P. Arunkumar v. Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2.Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University No.69 Anna

2. The first respondent Christian Medical College (CMC),Vellore (hereinafter referred to as “Institution”), is a ChristianMinority Un-aided Professional Medical College, affiliated to theTamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. The said institution is aregistered Society, consisting of nearly 53 different Indian ChristianChurches and Christian Organisations situated almost all the States inIndia with the objective of promoting education and consequentialhealth care to students and patients belonging to the length andbreadth of India and also several neighbouring countries. Thisinstitution has been in existence for the past 100 years, admittingstudents in Unaided, Non-capitation Fee with minority status based onmerit on all India basis by conducting All India Common EntranceExamination, followed by an in-depth interview and the said method isstated to have been in vogue for the past 55 years.2(a). The said Institution has started its first Post-Graduateprogramme in 1950 and as on date there are 11 Post-Graduate MedicalDiploma courses; 20 Post-Graduate Medical Degree Courses and 9 HigherSpeciality courses approved by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. MedicalUniversity. That apart, there are M.Sc., courses in 4 MedicalSciences and 21 Departments are recognised for Ph.D., training. 2(b). In respect of M.B.B.S. course conducted by theInstitution, the total sanctioned strength of the students is 60. Outof the total strength 84% of the seats, viz., 50 seats are reservedfor candidates from Christian minority community; remaining 16% ofseats, viz., 10 seats are filled up in the following manner:(i) 7 seats are filled up on all India OpenCompetition basis;(ii)2 seats reserved for SC/ST category of students;and(iii)1 seat for candidate nominated by the Governmentof India. The remaining 50 seats are filled up in the following manner: (i)10 seats are filled up from the Christiancandidates from socially and economically backwardStates;(ii)Out of the remaining 40 seats, 6 seats are filledup from the children of the eligible members andstaff of the Institution in lieu of NRI quota and theremaining 34 seats are filled up from among Christianminority candidates on the basis of All India OpenCompetition.2(c). The method of selection is by conducting All IndiaCommon Entrance Examination for 40% weightage; Tasks test with 20%weightage and interview by Group Observers with 40% weightage. Withregard to Christian minority students, out of the 40% weightage forinterview, 10% is for written test on Bible knowledge and theremaining 30% for oral interview. The written tests are conducted for300 marks in five subjects, viz., Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Generalability, Speed and Accuracy. The marks obtained by the candidates aresubsequently made in the form of Grade under the “Stanine GradingSystem” and according to the Institution, selection in the said manner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is in vogue for the past many years without any complaint whatsoeveronly based on merit in a transparent manner and without anyexploitation. 2(d). It is also the case of the Institution that nocapitation fee is collected from the students selected and the tuitionfees itself is much less than even the fees fixed by the Government.Since the students belonging to minority are drawn through out Indiaall live together in the campus with practical demonstration andnational integration. 2(e). It is the case of the Institution that the students ofminority category who are admitted, have to give a commitment to goback after the completion of the Under Graduate education and work foratleast two years in the hospitals run by the Churches. According tothe Institution, the process of selection is proved to be a grandsuccess. When the State Government insisted for implementation of thescheme as framed by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan's case (1993(4) SCC 111), the Institution has moved the Supreme Court in 1993 byfiling Writ Petition No.482 of 1993 under Article 32 of theConstitution of India, which was admitted and the Supreme Court waspleased to grant interim orders, permitting the Institution to carryon its own admission procedure and similar orders have been passedtill 2003. After the judgement of the Supreme Court in IslamicAcademy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003 (6) SCC 697) in theyear 2003, by which the State Government has constituted TwoCommittees and pending the constitution of such Committees also theSupreme Court has permitted the Institution to follow the previouspractice in respect of admission, which has been followed for the past55 years. 2(f). Likewise, in the year 2004-2005 also when the Committeeswere yet to be constituted by the State Government, on filing of WritPetition in W.P.No.7380 of 2004, this Court in WPMP.No.8728 of 2004has granted an order of interim injunction on 04.03.2004, restrainingthe respondents therein from interfering with the admission ofstudents to the medical and other courses for the academic year 2004-2005 by the Institution. When a clarification was sought for in theSupreme Court in respect the decision rendered in 2003 (6) SCC 697(cited supra), in the writ petition filed by Catholic Bishop'sConference of India Society for Medical Education running theinstitution like St. Johns Medical College, Bangalore, in W.P.No.330of 2004, the Supreme Court by an order dated 30.07.2004, has clearlyrecognised the rights of the said institution, including that of CMC,Vellore to follow their own procedure for admission. Ultimately,after that, the institution has also filed an intervening petition inI.A.No.5 of 2005 in W.P.No.330 of 2004. The Apex Court by order dated12.08.2005 has held that Minority Un-aided Educational Institutionsare protected by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and theyare free to admit all students of their own community and that theStates have no right to enforce the policy of reservation on them.At the same time, the Supreme Court has also held that the States wereentitled to constitute Committees for monitoring the admissionprocedure and determining fee structure respectively to avoidexploitation and to preserve merit and transparency in admission. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2(g). It is the case of the Institution that after the StateGovernment has constituted the Permanent Committee for Common EntranceTest for Private Educational Institutions, it has dismissed theapplication made by the College on 12.07.2005. The petitioner hasfiled I.A.No.6 of 2005 in W.P.No.261 of 2003 in the Supreme Court,praying for an order of stay of the Committee and also for directionto the Institution to continue to admit students as per the practicein vogue for the past 55 years. The Supreme Court by an order dated25.07.2005, while staying the portion of the order of the Committeedated 12.07.2005, permitted the Institution to follow the sameprocedure of admission as it was held in the year 2004-2005. 2(h). After the Supreme Court has disposed of the batch ofcases in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra (2004 (8) SCC 139), theabove interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in respect of theInstitution have been merged. In the meantime, for admission in theyear 2006-2007, the members of the governing council of CMC, Vellore,have devised a new mechanism, by effecting changes based on theobservations made by the Permanent Committee in the order dated12.07.2005. The Committee has taken exception in respect of thefilling up of 39 seats based on the sponsorship of candidates from themembers of the Churches and Organisations based on interse merit. Itwas based on the observation of the Committee, the Council governingthe Institution has taken a decision that in respect of 34 seats, theselection should be from among the Christian minority candidates onAll India Open Competition basis by removing the sponsorship. For theacademic year 2006-2007, when the Institution has issued notificationfor admission of students and at that time when a representation wasmade to the Committee, the Committee, has permitted the Institution tohave its own admission procedure by order dated 10.06.2006,recognising the basis and procedure adopted as being fair and non-exploitative, however, took exception in respect of admission of sixcandidates from the children of eligible members of the staff of theInstitution. It is, as against that portion of the order of theCommittee dated 10.06.20096, the College has filed W.P.No.18384 of2006.3. The petitioners in W.P.No.32552 and 36500 of 2006 werestudents, who have applied for admission to MBBS course in the year2006-2007 and in the Entrance Examination conducted by theInstitution, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.32552 of 2006 was given “B”Grade, which is in between 79% to 89%. Likewise, the petitioner inW.P.No.36500 of 2006 was given “B+” Grade in the entrance examination,having obtained the mark between 90 to 96%. They have alsoparticipated in the Group Task as well as Interview, in whichaccording to them, they have fared very well. However, they were notselected for the year 2006-2007 and therefore they have filed WritPetitions for direction against the Institution to admit them based onthe marks obtained by them in the Entrance Examination, contendinginter-alia that they also belong to the Christian minority, but themethod of selection followed by the Institution is not transparent orunderstandable. It was their further case that the 10 students out of50 allotted to minority candidates are admitted from the States likeNorth-Eastern States, wherein Christians were non-minority, that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admission to six students of eligible staff members of the Institutionis not legal, that non-publishing of rank list in the EntranceExamination vitiates the process of selection, apart from othergrounds. It is also their case that by the selection process followedby the Institution, the triple test enunciated by the Supreme Court,viz., Merit, Transparency and Non-exploitative has not beenscrupulously followed and therefore, the selection process is bad. Itis their further case that more than 40% marks allotted for interviewis against the decision of the Supreme Court, wherein a ceiling limitof 15% marks was fixed for interview. Further, the Institution is notentitled to claim protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitutionof India, since it has not admitted predominant students of Christianminority belonging to the State of Tamil Nadu, even though asprinkling of such students could be admitted from other States. 4. The learned single Judge has formulated the contentionsraised on behalf of the said writ petitioners/students in thefollowing five heads, which reads as under:“(a) The Institution conducts (i) a CommonWritten Entrance Examination to which 40% of themarks are allotted, (ii) certain tests terms as“Group Tasks” for which 20% of the total marks areallotted and (iii) an interview for which 40% ofthe total marks are allotted. In respect ofChristian students, the marks allotted forinterview are reduced to 30% of the total marksand they are made to write a Written Test in Bibleknowledge, to which 10% of the total marks areallotted. Therefore, the first issue raised bythe unselected candidates is as to whether anInstitution is entitled to allot 40% of the totalmarks for interview, in the light of variousdecisions of the Supreme Court fixing a ceilinglimit of 15% of marks for interview.(b) Even the allotment of marks in theWritten Examination, Group Tasks and Interview,are not done in a straight, plain and simplemanner. The marks are converted at every stageinto a system known as “Stanine Grading” and theselection of candidates finally depends upon thegrade obtained by them, in the final tally, whichaccording to the unselected candidates failed thetest of transparency in the matter of selection.( c ) As a minority educational institutionclaiming protection under Article 30 of theConstitution, the Institution was obligated toadmit a predominant number of students belongingto the State of Tamilnadu, though a sprinkling ofsuch students from other States could also beactually admitted only 5 candidates belonging tothe Christian minority community from the State ofTamilnadu, thereby failing the test of “State as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the unit” for determining the minority status ofthe Institution.