The Madras High Court clarified that the State lacks the authority to enforce seat-sharing in unaided professional educational institutions by setting a quota for seat distribution between the State and the Management.
Case No: W.P.(MD)No.16339 of 2021
Decided on: 28th November, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner emphasized that in order to provide Minority Institutions with clarity regarding the process of filling professional course seats each academic year, a thorough examination of the main issue is necessary. He contests the State’s jurisdiction to mandate that 50% of the seats be filled, pointing to Higher Education (J1) Department G.O dated 17.06.1998. He contended that the ruling in P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, which was published in 2005, rendered this Government Order obsolete. He argued, citing this ruling, that seat-sharing quotas, whether minority or non-minority, cannot be enforced by the State at Un-aided Professional Educational Institutions based on local needs.
The petitioner contended that insisting on a specified quota would be tantamount to nationalizing seats, a concept rejected in the P.A. Inamdar case and the T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others. On the other hand, the respondents contended that G.O dated 17.06.1998, has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous), Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. According to the respondents, the petitioner cannot revisit the matter because the Division Bench’s ruling is final. In the matter of Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, the Division Bench maintained the Government Order and confirmed the State Government’s authority to set a threshold cap for admitting students in a Minority Institution at 50%.
Legal Provisions
The case is governed by the legal provisions outlined in Order 1 Rule 6 of the High Court Madras Appellate Side Rules, 1965.
Issues
Can the State legally compel the fixation of a quota for seat-sharing between the Management and the State?
Does the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to refer the matter to a Larger Bench come into question, particularly in consideration of the Division Bench Judgment in Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed’s case, wherein G.O Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998, was upheld?
Courts analysis and decision
The court noted that a learned Single Judge must follow the decision of a bigger Bench according to the idea of judicial discipline. In spite of this, if there are questions regarding the validity of the bigger Bench’s opinion, particularly when it differs from the Hon’ble Apex Court’s position, a Single Judge may, in specific situations, call the Chief Justice’s attention for a referral to a larger Bench. Order 1 Rule 6 of the High Court Madras Appellate Side Rules, 1965 can also be used by a Single Judge who has doubts regarding a decision made by a Larger Bench to request a reference. In order to address the issues raised in this writ petition, the court decided to bring the subject before the Honourable Chief Justice and recommend it to the Full Bench.
The P.A. Inamdar case, which the Apex Court decided based on the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, highlighted that taking this course of action would be equivalent to nationalising seats. The State no longer needs to impose on a set seat-sharing quota because the court made it clear that admissions in unaided schools should be merit-based, fair, transparent, and non-exploitative. The court further noted that although an unaided private institution may freely choose to hold entrance exams administered by the State or participate in seat-sharing with it, the State is not permitted to impose a quota on these types of institutions. The court stated that Paragraph No. 6 of G.O Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998 was more of a temporary arrangement until the Larger Bench rendered its judgement in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation’s case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla