Unaided minority institutions not entitled to adopt separate mechanism for admission of students to professional courses bypassing State policy

Allahabad High Court: In a petition concerning the admission of students to the B.Ed. course in an unaided minority institution by separately conducting entrance examination bypassing the CET followed by centralized counselling in admitting students for B.Ed. Course, the Single Bench of Suneet Kumar, J held that unaided/self financed minority institutions imparting technical professional institutions are a class apart and do not have right to admit students of their choice by adopting a mechanism of their own, thus, selecting students outside the policy of the State provided through a single window system.

It was the case of the petitioners that an order by the State Government pertaining to admissions to the BTC Course provided that the minority institutions duly recognized approved by the NCTE and the State Government shall be entitled to intake students on 100% seats by resorting to a mechanism to be determined by each institution. It was deemed applicable to B.Ed. seats as well and admissions were made to 79 vacant seats bypassing CET Merit as the single window system i.e. CET followed by centralized counselling in admitting students for B.Ed. course infringed upon the right of the minority institutions as contemplated under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution.

The Court, analysing the facts and circumstances of the case in light of precedents set in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (8) SCC 481 and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (6) SCC 537 said that the Government Order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, unsustainable and illegal. It was further observed that complying with C.E.T. or single window system centralized counselling in admitting students for B.Ed. course does not infringe upon the right of the minority institutions as contemplated under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30.  The Court further directed the University to provide compensation to the illegally admitted students. [Sankalp Institute of Education v. State of U.P., 2016 SCC OnLine All 1145, decided on 21.12.2016]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seventeen − 6 =