Can State Insist On Fixing Quota For Seat Sharing In Self-Financing Minority Educational Institutions? Madras HC Refers Matter To Full Bench

Justice Anand Venkatesh opined that the recent judgment of a division bench of the Madras High Court which had upheld the seat-sharing power of the State had not fully considered the judgment in PA Inamdhar's case, which, taking into consideration the judgment in TMA Pai, the Apex court had taken away the power of the State to fix quota for seat sharing.

“The Division Bench in Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed's case referred supra has not taken into consideration the effect of Paragraph Nos.123 to 130, which virtually takes away the power of the State to fix quota for seat[1]sharing and thereby, G.O.(Ms).No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998, can never be enforced as against the Minority and Un-Aided Professional Institutions,” Justice Venkatesh observed.

The court thus directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice to be referred to a full bench.

Background

The State had vide a Government Order dated June 17, 1998, insisted that the Self Financing Educational Institutions imparting professional courses of education administered by any Minority to fill up 50% of the seats based on the merit list prepared by the competent authority.

In September this year, a division bench of the High Court had observed that the Government Order (GO) was not arbitrary or unreasonable, or against the provisions of any Statute, Rules, or regulations.

When a similar challenge was made to the seat sharing in the present petition, the petitioners argued that the GO had lost its significance pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in PA Inamdhar's case. It was argued that the State insisting on seat-sharing would lead to the nationalization of seats which had been disapproved by the Supreme Court previously.

The State on the other hand submitted that since the division bench had already upheld the GO, the single judge could not disagree with the view as the order was binding.

The single judge observed that the division bench had failed to consider two other orders rendered by Single judges of the Madras High Court in which the courts had held that the GO could not be enforced. The single judges had also noted that the impugned GO was only an interim arrangement till the judgment was rendered in TMA Pai's case and such ceased to exist after that.

Though an objection was raised regarding the jurisdiction of a single judge to refer the matter to a larger bench, the court observed that a single judge who doubts the decision of a larger bench could seek reference in line with the powers vested with the Chief Justice under per Order 1 Rule 6 of the High Court Madras Appellate Side Rules, 1965

Thus, the matter has been referred to a larger bench to answer the following questions:

• Whether the GO was like a stop-gap arrangement till the judgment of the larger bench was pronounced in TMA Pai's case?
• Whether the GO be enforced in light of the decisions in TMA Pai's case and PA Inamdhar's case?
• Whether the judgment of the division bench is in line with the judgment in TMA Pai's case and PA Inamdhar's case and whether it requires reconsideration?

Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mr M Ajmal Khan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

Case Title: CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP(MD) 16339 of 2021