enacted. By Amendment Act 30 of 1993, Section 10-A was
inserted providing that no new college or new course of study shall be opened
except with the prior permission of the Central Government. Every person
applying for such permission is obliged to prepare and submit a scheme in
accordance with the provisions of section 10-A.
20 of the Act permits Regulations to be made by the Dental Council with the
approval of the Central Government, regulating inter alia the standards of
examinations held in the dental colleges and also in particular to "(fa)
prescribe the form of the scheme, the particulars to be given in such scheme,
the manner in which the scheme is to be preferred and the fee payable with the
scheme under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10A." Accordingly,
the Dental Council has framed Regulations on January 5, 1995. These Regulations are broadly modelled upon and
incorporate the scheme contained in Unnikrishnan. The expression
"competent authority" is defined in clause (b) of Regulation 3 in the
Authority' means a Government or University or any other authority as may be
designated by the Government or the University or by law to allot students for
admissions to various dental colleges in a State or Union Territory." It is contended by Sri. F.S.Nariman that once these
Regulations are made, they alone govern the admissions to and fees payable in
the dental colleges and that the Karnataka Rules aforesaid- and in particular
the amended Rule 5 read with the definition of "Karnataka student" -
cease to apply to them with effect from the said date. It is submitted that
with effect from the date of the said Regulations, Karnataka Government has no
power over the dental colleges. These submissions are disputed by the learned
Advocate General of the Karnataka.
the last two years, several problems and difficulties in the matter of
implementation of the said scheme were brought to our notice by the
governments, managements, students and their parents. In particular, it was
being complained that the gap in the fees paid by `free students' and `payment
students' is too large and that contrary to the intention of the scheme, most
of the boys from the well-to-do families were taking away free seats leaving
the payment seats to students from the rural areas and backward communities.
The managements also complained that the fees prescribed by this Court is not
sufficient to meet the necessary expenditure. Keeping these representations in
mind, we made the following order on April 27, 1995 suo motu:
Constitution Bench of this court in Unnikrishnan J.P. & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 645, framed a Scheme
regarding admission of candidates to the private professional colleges. In
terms of the Scheme 50% seats were free seats and the remaining 50% seats have(?)
were payment seats. By a subsequent order part of the payment seats were also
allocated as NRI quota.
Scheme has now been operative for over two years. We would like to have the
suggestions and comments from the State Governments and Union of India
regarding the functioning of the Scheme.
concerned Ministeries of the Government shall indicate in case any
modification/change in the working of the Scheme is required at this stage.
of this Order be sent to the Advocate Generals of all the States, Attorney
General of India, Indian Medical Council, University Grants Commission, Dental
Council of India, All India Council for Technical Education.
response of the above shall be filed before 31st July, 1995." In response to the above order, some of the State
Governments, statutory councils, managements, students and other interested
persons have come forward with suggestions which may briefly be mentioned hereinbelow.
Karnataka Government has suggested that there should be a uniform method of
admission to all the professional colleges irrespective of the fact whether
they were established and maintained by a minority community or by others and
that the scheme of admissions should be applied equally to deemed universities.
In short, they want a uniform scheme of admissions applicable to all
professional colleges. It is further submitted that the denial of discretion to
the management in the matter of admission of students altogether has led to
great resentment and lack of incentive in better management and improvement of
the institutions. It is suggested that all the professional colleges should be
permitted to admit N.R.Is/foreign students (and in case N.R.Is./foreign
students are not available, students of their own choice) to the extent of
twenty five percent of the intake capacity and the rest seventy five percent
should be treated as free seats.
Government has suggested that the present scheme of fifty percent free seats
and fifty percent payment seats may be modified to make it eighty percent free
seats and twenty percent non-resident quota. It is submitted that admissions to
both these quotas should be allowed to be made by the State Government alone
and that the fees for twenty percent N.R.I. seats should be so fixed as to
cover entire cost of running the college. It is also submitted that
constitutional reservations be allowed to be made among the eighty percent free
seats. Another suggestion made is that students coming from outside Maharashtra should be allowed to be charged
higher fees than the maharashtra students.