(d) The reservation of 10 seats made by theInstitution for Christian candidates from sociallyand economically backward States, included withinits ambit, candidates from the North EasternStates. Two of the North Eastern States haveChristians as the majority population and henceaccording to the unselected candidates, theselection of Christian students from States inwhich they form a majority, defeated the purposeof grant of minority status and also violated thelaw laid down by the Supreme Court.(e) The question whether the reservationupto six seats for the children of eligiblemembers of the staff of the Institution fallswithin the frame work of reasonable classificationpermitted by the Constitution is the last issueraised by the unselected candidates and the samehas also been found against the Institution bythe Permanent Committee. “4(a). After considering each and every one of the pointsraised, the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions filedby the students and allowing the writ petition filed by theInstitution has held that, allotting of 40% of the total marks forinterview in the selection process adopted by the Institution cannotbe blindly held to be vitiated. In respect of the selection process,viz., Stanine Grading, Group Tasks followed by the Institution, thelearned Judge has held that, inasmuch as the method of procedure hasbeen adopted for many years even though the process is complicated, itwas evaluated by the specialists in the field, and the same cannot belightly set at naught.4(b). Regarding the issue relating to the number of studentsbelonging to minority to be admitted from State of Tamil Nadu, thelearned Judge, relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court Inre Kerala Education Bill, 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956, wherein the “TwinObject Test” was laid down and by taking into consideration of thestatus of the Institution, which is belonging to Christian minority,conducting examination on all India basis and on the application ofthe wider sense of the word minority has held that there is no erroron the part of the Institution in admitting large number of Christianminority students from other States. 4(c). While dealing with the admission of 10 seats reservedfor the Christian students from the States where they are majority,considering that on fact, only one Christian student from MehalayaState, wherein Christians are majority was admitted, and therefore,the same can be considered only as a sprinkling, which is permitted inKerala Educational Bill case (cited supra) upto the latest judgementof the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar's case (2004 (8) SCC 139), thelearned Judge has held that the contention raised in that regard wasnot tenable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4(d). While dealing with the six seats for children of staffmembers of the Institution, the learned Judge has approved the same onthe principle of institutional preference and also on the basis thatsuch preference will strengthen the value base and moral para-meters,for which the Institution stands.5. It is, as against the said common order of the learnedsingle Judge, the above appeals are filed. The order of the learnedsingle Judge is assailed by the appellants on various grounds, viz., “(i) The procedure adopted by theInstitution for selection is unfair and nottransparent;(ii) The stanine grading system is notonly un-understandable and in that sense of view,the procedure is not transparent and therefore,the selection based on the same cannot be held tobe based on merits;(iii) The selection process consist of 40%for Entrance Examination while the remaining 60%is in effect allotted for oral interview eventhough it is stated that 20% is for Group Tasks.In view of the above said predominant role givenfor oral interview in the selection process, theentire process of selection is vitiated, since theSupreme Court in St. Stephen's case (1992 (1) SCC558) has held that 15% for the oral interview canbe the permissible limit generally;(iv) In the oral interview, questions wereposed to the students which are not onlyirrelevant to the course to which they haveapplied, but such questions which can havedifferent answers in common parlance and there areno proper guidelines for the purpose of assessingthe value of the students and therefore, theselection process should not be termed as non-exploitative in nature;(v) The selection process is against theprinciples laid down by the 11 Judge Benchdecision of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. PaiFoundation case (2002 (8) SCC 481).(vi) The reservation for the Wards ofstaff is illegal. The seats which are allottedfor NRIs cannot be granted to the children of thestaff members of the Institution.”6. Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing forthe appellant in W.A.No.494 of 2007 would submit that the procedureadopted by the Institution is non-transparent and unfair and opposedto the law declared by the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar's case (2004(8)SCC 139). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6(a) He further submitted that by the process of evaluation ofanswer sheets in the Entrance Examination, by which the arithmeticalmarks are converted into stanine grade and later sought to beevaluated for 40%, while the remaining 60% is assigned for Bible test,Group Tasks and interview in the form of 10, 20 and 30 marksrespectively, has resulted in the candidates obtaining higher marks inthe Entrance Examination to get lesser rank on account of the staninegrading and also in the Group Tasks and oral interview and the saidprocess is opposed to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case (2002 (8) SCC 481). 6(b). He would also submit that in paragraphs 58 and 59 ofthe judgement in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case,the Supreme Court has heldthat in respect of professional education, greater emphasis must beshown on merit, which is usually determined on the basis of the marksobtained in the qualifying examinations, followed by interview or bycommon entrance test. Basing reliance on the judgement of the SupremeCourt in P.A. Inamdar's case he submits that there should bedistinction between professional and non-professional educationalinstitutions and in respect of professional education, merit andexcellence alone should be the criteria and by applying the above saidtests, according to the learned senior counsel, the procedure shouldbe deemed to be non-transparent and unfair and cannot be termed asmerit based.6(c). He would further submit that allotting of 20% for GroupTasks and 30% for interview shows that the same has no connection withthe merit of the candidate at all. It is also his submission thatwhen the applicants are in the age group of 17 to 19 years, such ahigh percentage given for oral interview can only result in thearbitrariness in the selection process, which will be violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Courtin Ajay Hasia's case (1981 (1) SCC 722). The right of the Institutionunder Article 30 of the Constitution as a minority institution must bein conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India andaccording to the learned senior counsel, the prescription of marks forinterview if it is above 15%, the same is not only violation ofArticle 14 of the Constitution, but is also against the dictum laiddown by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case.6(d). He would further submit that the reservation of 6 seatsin favour of the children of the staff of the Institution isunconstitutional. He would refer to the order of the PermanentCommittee for Common Entrance Test for Private EducationalInstitutions dated 10.06.2000, wherein the Committee has held thatsuch reservation is not permissible. The learned senior counselcontends that the word institutional preference has a distinct meaningand the children of the staff of the Institution would not fall withinthe category of Institutional Preference. The classificationaccording to him would not satisfy the twin test of Article 14 andsuch classification based on constitutionally prohibited category andbased on descent, and therefore, it constitutes an unrealclassification having no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6(e). He would also submit that the Institution being aminority institution, must cater to the needs of the students of theminority community of the State of Tamil Nadu, in which it is located,by filling up only a sprinkling of seats from minority students ofother States. Inasmuch as it is well settled that State is the unitfor determining minority status, as observed by the Supreme Court inP.A.Inamdhar's case, and on fact only five students have been admittedfrom the State of Tamil Nadu in this year, it violates the norms laiddown by the Supreme Court.7. Mr. Vineet Subramani, learned counsel appearing for theappellant in W.A.Nos.812 and 495 of 2007, apart from adopting thearguments of Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel, wouldsubmit that the individual task for which 20% of marks have beenallotted and it took only three minutes for each of the students andthe conversation during this short period of time could not be for theactual task matter and only on the subjective issue, which require ahigh maturity mind and the same cannot be expected from the studentsof the age group of 16 to 18 years. 7(a). It is also his submission that the Test Observers ofeach group are different and therefore there is a possibility fordifferent assessment by different staff members and there is no chancefor comparison to have a common selection process. He would alsorefer to the various questions asked in the interview like the opinionof the students about love marriage and arranged marriage, etc. andcontend that the same cannot be the ground for selection of studentsto MBBS course. 7(b). He would submit that by considering the entire process,60% of total weightage is given to the interview process, which is notpermissible. According to him, the appellant has secured “C+” Gradeand the Institution has admitted candidates who have secured “C+”Grade, while the appellant was not given admission.7(c). He would also submit that only 5 candidates belonging tothe Christian minority in the State of Tamil Nadu were admitted by theInstitution. Further, the reservation quota of six seats for staffof the Institution, which was allotted to the candidates is regardlessof religious beliefs and therefore the staff quota is not connectedwith the Christian minority status. 7(d). The learned counsel would submit that when 60% isallotted for oral interview, the question is, as to whether suchweightage actually distorted the written examination and marks securedin the qualifying examination, especially when the Supreme Court hasheld that the allocation generally for interview may not be more than15% by referring to Ajay Hasias's case (1981 (1) SCC 722) and also inMohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab (1991 (1) SCC 662), apart fromAshok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana (1985 (4) SCC 417). Hissubmission is that the admission to the professional courses must bebased on merit subject to objective and rational procedure ofselection as laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundationcase (2002 (8) SCC 481) and the merit should be the criteria. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7(e). By placing reliance on the judgement of St. Stephen'scase, he would also submit that the oral interview as a supplementarytest cannot be taken as exclusive test for assessing the suitabilityof candidates and the identifying circumstances can be only,(i)common qualifying examination which wouldenable comparison of the relative merit ofcandidates;(ii)a single/same Interview Committee thatinterviewed every candidate; and(iii)admission was based on a consensus takinginto account the views of each member of thecommon Interview Committee.7(f). He would also submit that inasmuch as there are no normsprescribed for admission, which is objective and transparent, theinterview by which 60% of mark is given cannot be treated astransparent and it will only result in nepotism and arbitrariness.7(g). He further submit that the interview process even if itis legal, it must be connected with the object to which the candidateis seeking admission. His further submission is that the firstrespondent has never revealed the selection process, the initialand/or final results. He would submit that the selection process inthe interview based on poverty; overcoming social/family hardship andsocietal/charitable activity was identified only in respect of onecandidate as per the papers produced before the Court. Therefore,according to him, the entire process of selection followed by theInstitution are opposed to the triple test of merit, transparency andnon-exploitative.8. