State's Power To Fix Quota For Seat Sharing In Self-Financing Minority Educational Institutions: Madras HC Refers Matter To Full Bench
|In an ongoing legal discourse surrounding the authority of the State to enforce seat-sharing quotas in Self-Financing Minority Educational Institutes, the Madras High Court referred the matter to a full bench.
The Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that in September 2023, the High Court division bench had upheld a Government Order (GO) mandating Self Financing Educational Institutions under Minority administration to allocate 50% of seats based on merit.
Senior Advocate M.Ajmal Khan appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan appeared for the Respondents.
In June 1998, the State had issued a Government Order (GO) mandating that Self Financing Educational Institutions, that are under the administration of any Minority and offer professional courses, must allocate 50% of their seats based on merit as determined by the competent authority. In September of 2023, a division bench of the High Court asserted that the Government Order (GO) was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of any Statute, Rules, or regulations.
A Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the seat sharing. The Petitioners contended that the GO had lost its relevance. They argued that the State's insistence on seat-sharing could result in the nationalization of seats, in light of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Inamdar and Others v State of Maharashtra and Others [(2005) 6 SCC 537].
The Court framed the following issues:
“a). Whether G.O.(Ms). No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998, was in the nature of a stop-gap arrangement till the Judgment of the Larger Bench was pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481?
(b). Whether the Government Order in G.O. (Ms). No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17.06.1998 insisting the Self Financing Educational Institutions imparting professional course of education established and administered by any Minority to fill up 50% quota, on the basis of any merit list prepared by the competent authority, can be enforced in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation’s case and P.A.Inamdhar’s case? and
(c). Whether the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women (Autonomous), Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Represented by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Educational, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and Others reported in 2023 (5) CTC 529, upholding the power of the State for seat-sharing to an extent of 50% through the merit list prepared by the competent authority, is not in line with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation’s case and P.A.Inamdhar’s case and hence requires re-consideration?”
The High Court observed that the division bench had overlooked two previous orders issued by judges of the Madras High Court, where it was held that the Government Order (GO) could not be enforced. These judges also pointed out that the contested GO was merely a temporary arrangement until a judgment was delivered in TMA Pai's case and ceased to be applicable thereafter.
Although there was an objection raised concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court to refer the matter to a larger bench, the Court clarified that a judge of the High Court who questions the decision of a larger bench could request a reference, aligning with the powers vested in the Chief Justice under Order 1 Rule 6 of the High Court Madras Appellate Side Rules, 1965.
Accordingly, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice in order to constitute a Full Bench.
Cause Title: CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research v The State of Tamil Nadu