Tamil Nadu Government has suggested that under the present scheme, students
from rural background and poor classes are not able to get into merit seats. It
has suggested that twenty five percent seats be reserved for N.R.Is./Management
and the balance of seventy five percent seats should be allowed to be filled by
the government as free seats. It has requested that the separate status for
minority institutions permitting them to admit fifty percent of the students on
their own may be abolished and that there should be a uniform pattern of
admissions for all the professional colleges. It has pointed out that because
of the special consideration shown to M.E.Is., a number of institutions are
falsely claiming to be minority institutions only with a view to gain the
advantage of fifty percent admissions on their own.
UNION OF INDIA:
Union of India has filed an application seeking extension of time by six weeks on
the ground that the suggestions formulated by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development have been submitted to the Cabinet for its approval and that the
Cabinet is likely to consider the same and take a decision in about six weeks.
GRANTS COMMISSION (U.G.C.):
U.G.C. has stated that because of certain legal difficulties, it could not
evolve a fee structure or frame regulations governing the admissions to these
professional colleges. It is stated that in any event regulations framed by A.I.C.T.E.,M.C.A.
and D.C.A. cover most of the field. It has requested the Court to empower it to
frame regulations under Sections 12 and 12-A regulating the admissions and the
fees to be charged in these colleges. It has sought a clarification whether the
said scheme applies to deemed universites. It has also suggested that for
generating additional resources the colleges may be permitted to admit more N.R.Is./foreign
students against payment seats.
has stated that it has framed regulations as contemplated by this court
incorporating the scheme evolved in Unnikrishnan. It has suggested that the
present fee structure should be revised and that the N.R.I. quota should be
number of educational institutions have sought permission to intervene in the
matter. They have made several suggestions. Broadly speaking, they want more
discretion in the matter of admission of students, steep increase in the fees,
hiking up of N.R.I. quota and so on.
fees, it is submitted, should be `need based' and fixed separately for each
institution. Some of the M.E.Is. have asked for liberty to admit the entire
hundred percent strength with the students belonging to the concerned minority.
At the same time, Sri Nariman stated that the M.E.Is. should be made to admit
the students belonging to the particular minority strictly in order of merit.
Learned counsel did not plead for any discreation for the management of M.E.Is.
in the matter of admission.
situation as on today is that in the State of maharashtra, not only the common entrance test has been held and result
published but the students have also been allotted against all the free seats.
But for the clarification sought by the State Government with respect to N.R.I.
quota, the allotment of payment seats would also have been completed by now. In
Karnataka, common entrance test has been held confining it to Karnataka
students alone and results have been published but no allotment has been made
awaiting the orders of this Court. (Sri Rama jois, learned counsel appearing
for certain non-karnataka students complains that State Government is in truth
colluding with the managements of professional colleges with a view to defeat
the scheme framed by this Court and that while amending Rules on one hand
restricting the admissions to karnataka students, the Government has permitted
the managements to issue advertisements inviting applications for admission to
these colleges to be submitted directly to them. Even the amendment of Rules in
1995 (referred to above), says Sri Jois, is in truth intended to allow these
colleges to admit students to their choice directly since it is a well known
fact that all the payment seats cannot be filled by Karnataka students.) So far
as other States are concerned, precise information is not placed before us
except to state that the process of admission is at various stages of finalisation.
above state of affairs, it is obvious, any major modification of the scheme in Unnikrishnan
can only be for the next academic year and onwards. The major demand of
Karnataka and the Tamil Nadu Governments is for a uniform treatment of all
professional colleges - whether established and maintained by minorities or by
others - in the matter of admissions. This submission involves the question
whether Article 30 of the Constitution stands in the way of such equal
treatment. Several aspects of Article 30 are already pending before a larger
Bench as stated above. It is, therefore, not possible for us to make any such
direction as prayed for by the said governments. That can be done only by the
admissions are already under way in several States in accordance with the said
scheme, as modified by the subsequent orders of this Court referred to above.
have been framed by the A.I.T.C.E., Dental Council and several State
Governments on the basis of and in accordance with the said scheme. All of them
cannot suddenly be suspended by us and at this point of time. It requires a
much wider and more extensive hearing of all points of view and a deeper
consideration of the suggestions of several governments, councils, institutions
and others before a definite opinion can be expressed. Need there certainly is
for evolving a better and a fool proof scheme consistent with public interest.
None before us, it may be noted, asked for a return to the situation obtaining
prior to Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 (3) S.C.C.666) and Unnikrishnan.
is yet another consideration. Since the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
outlay in education has been raised substantially; we are told that as a
percentage of G.D.P., it has almost been doubled. We need not emphasise the
fundamental significance of investment in education. It is, therefore, time
that the governments and public financial institutions involve themselves more
actively in promoting education.
have also taken note of the grievance relating to the gap between the fees
payable by the "free student" and "payment student" and the
uniform demand for increasing the N.R.I./foreign students quota. Hence the
following directions, confined no doubt to Academic year 1995-96 only and
limited to medical and dental colleges only:
far as N.R.I. quota is concerned, it is fixed at fifteen percent for the
current academic year. It shall be open to the management to admit N.R.I.
students and foreign students within this quota and in case they are not able
to get the N.R.I. or foreign students upto the aforesaid specified percentage,
it shall be open to them to admit students on their own, in the order of merit,
within the said quota. This direction shall be a general direction and shall
operate in the case of all the States where admissions have not been finalised.
It is, however, made clear that by virtue of this direction, no student who has
already been admitted shall be disturbed or removed.
far as minority Educational Institutions are concerned, the orders made on
August 18, 1993 shall continue to govern them for this academic year. This
shall also be a general direction applicable to all States. It is made clear
that the above direction applies equally to colleges in Maharashtra imparting `unani'
far as State of Karnataka is concerned, the following additional directions are
The restriction placed by the 1995 amendment to the Karnataka Selection of
Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing
Courses Rules, 1993, viz., that only Karnataka students (as defined by the said
Rules) shall be admitted against the payment seats shall not operate for the
current academic year. Among the fifty percent payment seats, we have allocated
fifteen percent to N.R.I./foreign students [direction (1)]. Out of the balance
thirty five percent seats, twenty percent shall be reserved for Karnataka
students and remaining fifteen percent for non-Karnataka students - as was done
during the previous academic year. The admission of Karnataka students against
the payment seats shall be made in accordance with the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan
out of the students who have appeared in the entrance test already held. If any
of the seats in this twenty percent remain vacant, they shall be added to the
fifteen percent quota of non-Karnataka students and shall be filled in
accordance with clause (b) below.
Since there is no sufficient time left for conducting a fresh common entrance
test for non-karnataka students for admission to the aforesaid fifteen percent
seats specified in clause (a) above, the following direction is made: a press
note shall be issued by the Government of Karnataka on or before August 15,
1995, to be published in all the national dailies, calling for applications
from non- Karnataka students for admission to payment seats in private medical
and dental colleges in Karnataka, to be submitted on or before fifth day of
September, 1995. The applications shall be accompanied by the Memorandum of
marks in the qualifying examination, apart from other relevant documents.
the applications so received shall be tabulated and admissions made on the
basis of merit determined on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the
qualifying examination. The students admitted shall remit the requisite fee, as
specified hereinbelow, within ten days of the order of allotment. The remitting
of amount in the student into the government treasury, as the case may be,
shall be treated as acceptance of allotment of seat by the student and the same
shall be binding upon all concerned.
All free seats, hereinafter to be called "merit seats" shall be
reserved for Karnataka students. Allotments against these free/merit seats and
the payment seats meant for Karnataka students shall be completed on or before
September 16, 1995. The allotment of seats to non-Karnataka students shall be
completed on or before 9th day of October, 1995.
seats remaining unallotted after that date or remaining unfilled as on 30th October, 1995 shall be allowed to be filled by
the Management on its own.