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Divan, learned senior counselappearing for the Institution while referring to the special featuresand unique nature of the Institution has forcefully contended that theuniqueness of this Institution has been consistently recognised by theSupreme Court from 1993 in various orders passed from time to time,including the latest judgement in P.A. Inamdar's case (2004 (8) SCC139). He would submit that uniqueness of the Institution lies in thecommitment to the care of the under privileged, women and childrenfollowing the footsteps of the founder Dr.Ida Sophia Scudder. Hewould also submit that the tuition fee charged for MBBS course for thelast several years is only Rs.3000/- per annum, much less than the feefixed by the State Government in its Medical Colleges and also lowerthan the fee fixed by the Committees constituted as per the directionof the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would submit that the motivation isto serve through the selection process and strengthen by modifiedGurukul system of education with compulsory residence in hostels andassigning students as “Foster Children” to Faculty families. The ideais to create a potent re-inforcing factor. He would submit that theInstitution has been admitting students on All India basis with anEntrance Examination and interview from 1948 and the same has neverbeen challenged at any point of time in any Court of law and according https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to him the system evolved by the Institution has been subsequentlyfollowed by other institutions like All India Institute of MedicalSciences. He would also submit that every single student called forinterview is academically meritorious and qualified to undergo thetraining as a Doctor and elaborate interview process assesses thesuitability and adaptability for that training to be imparted in theInstitution, which is unique in keeping with its mission andobjectives. 8(a). He would elaborately clarify as to how the interview wasconducted for three days with a close scrutiny of candidates at everystage and as to how the Group Observers have spend with the candidatesto assess their suitability for training at Vellore. He has submittedthat the Group Observers are from senior faculty of the Institutionwho interview them individually based on the pre-established criteriaand guidelines to assess their suitability for being trained asDoctors at the Institution. He has also taken pain to explain thestanine system, as to how the system has been acclaimed world wide andfollowed without any objections from any part and he has alsoexplained as to how the grading system in respect of each subjectshave been in stanine mode and as to how they are converted from Gradeto Score and Score added upto Preliminary Test Average (PTA) Grade. 8(b). The learned senior counsel would also place reliance onthe judgement of the Supreme Court in St. Stephen's College vs.University of Delhi (1992 (1) SCC 558), wherein the Supreme Court haspermitted to allot 100% marks for interview having regard to theobjective and purpose for which the Institution was established, bytaking into consideration of the judgement in Ajay Hasia's case (1981(1) SCC 722) and the same was subsequently considered and approved bythe 11 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pail Foundation case(2002 (8) SCC 481). 8(c). He would also submit that short listing of candidatesfor calling for interview was based on academic merit by taking intoconsideration of marks in each one of the five subjects in theentrance examination and by Grading Standard Nine or Stanine system.In respect of the reservation of six seats for children of staff hewould refer to the judgement of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar'scase, wherein the allotment of seats under NRI category subject to notexceeding 15% for the purpose of utilising the money received underthe said category for benefiting the students, such as economicallyweaker section of the society was approved. 8(d). According to the learned senior counsel, the firstrespondent Institution does not have the NRI quota or Management quotaor any reservation for the Founders of the Institution and the sixseats are given to the benefit of the staff of the Institution, whoare the human wealth, to whom the small privilege has been extended.He would also submit even allotment of six seats are clearly based onthe guidelines as stated in the prospectus, viz., that the staffmembers should have completed 10 continuous years of service in theInstitution or retired or died after having worked in the Institutionfor 10 continuous years, for whose children, the criteria ofeligibility has been conferred, of course by following the merit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ system. He would also submit that such reservation is having areasonable and intelligible differentia and having a rational basis.8(e). He would also submit that the Institution is a All IndiaInstitution having been established in the year 1900, catering to theneeds of the minority, viz., Christian, and therefore, it cannot besaid that it should cater to the required needs of the Christianminority from the State of Tamil Nadu alone, especially when All Indiacharacter of the Institution has been recognised by the Universally. 8(f). He would submit that in respect of the admission ofChristian students from States where they are majority, it is onlysprinkling number of students who have been admitted and that is alsorecognised by the Supreme Court in Kerala Educational Bill case (AIR1958 SC 956).9. We have heard Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned seniorcounsel for the appellant in WA.No.812 of 2007, Mr. Vineet Subramani,learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.494 and 495 of 2007 andMr. Anil Divan, learned senior counsel for the Institution and perusedthe order of the learned single Judge apart from all other records.10. On the total analysis of the issues involved in this case,the following points are arise for consideration:(i)Whether the process of selection and itsprocedure and method followed by the Institutionfor selection of First Year MBBS course in theyear 2006-2007 is fair and can be treated as theselection based on merit and transparent.Broadly this includes the marks allotted for thecompetitive written examination, group tasks andthe validity and legality of allotment of 40%marks for interview and the method of StanineGrading system?