State Can't Fix Admission Quota In Unaided Minority Institutions: Chattisgarh HC Declares Rule Fixing 50% Domicile Quota As Ultra-Vires

Holding that the State cannot fix quota or percentage of admission in unaided minority educational institutions, the Chhattisgarh High Court declared the Rule 4(1)(d)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Ayush Graduate Course Admission Rules, 2023 as ultra-vires and unconstitutional.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held so while hearing a writ petition filed by the Jain Community's unaided minority educational institutions which had assailed the 2023 Admission Rules as unconstitutional arguing that it empowered the State Government to fix quota for state-domiciled students in the petitioner's unaided minority educational institution. The plea had further sought a direction to the respondents authorities to permit the petitioner No.1–Mahaveer College of Ayurvedic Science Village to admit all India students in Bachelor of Aayurvedik Medicine and Surgery (BAMS)

"In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar's case (supra) and also the order passed in Dr. Aditi Jain's case (supra) by coordinate Bench of this Court, we are also of the opinion that the State cannot fix quota in unaided private professional institution between the Management and the State. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to declare sub-clause (i) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of C.G. Ayush Graduate Course Admission Rules, 2023 as ultra vires and hold that the State cannot fix quota or percentage of admission in unaided minority educational institutions. For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed and the provision of subclause (i) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the C.G. Ayush Graduate Course Admission Rules, 2023 is declared as ultra vires," the bench directed.

Holding the rule as ultra vires, the bench thereafter directed the State Government to issue "necessary instructions" with respect to admission in BAMS course in unaided minority institution.

Background

For context, prior to the enforcement of the 2023 Admission Rules, the Chhattisgarh Ayush Graduation Course Admission Rules, 2019 was applicable wherein no such quota has been fixed either in dental or medical minority institutions, but only in the minority institutions imparting education in Ayush courses this quota had been fixed. The plea stated that the State has no right to fix the quota of the weaker society in the minority institutions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Consequently, the Admission Rules, 2023 were brought into force from September 6, 2023 wherein under Rule 4(1)(a), the said quota was fixed at 85% of the total seats and as per rule 4(1)(d)(i) out of this 85%, 50% seats were to be filled up by the local minority students, i.e., from Jain community of the state and the remaining 50% from general merit list prepared for the state from which counseling is to be conducted.

Contentions

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2002), the petitioner institutions contended that the State cannot impose a 50% quota on the petitioner's unaided minority educational institution to mandatorily in-take students of the general merit lists prepared for the State. It added that there can be no fixation of government seats in the minority institutions and the State has no right to nominate any student or to fix any quota in unaided professional colleges. It said that that the State cannot restrict the minority institutions to give admission of 50% State quota seats to the students who are domicile of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner contended that Rule 4(1)(d)(i) is illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and in unaided minority institution the State cannot fix State quota seats for granting admission to students.

On the other hand the Respondent State argued that being a welfare State, the Chattisgarh Government had the legislative competence to make rules in order to provide reservation in admission of students belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class in educational institutions and so the state government had framed the 2023 Admission Rules. It said that while Article 30 of the Constitution includes the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, but there should be regulatory measures to ensure educational standards to maintain the guidelines of minority educational institutions and the procedure and method of admission in the said institutions. It said that the admission in such colleges should not be only for the purpose to make profits, but also to ensure that the same would be benefited for the people at large. It argued that the State "in no manner" has restricted the petitioner institution to carry on its admission process, but it has exercised its right to give admission to the students of the State of Chattisgarh and in this regard rules have been framed for the upliftment of residents of the state.

Observation

The high court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in TMA Pai Foundation (2002) wherein it was observed that though unaided professional institutions are entitled to autonomy in their administration but, at the same time, they do not forgo or discard the principle of merit.

It said that the Supreme Court had held in P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) that no quota or percentage can be fixed in favour of the State with respect to the seats in unaided private professional educational institutions.

“In P.A. Inamdar case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come into conclusion that the States have no power to insist on seat sharing in the unaided private professional educational institutions by fixing a quota of seats between the management and the State. The State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no aid from the State to implement State's policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks, i.e. on any criterion except merit.”, the high court observed.

The high court further referred to the Sidhrajbhai Sabbai Vs. State of Gujarat (1963) (which was followed in Christian Medical College Vellore Assn v UOI 2020) where the Supreme Court had observed that the right established by Article 30(1) is a "fundamental right declared in terms absolute" and unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 it is "not subject to reasonable restrictions". The apex court had said that the fundamental right under Article 30(1) is intended to be effective and not to be "whittled down by so called regulative measures conceived in the interest...of the public or the nation as a whole".

The Supreme Court had further said, “If every order which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys the power of administration is held justifiable because it is in the public or national interest, though not in its interest as an educational institution the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) will be but a "teasing illusion" a promise of unreality".

“Regulations which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution effective as an educational institution...”, the Supreme court had observed in Sidhrajbhai's case.

Perusing the rule in question, the High Court observed that if the Rule is strictly adhered to then no student from outside of the State is to be allowed admission; then the clause would violate the constitutional rights of the minority institution as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

Resultantly, the Petition was allowed and Rule 4(1)(d)(i) was declared unconstitutional.

Case Title: Mahaveer College of Ayurvedic Science Village & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPC No. 4327 of 2023

Counsel For Petitioners : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate.

For State/Respondents: Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General.

Click here to read/download the judgment