as fee structure is concerned, the following orders are made in respect of the
medical colleges and dental colleges for the current academic year:
The fee payable by the students allotted against free seats which may hereafter
be designated as merit seats shall be Rupees twenty thousand per annum. The fee
payable by the payment student is fixed at Rupees seventy five thousand, Rupees
seventy thousand and Rupees sixty five thousand per annum respectively. In
other words, in respect of colleges having their own hospitals, the fee shall
be Rupees seventy five thousand per annum, in respect of colleges which partly
depend upon government hospital and partly upon their own facility shall be
Rupees seventy thousand per annum and in respect of colleges which depend
wholly upon government hospitals, the fees shall be Rupees sixty five thousand
as dental colleges are concerned, the fees shall be Rupees fifteen thousand per
annum for free/merit seat and Rupees fifty thousand per annum for payment seats
The Central Government shall provide a subvention of Rupees five thousand per
annum in respect of every student admitted in a private medical college,
whether admitted against free/merit seat or against a payment seat, but not in
respect of a student admitted against N.R.I./foreign student quota specified
above. The subvention shall be made and continued until the student complete
the course or for a period of five years whichever is earlier. The subvention amount
by the Central Government shall be sent directly to the concerned college,
towards fee, every year, commencing with Academic Year 1995-96. This direction
shall be subject, of course, to the directions that may be issued by the larger
The Reserve Bank of India is directed to evolve a scheme for
extending study loans to the students studying in medical and dental colleges
in private professional colleges. This direction is made after hearing Sri Harish
salve, for the Reserve Bank of India, to whom
we had given a notice for this purpose. For this purpose, the study loans shall
be deemed to be in the priority sector and shall be dealt with as a category
under `Differential Rate Interest'.
the evolving of such a scheme, the following direction is made for this
academic year and the Reserve Bank of India is requested to issue appropriate directions to Nationalised Bank
forthwith, not later than ten days.
as free/merit students are concerned, they shall be given a loan of Rupees fifteen
thousand for the Academic Year 1995-96 on production of (i) a certificate from
the concerned medical/dental college that he is admitted against a free seat,
(ii) an affidavit by the student and his father (in the absence of the father,
by mother or other near relative) that the total annual income of the students'
family does not exceed Rupees fifty thousand an year and (iii) a bond executed
by the student (and in case he is a minor, by his father/mother or the
guardian) undertaking to repay the loan in five equal annual instalments
commencing from two years after completion of the course he is studying, or
within one year of his obtaining employment, whichever is earlier. No security
need be insited upon. The amount of loan shall be remitted directly to the
college concerned. The free/ merit students shall pay the fees now fixed or the
difference between the existing fee and the fee now fixed within one month of
as payment students are concerned, a loan upto Rupees fifty thousand may be
extended to them on the same terms but on further condition that they furnish
adequate security to the satisfaction of the Bank for the loan advanced.
as engineering and other colleges are concerned, the rules, regulations and
orders made by the concerned council, government and this court shall continue
to govern for this academic year.There shall be no change insofar as these
colleges are concerned. In short, the position obtaining the Academic Year
1994-95 shall apply and continue for Academic Year 1995-96. The allotment of
students to these colleges shall be completed by September 30, 1995. Any seats
remaining unallotted - or any seats remaining unfilled on or after 16th
October, 1995 shall be allowed to be filled by the Management.
as the suggestion of Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu Governments for uniform system
of admissions to private colleges and for equal treatment of all professional
colleges irrespective of the fact whether they are M.E.Is. or not - is
concerned, it involves the issue whether Article 30 stands in the way of equal
treatment of M.E.Is. and other similarly placed educational institutions not
established by the minorities. This question cannot be considered by us. it can
be done only by the larger Bench. Similarly, the request of maharashtra and
Tamil Nadu Governments to introduce the system of only two categories (free
seats and N.R.I. seats in the proportion of 80:20 or 75:25, as the case may be)
cannot be considered by us but only by a larger Bench (of seven Judges) in view
of the fact that decision in Unnikrishnan was rendered by a Bench of five
Judges. There is yet another circumstance: the Government of India is yet to
come forward with its suggestions in the matter, as stated above. After the
suggestions of the Government of India are received, appropriate orders have to
be made to be effective for the next academic year onwards. We are also of the
opinion that so far as the final adjudication of the several issues indicated
hereinabove are concerned, it has to be done by a larger bench as indicated
above. The questions posed before the seven - Judge Bench too have to be
answered. The scheme framed in Unnikrishnan may also have to be reconsidered/
Chief Justice may consider constituting a bench of seven Judges for considering
and deciding the above issues.