(ii)As a minority educational Institution claimingprotection under Article 30 of the Constitutionof India, can the Institution be permitted toadmit only a few students belonging to theminority religion from the State of Tamil Nadu,while the test for determining minority is byway of State as the unit?(iii)Whether the reservation of six seats for thechildren of eligible members of the staff of theInstitution is reasonable?(iv)Whether the reservation of 10 seats for thecandidates from socially and economicallybackward States is permissible, when the Statesfrom which students were admitted were notminority in respect of Christian religion basedon population? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. Before adverting to the above said points, we are of theview that consideration of the nature of the Institution, objects forwhich it was started and its working in these years and also thevarious orders passed by the Apex Court in respect of the Institutionrelating to the manner of admission, will give a definite and lastingsolution to the issues involved in this case.12. The Christian Medical College, Vellore, which is governedby a registered Society called Vellore Christian Medical CollegeAssociation enumerates in its bye-laws, its objectives as "theestablishment, maintenance and development of Christian MedicalCollege and Hospitals in India, where women and men shall receive aneducation of the highest grade in the Art and Science of Medicine andof Nursing, or in one or other of the related professions, to equipthem in the spirit of Christ for service in the relief of sufferingand the promotion of health." The Institution is an Un-aided,Minority Educational Institution, without collecting capitation feesfrom the students and is in existence for over 100 years. In the pastnearly 55 years, the Institution has been following the method ofadmission on the All India Entrance Examination, followed by an in-depth interview. 13. The Institution was started in the year 1891, when 21 yearold Ida Sophia Scudder, the daughter of an American Missionary stayingin Tindivanam was virtually affected by the death of three youngIndian women during child birth for want of proper medical aid. Itwas with the idea that the women in India needed women Doctors to lookafter them, the said Ida Scudder is stated to have returned toUnited States and graduated as the First Woman Doctor from CornellUniversity and after obtaining training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology,she returned to India in 1900 and started a small clinic at Vellore.Thereafter, she started Training Compounders in 1903 and Nurses in1909. Due to the intervention of the First World War, she was able tostart the Missionary Medical School for Women, to make them as alicentiate medical practitioner only in the year 1918. In 1942, thecourse was upgraded to MBBS course, affiliated to Madras University.Admission was thrown open for the MBBS course in the year 1947.Initially, the Institution which was started in the Madras Presidency,which included the present Tamil Nadu and other States of Kerala,Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, and gradually the activities of theInstitution was expanded by making the admission of students on AllIndia Entrance Examination followed by an in-depth interview from theyear 1948. In the year 1960, the number of intake of under-graduateMBBS students was increased to 60 and thereafter, large number ofHigher Speciality Courses, Post-graduate Medical courses, AlliedHealth Science courses and Courses in Nursing have been developed. 14. It is also stated by the Institution that on the analysisof the data in the Alumni Office of the Institution in 2002, it hasshown that upto 1992, 66% of the Medical Graduates from theInstitution were serving in India and 4 out of 5 of them were in Ruralareas. The Institution is the first in the country to admit studentson All India basis with an Entrance Examination and interview from1948 and it also remains a fact that till date the admissionprocedure has not been challenged in any Court of law, except in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present writ proceedings. Therefore, the emphasis is on theobjectives of the Institution to the ideal of service to thedisadvantaged and the marginalised based on the mandate by Christ andit is in accordance with the said ideology the process of selection ismade. It is with that background the selection process as enumeratedabove have been followed by the Institution in these long number ofyears.15. The said procedure which are unique and followed by theInstitution under the special circumstances stated above, viz., inaccordance with the spirit of the religious and service motive hasbeen consistently recognised by the Supreme Court from 1993, as it isseen on records. It is on record that the Institution, in 1993, hasapproached the Apex Court by filing W.P.No.482 of 1993, which is alsostated to be forming part of the batch of cases decided in T.M.A. PaiFoundation case (2002(8) SCC 481). That was the time when based onthe judgement of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan's case (1993(4)SCC 111), the State Government has directed the Institution and otherInstitutions to implement the Scheme framed in the above case. Thesaid writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia, challenging the said action of the State Government and theApex Court by an interim order dated 05.07.1997, while admitting thewrit petition passed as follows:"Issue notice returnable within 10 days. In the meantime, the State of Tamil Nadu shall notallot any seat in the petitioner Institution foradmission to any other candidate not selected bythe petitioner. "The Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while dealing withthe prayer in the said Writ Petition, viz., W.P.No.482 of 1993 andtaking note of the fact that the admission in the Institution is doneon the basis of merit, without capitation fee, fee charged is not morethan the one charged by the Governmental Institutions and there hasbeen no complaint about the working of the Institution, has permittedthe Institution including another Institution to admit students byfollowing the procedure on the basis of the admission done in earlieryears, however, stating that it is open to the Government to bring anyirregularities pointed out and if such irregularities are brought tothe notice of the Court, it would result in serious consequences.That was the judgement rendered in Shahal H. Musaliar vs. State ofKerala (1993 (4) SCC 112). The following portion are relevant for thepurpose of this case."15. The petitioner in W.P. No. 482 of 1993runs a medical college at Vellore in the State ofTamil Nadu. According to the petitioner, it is awell-reputed institution, admission to which ismade on the basis of an All-India entrance testconducted by the petitioner. It is stated thatadmissions are made on the basis of merit. It issubmitted further that the college does not chargeany capitation fee, that the fees charged by it isnot more than the fees chargeable in similar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ governmental institutions and that there has neverbeen any complaint about the working of thepetitioner-institution. Shri Sitaraman, learnedcounsel for the State of Tamil Nadu does notdispute the above averments though we may recordagain that no counter has as yet been filed in thematter. It is submitted by Shri Salve for thepetitioner that during the vacations, a learnedSingle Judge has made an interim order in thiswrit petition directing the State of Tamil Nadunot to allot any seats to the petitioner-institution for admission of candidates notselected by the petitioner. Shri Salve, learnedcounsel for the petitioner submitted further thatthe process of admission is complete thoughadmissions as such have not been made in view ofthe aforesaid orders of this Court. 16. Having regard to the abovecircumstances, we permit the petitioners in theabove two writ petitions to admit students totheir colleges on the basis of entrance testconducted by them and on the same basis on whichadmissions were made by them in the said collegesin the previous academic year. After completingthe admissions, the petitioners shall furnish fullparticulars of the students admitted, thecategories, if any, whereunder they were admittedand all other particulars relating to theiradmission. This information should be furnished tothe competent authority, to the University towhich the said colleges are affiliated and to theSecretary, Education Department, Government ofKarnataka/Tamil Nadu. The said authorities shallverify whether the admissions have been made bythe petitioners in accordance with the directionsgiven herein. In case of irregularity, any of thesaid authorities shall be entitled to call uponthe petitioner to rectify the said irregularity.It shall also be open to the competent authority,University and the Government of Karnataka/TamilNadu to bring any such irregularity to the noticeof this Court by way of an interlocutoryapplication for appropriate orders in that behalf.It is made clear that any violation of thedirections given herein by the petitioners shallentail serious consequences inasmuch as the aboveorders are made based upon their representationsand even before a counter-affidavit has been filedby the respective respondents in view of theurgency expressed by them." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. That was again reiterated by the Five Judge ConstitutionBench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka andothers in W.P.No.555 of 1993 dated 05.04.1994, in which W.P.No.482 of1993, filed by the Institution was also forming part. The order runsas under:"... Similarly as regards Writ Petition No.482 of1993, it was observed that according to thepetitioner in that case the medical college run byit at Vellore in the State of Tamil Nadu is a wellreputed institution, admission to which is made onthe basis of All-India entrance test conducted bythe petitioner and that the admissions are made onthe basis of merit and the fee charged by it isnot more than the fees chargeable in similargovernmental institutions and that there has neverbeen any complaint about the working of thisinstitution and it was observed that this fact wasnot disputed by Shri Sitaraman, learned counselfor the State of Tamil Nadu. ..."17. Likewise, in I.A.No.5A in WP.(C)No.482 of 1993 filed bythe Institution for the year 1995-1996, the Apex Court by order dated06.03.1995, permitted it to follow the same process of admission,which reads as under:"The petitioner may grant admission foracademic year 1995-96 for the MBBS First YearCourse and also the other allied courses as perdirections contained in the interim order of thisCourt dated August 18, 1993 and April 5, 1994 byconducting their own entrance test examination.I.A. is disposed of accordingly.This court has been permitting the holdingof entrance tests by the institutions themselvesfor the last 3 years by interim orders. TheRegistry to place the papers before Hon'ble theChief Justice for obtaining fresh directionsregarding constitution of the 7 Judge Bench tohear the case which was already heard by the 7Judge Bench at length."18. Similar orders were passed by the Apex Court for 1996-1997in I.A.No.6 in W.P.(C)No.482 of 1993 dated 01.02.1996; for theacademic year 1997-1998 in I.A.No.7 in WP.(C)No.482 of 1993 dated29.01.1997; for 1998-1999 in I.A.No.8 in WP.(C)No.482 of 1993 dated16.01.1998. Ultimately, it was in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, theApex Court has delivered judgement on 31.10.2002, recognising therights of minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution of India andalso the rights of Un-aided Minorities like that of the firstrespondent Institution. The Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundationcase has prescribed certain percentage of seats to be allotted to theGovernment to satisfy the local needs in para 68, which reads asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "68. .... For instance, a certain percentage ofthe seats can be reserved for admission by themanagement out of those students who have passedthe common entrance test held by itself or by theState/university and have applied to the collegeconcerned for admission, while the rest of theseats may be filled up on the basis of counsellingby the State agency. This will incidentally takecare of poorer and backward sections of thesociety. The prescription of percentage for thispurpose has to be done by the