ISLAMIYA EDUCATION TRUST GULBARGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an Education Trust established in 1992. It provides educational facilities for the needy students in Hyderabad-Karnataka area. Second petitioner is established by the first petitioner and is engaged in running an institution for B. Ed. Course. Petitioner refers to the famous T. M. A. Pai's case and that he says that it is a minority institution and hence it has to have the concessions granted to minority institutions in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution.

(2.) PETITIONER was told that for the academic year 2003-04 the college is to make admission to 50 seats and 50 seats would be filled by the government by the centralised agency. No steps were taken to fill the seats for the reasons best known to the authorities. Petitioner made repeated requests to the respondents in terms of Annexure-D series to fill the seats. In the absence of any response petitioner proceeded to make the admissions out of its wait listed candidates in respect of the unfilled Government quota. The University did not approve the same. Petitioner corresponded with the Government and the Government granted approval of the admission in terms of its communication dated 4-9-2004 (Annexure-C) with a condition that such admissions will not be repeated in the future. Subsequently, petitioner received a communication dated 27-10-2004 (Annexure-E) stating that by an order dated 21-10-2004 (Annexure-D) the Government had directed regularisation of admission for the academic year 2003-04 considering the student's interest and that as merited students were deprived of admissions, for the academic year 2004-05, it was decided that all the 100 seats would be filled by the second respondent. A communication (Annexure-F) dated 3-11-2004 was followed with regard to no admission till the Government quota is fulfilled. A notification was issued in this regard in terms of Annexure-G. According to the petitioner, no management seat is available to them for the year 2004-05. Petitioner with these facts in before me seeking to quash Annexures-D and F.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and the State Government refers to the rules to say that the State Government has the right to fill up 50 seats in terms of the Rules as applicable to the facts of this case. Second respondent-institution according to respondents made a request to approve the admission to 2003-04. No seats were allotted by the government in the previous year. The State Government taking into consideration the hardship faced by the institution issued an order dated 4-9-2004 directed the third respondent to approve the admission made by the second petitioner subject to certain condition. Another order was passed on 21-10-2004 stating therein that in the light of the earlier filling up of 100% by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for 50 seats in the subsequent year and the subsequent 100% has to go to the Government quota. They want the petition to be dismissed.