(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a Trust established for the purpose of imparting education in technical fields. Petitioner No. 2 -college is established and managed by the Trust. Petitioner -college was extended grant -in -aid to an extent of 85% only and the remaining 15% was being met by the Management, out of the income generated through admissions to the college. The condition imposed by the State Government while extending 85% grant -in -aid was that 80% of the seats were required to be filled up by the Government and the remaining 20% were left to be filled up by the Management.
(2.) PETITIONERS represented to the State Government seeking 100% grant -in -aid due to financial difficulties faced by them. The State Government vide Government Order dated 16.10.2012 produced at Annexure -A, increased grant -in -aid from 85% to 100%, but made it conditional that all the admissions to the college has to be made out of the allotments made by the Government. Aggrieved by this, petitioners made a representation to the respondents to restore the earlier seat sharing formula. As this representation was not considered, they have approached this Court. They have challenged the Government Order dated 16.10.2012 insofar as it imposes in condition No. 3 100% reservation of seats for being allotted by the Government in the Government Order.
(3.) AS can be seen from the judgment rendered by this Court in the above referred case after considering the respective contentions of both parties and after examining the Government Order and by referring to several judgments, this Court vide order dated 03.04.2014 has already held that merely because 100% aid was granted, the power and jurisdiction of the Management to make admissions cannot be totally taken away. The observations made in page 26 & 27 of the said order in the penultimate paragraph and also the conclusion reached in the last paragraph can be usefully extracted as under: