Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
The petition filed by the petitioner and others were placed before five-judge bench which
was prima facie of the opinion that Article 30 did not clothe a minority educational institution
with the power to adopt its own method of selection and the correctness of the decision of this
Court in St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi [AIR 1992 SC 1630] was doubted. It
was directed that the questions that arose should be authoritatively answered by a larger
Bench. The matter was, therefore, decided by a eleven-judge Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [AIR 2003 SC 355]. After the judgment was delivered, on 31st
October 2002, the Union of India, various State governments and the educational institutions
understood the majority judgment in different perspectives. Different statutes/regulations
were enacted/framed by different state governments. These led to litigations in several courts.
Interim orders passed therein were assailed before the Supreme Court. It is under these
circumstances that the bench had been constituted so that doubts/anomalies, if any, could be
clarified.
On behalf of the petitioners/applicants it was submitted that fixation of percentage of
seats that could be filled in the unaided professional colleges, both minority and non-minority
by the management, as done by various State Governments, was impermissible. It was further
submitted that the private unaided professional educational institutions had been given
complete autonomy not only as regards the admission of students but also as regards the
determination of their own fee structure.These institutions could fix their own fee structure,
which could include a reasonable revenue surplus for purposes of development of education
and expansion of the institution, and that so long as there was no profiteering or charging of
capitation fees, there could be no interference by the Government. The right to admit students
was an essential facet of the right to administer, and so long as admission to the unaided
educational institutions was on a fair and transparent basis and on the basis of merit, the
Government could not interfere. It was submitted that these institutions were entitled to fill
up all their seats by adopting/evolving a rational and transparent method of admission which
ensured that merit was adequately taken care of. It was submitted that in any event the
institutions should be given a choice and be allowed to admit students on the basis of ICSC or
SSC or other such examinations. It was also suggested that educational institutions of a
particular type may be permitted to associate themselves for the purposes of holding a
common entrance test in each State. On behalf of minority institutions, it was submitted that
they were entitled to fill up all the seats with students of their own community/language. On
behalf of non-minority institutions, it was submitted that they also had a fundamental right to
establish and administer educational institutions and that the majority judgment placed them
at par with the minority institutes.
The Union of India and various State Governments and some students, however,
submitted that the right to set up and administer an educational institution was not an absolute
right, and this right was subject to reasonable restrictions and that this right was subject (even
in respect of minority institutions) to national interest. It was submitted that imparting
356
education was a State function but, due to resources crunch, the States were not in a position
to establish sufficient number of educational institutions. It was submitted that, because of
such resources crunch, the States were permitting private educational institutions to perform
State functions. It was submitted that the Union of India, the States and Universities had
statutory rights to fix the fees and to regulate admission of students in order to ensure (a) that
there was no profiteering; (b) capitation fees were not charged; (c) admissions were based on
principles of merit; and (d) to ensure that persons from the backward classes and poorer
sections of society also had an opportunity to receive education, particularly, professional
education. It was submitted that if these educational institutions were permitted to have their
own tests for admission, the students would be put to undue harassment and hardship
inasmuch as they would have to pay for application forms in various colleges and appear for
tests in various colleges. It was pointed out that even if each institution charged Rs 500 to Rs
1000, a student would ultimately have to pay a large amount by way of application fees as, in
the absence of a common entrance test and admission procedure the students would have to
apply to a number of colleges. The students would also have to spend for transport from and
to each college and may find it difficult, if not impossible to travel, from one college to
another, to appear in all the tests. It was submitted that unless it was ensured that colleges
admitted students strictly on the basis of merit at a common entrance test, it would be
impossible to ensure that capitation fees were not charged and that there was no profiteering.
It was pointed out that some colleges did not even issue admission forms unless and until the
student agreed to pay a hefty sum. It was submitted that the majority judgment clarified that
Article 30 had been enacted not for the purposes of giving any special right or privileges to
the minority educational institutions, but to ensure that the minorities had equal rights with
the majority. It was submitted that minority educational institutions could not claim any
higher or better rights than those enjoyed by the non-minority educational institutions.
