MADURAI: A single judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought a Full Bench hearing to decide whether the state government has the power to insist on a fixed quota of seat-sharing between the management and the state in unaided minority educational institutions offering professional courses.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that the government order passed on June 17, 1998, which gave the state government the power to make minority self-financing professional educational institutions fill up 50% of their seats based on merit lists prepared by the state authority, had ceased to exist following the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in a 2002 case (TMA Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnataka).
The Supreme Court, in the above judgment as well as a subsequent order passed in 2005 (PA Inamdar's case), had held that the state does not have any power to insist on seat-sharing in unaided professional educational institutions by fixing a quota of seats between the management and the state as the same would amount to nationalization of seats.
It was further held by the apex court that so far as unaided institutions are concerned, the admissions must be fair, transparent, non-exploitative and based on merits.
"If this criteria is adhered to, there is no question of the state insisting on a fixed quota for seat-sharing. An unaided private institution can voluntarily agree to seat-sharing with the state or adopt selection based on any entrance test conducted by the state. However, it does not mean that a seat-sharing quota can be insisted on by the State on unaided private professional educational institutions," Justice Venkatesh noted from the top court's judgment.
He also pointed out that two more single judges of the court had held in their orders that the above G.O. became unenforceable in light of the apex court judgment.
But since a division bench of the high court, in a similar matter, had taken a divergent view by upholding the G.O. above, Justice Venkatesh referred the matter to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court so that a full bench could be constituted to decide the issue.
Justice Venkatesh raised the issue while hearing a petition filed in 2021 by a Christian minority institution offering dental medicine courses.
Though the petition pertained to the admissions for the year 2021, the petitioner's counsel pointed out that this is a recurring issue faced by minority educational institutions every academic year and thus required clarification.
But the Additional Advocate General Veera Kathiravan opposed the same by arguing that the single judge ought to follow the division bench judgment and cannot disagree with it.
However, Justice Venkatesh explained that a single judge can very well invite the attention of the Chief Justice to refer a matter to a larger bench if he or she doubts the correctness of or finds that a particular judgment rendered by a bench of larger quorum is in violation of a Supreme Court judgment.