- (1.) This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is against the order dated 13.07.2010 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.M.P. No.20682 of 2010 declining to grant an interim relief to the petitioner in W.P. No.16424 of 2010.
(2.) The facts very briefly are that the petitioner- Association is a Society registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and one of the objects of the petitioner-Association is to impart training to the Muslim Minority Community in various technical courses like Engineering, MCA, etc. On 12.08.2005, a seven-Judge Bench of this Court delivered a judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 6 SCC 537 clarifying the law laid down with regard to the admission procedure and fee structure of unaided educational institutions including minority institutions in Pai Foundation v. State of Karnaraka, 2002 8 SCC 481. In para 137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 6 SCC 537, this Court has clarified that Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefor subject to it being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. This Court has further held in para 137 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 6 SCC 537 that there may be a single institution imparting a particular type of education which is not being imparted by any other institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling the tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative or all the institutions imparting the same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. This Court further observed in P.A. Inamdar that the State can also provide for a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and preventing maladministration.
(3.) Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 6 SCC 537, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers under Sections 3 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 issued a notification dated 26.05.2006 for making rules for admission of diploma holders into professional institutions imparting under-graduate professional courses in Engineering (including Technology) and Pharmacy in the State of Andhra Pradesh (for short 'the 2006 Rules'). The scheme of the 2006 Rules is that admission to available seats in all the institutions shall be offered through a single window system of common centralized counselling to qualified candidates in order of merit in the common entrance test. The 2006 Rules contemplate that such single window system of common centralized counselling will be conducted either by Commissioner/Director of technical education (Convener of ECET (FDH) Admissions) or by a nominee of the Association of Unaided Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH) AC). Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules further provides that each unaided minority institution will opt for either of the two aforesaid procedures for admission of students through single window system for filling up seats in their institutions. The Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee of the State of Andhra Pradesh (for short 'the Committee') issued a notification dated 18.06.2010 inviting the management of each Private Unaided Minority Engineering and Pharmacy College to state whether the institution would admit students of ECET rank holders through the Commissioner/Director of Technical Education (Convener of ECET(FDH) admissions) or through the nominee of the Association of Unaided Professional Colleges (Convener of ECET(FDH) AC). In the notification dated 18.06.2010 of the Committee, it was stated that in case more than one association is formed for conducting counselling to admit the students, they should join together and conduct counselling through a single window system as provided under the rules. In response to notification dated 18.06.2010, the petitioner and some other associations of minority institutions opted to admit students through a single window system, but some other associations of minority unaided institutions did not join this single window system of admission. The Committee, however, did not agree to allow different associations to have separate windows of counselling for admission to the seats in the institutions and by a notification dated 01.07.2010, the Committee directed all the four associations to form by 03.07.2010 a consortium of associations to conduct a single window system of admission. Pursuant to the notification dated 01.07.2010, three of the associations joined together and formed a consortium of associations to conduct single window system and intimated the Committee accordingly by a letter dated 03.07.2010. The Committee, however, referred to Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules and denied permission to conduct admissions through separate windows by the Associations of Private Unaided Minority Institutions for the academic year 2010-2011.;