V.N. KHARE, CJI – In view of the rival submissions the following questions arise for
consideration:
(1) whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure;
(2) whether minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same
footing and have the same rights;
(3) whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to fill in their seats, to
the extent of 100%, and if not, to what extent; and
(4) whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by
evolving their own method of admission.
Question No.1
- So far as the first question is concerned, in our view the majority judgment is very
clear. There can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure by the government. Each institute must
have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into consideration the need to generate
funds to run the institution and to provide facilities necessary for the benefit of the students.
They must also be able to generate surplus which must be used for the betterment and growth
of that educational institution. In paragraph 56 of the judgment it has been categorically laid
down that the decision on the fees to be charged must necessarily be left to the private
educational institutions that do not seek and which are not dependent upon any funds from the
government. Each institute will be entitled to have its own fee structure. The fee structure for
357
each institute must be fixed keeping in mind the infrastructure and facilities available, the
investments made, salaries paid to the teachers and staff, future plans for expansion and/or
betterment of the institution etc. Of course there can be no profiteering and capitation fees
cannot be charged. It thus needs to be emphasized that as per the majority judgment imparting
of education is essentially charitable in nature. Thus the surplus/profit that can be generated
must be only for the benefit/use of that educational institution. Profits/surplus cannot be
diverted for any other use or purpose and cannot be used for personal gain or for any other
business or enterprise. As, at present, there are statutes/regulations which govern the fixation
of fees and as this Court has not yet considered the validity of those statutes/regulations, we
direct that in order to give effect to the judgment in TMA Pai case the respective State
governments concerned authority shall set up, in each State, a committee headed by a retired
High Court judge who shall be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State. The other
member, who shall be nominated by the judge, should be a Chartered Accountant of repute. A
representative of the Medical Council of India (‘MCI’) or the All India Council for Technical
Education (‘AICTE’), depending on the type of institution, shall also be a member. The secretary of the State government in charge of medical education or technical education, as the
case may be, shall be a member and secretary of the Committee. The Committee should be
free to nominate/ co-opt another independent person of repute, so that total number of
members of the Committee shall not exceed 5. Each educational Institute must place before
this Committee, well in advance of the academic year, its proposed fee structure. Along with
the proposed fee structure all relevant documents and books of accounts must also be
produced before the Committee for their scrutiny. The Committee shall then decide whether
the fees proposed by that institute are justified and are not profiteering or charging capitation
fee. The Committee will be at liberty to approve the fee structure or to propose some other fee
which can be charged by the institute. The fee fixed by the Committee shall be binding for a
period of three years, at the end of which period the institute would be at liberty to apply for
revision. Once fees are fixed by the Committee, the institute cannot charge either directly or
indirectly any other amount over and above the amount fixed as fees. If any other amount is
charged, under any other head or guise e.g. donations the same would amount to charging of
capitation fee. The governments/appropriate authorities should consider framing appropriate
regulations, if not already framed, whereunder if it is found that an institution is charging
capitation fees or profiteering that institution can be appropriately penalised and also face the
prospect of losing its recognition/affiliation. - It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some
educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course, i.e., for all
the years. It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the
student would leave the institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left the course
in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would
suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one
semester/year. If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then,
at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees
for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream.
If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/
year can be used by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in
a nationalised bank. As and when fees fall due for a semester/ year only the fees falling due
358
for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest must continue to remain
deposited till such time that they fall due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these
deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.
Question No.2 - The next question for consideration is whether minority and non minority educational
institutions stand on the same footing and have the same rights under the judgment. In support
of the contention that the minority and non minority educational institutions had the same
rights reliance was placed upon paragraphs 138 and 139 of the judgment. These read as
follows: - As we look at it, Article 30(1) is a sort of guarantee or assurance to the linguistic and religious minority Institutions of their right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. Secularism and equality being two of the
basic features of the Constitution, Article 30(1) ensures protection to the linguistic
and religious minorities; thereby preserving the secularism of the country.
Furthermore, the principles of equality must necessarily apply to the enjoyment of
such rights. No law can be framed that will discriminate against such minorities with
regard to the establishment and administration of educational institutions vis-a-vis
other educational institutions. Any law or rule or regulation that would put the
educational institutions run by the minorities at a disadvantage when compared to the
institutions run by the others will have to be struck down. At the same time, there
also cannot be any reverse discrimination. It was observed in St. Xaviers College
case, that “the whole object of conferring the right on minorities under Article 30 is
to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the
minorities do not have such special protection, they will be denied equality.” In other
words, the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority
and the minority institutions. No one type or category of institution should be
disfavoured or for that matter receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws
of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority
institutions as well as to the minority institutions. The minority institutions must be
allowed to do what the non minority institutions are permitted to do.
139 Like any other private unaided institutions, similar unaided educational institutions administered by linguistic or religious minorities are assured maximum
autonomy in relation thereto; e.g., method of recruitment of teachers, charging of fees
and admission of students. They will have to comply with the condition of
recognition, which cannot be such as to whittle down the right under Article 30.
Undoubtedly at first blush it does appear that these paragraphs equate both types of
educational institutions. However, on a careful reading of these paragraphs it is evident that
the essence of what has been laid down is that the minority educational institutions have a
guarantee or assurance to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
These paragraphs merely provide that laws, rules and regulations cannot be such that they
favour majority institutions over minority institutions. We do not read these paragraphs to
mean that non minority educational institutions would have the same rights as those conferred
on minority educational institutions by Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Non minority
educational institutions do not have the protection of Article 30. Thus, in certain matters they
359
cannot and do not stand on similar footing as minority educational institutions. Even though
the principle behind Article 30 is to ensure that the minorities are protected and are given an
equal treatment yet the special right given under Article 30 does give them certain
advantages. Just to take a few examples, the government may decide to nationalise education.
In that case it may be enacted that private educational institutions will not be permitted. Non
minority educational institutions may become bound by such an enactment. However, the
right given under Article 30 to minorities cannot be done away with and the minorities will
still have a fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice. Similarly even though the government may have a right to take over management of a
non minority educational institution the management of a minority educational institution
cannot be taken over because of the protection given under Article 30. Of course we must not
be understood to mean that even in national interest a minority institute cannot be closed
down. Further minority educational institutions have preferential right to admit students of
their own community/language. No such rights exist so far as non minority educational
institutions are concerned.
Questions Nos. 3 and 4 - Questions 3 and 4 pertain to private unaided professional colleges. Thus all
observations in answer to questions 3 and 4 are therefore confined to such educational
institutions. - In order to answer the third and fourth questions it is necessary to see the manner in
which the majority judgment is framed and to consider certain paragraphs of the judgment.
The majority judgment considered various aspects under different heads, The 3rd head is “In
case of private institutions, can there be government regulations and, if so, to what extent?”
This is further divided into four subheadings viz. “Private unaided non minority educational
institutions”; “Private unaided professional colleges”; “Private aided professional institutions
(non minority)” and “Other aided institutions”. The paragraph which has been strongly relied
upon is paragraph 68 which is under the sub-heading “Private unaided professional colleges”.
The said paragraph reads as under: - It would be unfair to apply the same rules and regulations regulating
admission to both aided and unaided professional institutions. It must be borne in
mind that unaided professional institutions are entitled to autonomy in their
administration while, at the same time, they do not forgo or discard the principle of
merit. It would, therefore, be permissible for the university or the government, at the
time of granting recognition, to require a private unaided institution to provide for
merit-based selection while, at the same time, giving the management sufficient
discretion in admitting students. This can be done through various methods. For
instance, a certain percentage of the seats can be reserved for admission by the
management out of those students who have passed the common entrance test held
by itself or by the State/university and have applied to the college concerned for
admission, while the rest of the seats may be filled up on the basis of counselling by
the State agency. This will incidentally take care of poorer and backward sections of
the society. The prescription of percentage for this purpose has to be done by the
‘government according to the local needs and different percentages can be fixed for
minority unaided and non-minority unaided and professional colleges. The same
360
principles may be applied to other nonprofessional but unaided educational
institutions viz., graduation and post graduation nonprofessional colleges or
institutes.
Reliance was also placed on paragraphs 58 and 59 which read as follows: - For admission into any professional institution, merit must play an important
role. While it may be normally possible to judge the merit of the applicant who seeks
admission into a school, while seeking admission to a professional institution and to
become a competent professional, it is necessary that meritorious candidates are not
unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by preferences shown to less meritorious but
more influential applicants. Excellence in professional education would require that
greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission, Appropriate
regulations for this purpose may be made keeping in view the other observations
made in this judgment in the context of admissions to unaided Institutions,
59, Merit is usually determined for admission to professional and higher
education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying
examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a
common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional
colleges, by government agencies.
Based on the above paragraphs it had been submitted, on behalf of the Union of India,
various State governments and students that the majority judgment makes a clear distinction
between professional educational institutions (both minority and non minority) and other educational institutions i.e., schools and undergraduate colleges. The submission was that in
professional institutions merit had to play an important role and that excellence in
professional education required that for purposes of admission merit is determined by
government agencies. It is submitted that paragraph 68 provides that in unaided professional
colleges only a “certain” percentage of seats can be reserved for admission by the
management. It is submitted that the said paragraph provides that it is permissible for the
university or the government to require a private unaided professional institute to provide for
a merit based selection. It was submitted that paragraph 68, read with paragraph 59, lays
down that in unaided professional colleges merit is to be determined by a common entrance
test conducted by government agencies. . - Paragraph 68 of the majority judgment in Pai case can be split into seven parts:
Firstly, it deals with the unaided minority or non-minority professional colleges.
Secondly, it will be unfair to apply the rule and regulations framed by the State government as regards the government aided professional colleges to the unaided
professional colleges.
Thirdly, the unaided professional institutions are entitled to autonomy in their
administration; while at the same time they should not forgo or discard the principles of
merit.
Fourthly, it is permissible for the university or the government at the time of granting
recognition to require an unaided institution to provide for merit based admission while at
the same time giving the management sufficient discretion in admitting students.
Fifthly, for unaided non-minority professional colleges certain percentage of seats can
be reserved for admission by the management out of those students who have passed the
361
common test held by itself or by the State/university and for applying to the
college/university for admission, while the rest of the seat may be filled up on the basis of
counselling by the State agency.
Sixthly, the provisions for poorer and backward sections of the society in unaided
professional colleges are also to be provided for.
Seventhly, the prescription for percentage of seats in unaided professional colleges
has to be done by the government according to the local needs. A different percentage of
seats for admission can be fixed for minority unaided and non-minority unaided
professional colleges. - Undoubtedly the majority judgment makes a distinction between private unaided
professional colleges and other educational institutions, i.e., schools and undergraduate
colleges. The subheading “Private unaided professional colleges” includes both minority as
well as non minority professional colleges. This is also clear from a reading of paragraph 68.
It appears to us that this distinction has been made (between private unaided professional
colleges and other educational institutions) as the judgment recognises that it is in national
interest to have good and efficient professionals. The judgment provides that national interest
would prevail, even over minority rights. It is for this reason that in professional colleges,
both minority and non minority, merit has been made the criteria for admission. However, a
proper reading of paragraph 68, indicates that a further distinction has been made between
minority and non minority professional colleges. It is provided that in cases of non minority
professional colleges “a certain percentage of seats” can be reserved for admission by the
management. The rest have to be filled up on bases of counselling by State agencies. The
prescription of percentage has to be done by the government according to local needs.
Keeping this in mind provisions have to be made for the poorer and backward sections of the
society. It must be remembered that, so far as medical colleges are concerned an essentiality
certificate has to be obtained before the college can be set up. It cannot be denied that whilst
issuing the essentiality certificate the respective State governments take into consideration the
local needs. These aspects have been highlighted in a recent decision of this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Medical Association [JT 2001 (10) SC 294]. Whilst granting the essentiality
certificate the State government undertakes to take over the obligations of the private
educational institution in the event of that institution becoming incapable of setting of the
institution or imparting education therein. A reading of paragraphs 59 and 68 shows that in
non minority professional colleges admission of students, other than the percentage given to
the management, can only be on the basis of merit as per the common entrance tests
conducted by government agencies. The manner in which the percentage given to the management can be filled in is set out hereinafter. - Paragraph 68 provides that a different percentage can be prescribed for unaided
minority institutions. That the same yardstick cannot be applied to both minority and nonminority professional colleges is also clear from the fact that paragraph 68 also falls under
main heading “In case of private institutions, can there be government regulations and, if so,
to what extent?” Paragraph 41, which is one of the first paragraph under this heading, inter
alia provides as follows:
It is appropriate to first deal with the case of private unaided institutions and
private aided institutions that are not administer the by linguistic or religious
minorities. Regulations that can be framed relating to minority institutions will be
362
considered while examining the merit an effect of Article 30 of the Constitution.
Whilst discussing Article 30 under heading “To what extent the rights of aided private
minority institutions to administer can be regulated” reliance has been placed, in the majority
judgment, on previous judgments in the cases of Re Kerala Education Bill [AIR 1958 S C
956]; Rev Sidhajbhai v. State of Bombay [1963 (3) SCR 837]; Rev Father Proost v. State of
Bihar [AIR 1969 S C 465] ; State of Kerala v. Very Rev Mother Provincial [(1970) 2 SCC
417] ; Ahmedabad St Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717]. All
these cases have recognised and upheld the rights of minorities under Article 30. These cases
have held that in the guise of regulations rights under Article 30 cannot be abrogated. It has
been held, even in respect of aided minority institutions that they must have full autonomy in
administration of that institution. It has been held that the right to administer includes the
right to admit students of their own community/language. Thus an unaided minority
professional college cannot be in a worse position than an aided minority professional
college. It is for this reason that paragraph 68 provides that a different percentage can be fixed
for unaided minority professional colleges. The expression “different percentage for minority
professional institutions “carries different meaning than the expression “certain percentage for
unaided professional colleges.” In fixing percentage for unaided minority professional
colleges the State must keep in mind, apart from local needs, the interest/need of that
community in the State. The need of that community, in the State, would be paramount vis-avis the local needs. - It must be clarified that a minority professional college can admit, in their management quota, a student of their own community/language in preference to a student of
another community even though that other student is more meritorious. However, whilst
selecting/admitting students of their community/language the inter-se merit of those students
cannot be ignored. In other words whilst selecting/admitting students of their own
community/language they can not ignore the inter-se merit amongst students of their
community/language. Admission, even of members of their community/language, must
strictly be on the basis of merit except that in case of their own students it has to be merit
inter-se those students only. Further if the seats cannot be filled up from members of their
community/language, then the other students can be admitted only on the basis of merit based
on a common entrance test conducted by government agencies. - That brings us the question as to how the management of both minority and nonminority professional colleges can admit students in the quota allotted to them. Undoubtedly
the majority judgment has kept in mind the sad reality that there are a large number of
professional colleges which indulge in profiteering and/or charging of capitation fees. It is for
this reason that the majority judgment provides that in professional colleges admission must
be on the basis of merit. As has been rightly submitted it is impossible to control
profiteering/charging of capitation fees unless it is ensured that admission is on the basis of
merit. Also as has been rightly pointed out if a student is required to appear at more than one
entrance test it would lead to great hardship. The application fees charged by each institute,
even though they may be only Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000 for each institute, would impose a heavy
burden on the students who will necessarily have to apply to a number of colleges. Further as
has been rightly pointed out, students would have to arrange for transport from and to and
stay at various places if they have to appear for individual tests conducted by each college. If
363
a student has to go for test, to each institute it is possible that he/she may not be able to reach,
in time, the venue of a test of a particular institute. In our view what is necessary is a practical
approach keeping in mind the need for a merit based selection. Paragraph 68 provides that
admission by the management can be by a common entrance test held by “itself or by
State/university”. The words “common entrance test” clearly indicate that each institute
cannot hold a separate test. We thus hold that the management could select students, of their
quota, either on the basis of the common entrance tests conducted by the State or on the basis
of a common entrance test to be conducted by an association of all colleges of a particular
type in that State, e.g. medical, engineering or technical, etc. The common entrance test, held
by the association, must be for admission to all colleges of that type in the State. The option
of choosing, between either of these tests, must be exercised before issuing of prospectus and
after intimation to the concerned authority and the Committee set up hereinafter. If any
professional college chooses not to admit from the common entrance test conducted by the
association then that college must necessarily admit from the common entrance test
conducted by the State. After holding the common entrance test and declaration of results the
merit list will immediately be placed on the notice board of all colleges which have chosen to
admit as per this test. A copy of the merit list will also be forthwith sent to the concerned
authority and the Committee. Selection of students must then be strictly on basis of merit as
per that merit list. Of course, as indicated earlier, minority colleges will be entitled to fill up
their quota with their own students on basis of inter-se merit amongst those students. The list
of students admitted, along with the rank number obtained by the student, the fees collected
and all such particulars and details as may be required by the concerned authority or the
Committee must be submitted to them forthwith. The question paper and the answer papers
must be preserved for such period as the concerned authority or Committee may indicate. If it
is found that any student has been admitted de-hors merit penalty can be imposed on that
institute and in appropriate cases recognition/affiliation may also be withdrawn. - At this juncture it is brought to our notice that several institutions, have since long,
had their own admission procedure and that even though they have been admitting only
students of their own community no finger has ever been raised against them and no
complaints have been made regarding fairness or transparency of the admission procedure
adopted by them. These institutions submit that they have special features and that they stand
on a different footing from other minority non-aided professional institutions. It is submitted
that their cases are not based only on the right flowing from Article 30(1) but in addition they
have some special features which requires that they be permitted to admit in the manner they
have been doing for all these years. A reference is made to few such institutions, i.e.,
Christian Medical College, Vellore, St. Johns Hospital, Islamic Academy of Education, etc.
The claim of these institutions was disputed. However, we do not think it necessary to go into
those questions. We leave it open to institutions which have been established and who have
had their own admission procedure for, at least, the last 25 years to apply to the Committee
set out hereinafter. - Lastly, it must be mentioned that it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant
that paragraph 68 of the majority judgment only permits university/State to provide for merit
based selection at the time of granting recognition/affiliation. It was also submitted that once
recognition/ affiliation is granted to unaided professional colleges, such a stipulation cannot
be provided subsequently. We are unable to accept this submission. Such a provision can be
364
made at the time of granting recognition/affiliation as well as subsequently after the grant of
such recognition/affiliation. - We now direct that the respective State government do appoint a permanent
Committee which will ensure that the tests conducted by the association of colleges is fair and
transparent. For each State a separate Committee shall be formed, The Committee would be
headed by a retired judge of the High Court. The judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice
of that State. The other member, to be nominated by the judge, would be a doctor or an
engineer of eminence (depending on whether the institution is medical or
engineering/technical). The secretary of the State in charge of medical or technical education,
as the case may be, shall also be a member and act as secretary of the Committee. The
Committee will be free to nominate/co-opt an independent person of repute in the field of
education as well as one of the Vice Chancellors of university in that State so that the total
number of persons on the Committee do not exceed five. The Committee shall have powers to
oversee the tests to be conducted by the association. This would include the power to call for
the proposed question paper/s, to know the names of the paper setters and examiners and to
check the method adopted to ensure papers are not leaked. The Committee shall supervise and
ensure that the test is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The Committee shall have
power to permit an institution, which has been established and which has been permitted to
adopt its own admission procedure for the last, at least, 25 years, to adopt its own admission
procedure and if the Committee feels that the needs of such an institute are genuine, to admit,
students of their community, in excess of the quota allotted to them by the State government.
Before exempting any institute or varying in percentage of quota fixed by the State, the State
government must be heard before the Committee. It is clarified that different percentage of
quota for students to be admitted by the management in each minority or non-minority
unaided professional college/s shall be separately fixed on the basis of their need by the
respective State governments and in case of any dispute as regards fixation of percentage of
quota, it will be open to the management to approach the Committee. It is also clarified that
no institute, which has not been established and which has not followed its own admission
procedure for the last, at least, 25 years, shall be permitted to apply