Government accordingto the local needs and different percentages canbe fixed for minority unaided and non-minorityunaided and professional colleges. ... "19. It is based on the said paragraph of the judgement of theSupreme Court, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.Nos.96 and 99,requiring the Institution to admit students only in respect of 60% ofthe seats from the minority quota preferably from the All India CommonEntrance Test held by the Institution and the balance 40% to be givento the State Government to be filled up through the Common EntranceTest held by the Government. It was challenging the said GovernmentOrder, the Institution has filed W.P.No.261 of 2003 in the SupremeCourt and by a detailed interim order dated 03.07.2003, permitting theInstitution to follow the same procedure for the academic year 2003-2004, the Apex Court has ordered as follows:"Heard on the question of grant of interim relief.It is not disputed that the petitioner-institution isan unaided minority medical college and theadmissions are made on merit based on All IndiaCommon Entrance Test conducted by the petitioner.The learned counsel for the petitioner states thatthe petitioner College does not charge any capitationfee. The college has 60 seats for M.B.B.S. Course.Presently the seats are being filled up in thefollowing manner:Seats reserved for Minority Community 45Seats kept apart voluntarily by the petitioner Institutionfor the following categories:1. Open Merit 72. SC/ST 33. Economically Disadvantaged 44. Central Government nominee 1 ----Total 60 ------- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The learned counsel for the parties havemade their extensive submissions based on the 11Judge Bench decision of this court in T.M.A. PaiFoundation and others vs. State of Karnataka andothers in (2002(8) SCC 481). Our attention hasbeen invited, in particular, to paragraph Nos.68,138, 139, 144, 145, 149 and 161 (question No.4 andanswer thereto). Prima facie, we are of theopinion that the allotment of seats in an unaidedMinority Institution cannot be controlled by theGovernment. It is therefore, directed that forthe current year i.e. 2003-2004 the allotment ofseats shall be done in the same manner as has beendone hitherto i.e. 45 seats shall be reserved forMinority Community and 15 seats shall b e keptapart from the categories – open merit, SC/ST,economically disadvantaged and the CentralGovernment nominees, as has been done before.This is an interim arrangement and shallbe subject to final decision in the writ petition.However, all these allotments shall bewithout violating the rule of merit. "20. Again, the said writ petition filed by the Institution washeard by the Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court togetherwith several related matters in Islamic Academy of Education vs. Stateof Karnataka (2003 (6) SCC 697), wherein also the Supreme Court hasagain recognised the special features of the first respondentInstitution in para 17, as follows:"17. At this juncture it is brought to ournotice that several institutions, have since long,had their own admission procedure and that eventhough they have been admitting only students oftheir own community no finger has ever been raisedagainst them and no complaints have been maderegarding fairness or transparency of theadmission procedure adopted by them. Theseinstitutions submit that they have specialfeatures and that they stand on a differentfooting from other minority non-aided professionalinstitutions. It is submitted that their casesare not based only on the right flowing fromArticle 30(1) but in addition they have somespecial features which require that they bepermitted to admit in the manner they have beendoing for all these years. A reference is made tofew such institutions i.e. Christian Medicalcollege, Vellore, St. John's Hospital, IslamicAcademy of Education et. The claim of theseinstitutions was disputed. However, we do notthink it necessary to go into those questions. Weleave it open to the institutions which have beenestablished and who have had their own admission https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ procedure for, at least, the last 25 years toapply to the Committee set out hereinafter. "21. It was consequent on the judgement of the ConstitutionBench in Islamic Academy Education case stated above, the SupremeCourt has disposed of W.P.No.261 of 2003, filed by the Institution on18.09.2003 with the following order:"Notwithstanding, the orders of resolutionsmade by the Government, if any, these matters aredisposed of in the same terms as set forth in thedecision of this Court in Writ PetitionNo.317/1993-T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors.Etc. Vs.State of Karnataka & Ors.Etc. And connected batchdecided on 31st October, 2002 and in Writ Petition(C) No.350 of 1993-Islamic Academy of Educationand Ar. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. Andconnected batch reported in 2003 (6) SCALE 325.All statutory enactments, orders, schemesregulations will have to be brought in conformitywith the decision of the Constitution Bench ofthis Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case decidedon 31.10.2002. As and when any problem arises thesame can be dealt with by an appropriate Forum inan appropriate proceedings. "Therefore, it is clear that during 1993 to 2003, the Institution hasbeen permitted by the Apex Court to follow its own procedure inadmitting students. 22. It is the case of the Institution that after the judgementdelivered in Islamic Academy Education case, permitting theconstitution of Committees to supervise the admission and feesprocedures and inasmuch as the Committee was not constituted by theState Government, the Institution again filed W.P.No.7380 of 2004before this Court, challenging the order of the Government in issuingdirection to the Institution, without constituting a Committee andthis Court by an order dated 24.03.2004 in WPMP.Nos.8725 to 8727 of2004 in W.P.Nos.7379 and 7380 of 2004, has permitted the Institutionto follow the same procedure of admission in respect of the academicyear 2004-2005 as follows:"2. In view of the decision of the SupremeCourt in 2003 (6) SCC 697 (cited supra): theearlier orders of the Supreme Court in W.P.Nos.261of 2003 & 482 of 1993 and other series of orderspassed by the Supreme Court allowing thepetitioner to follow the earlier arrangement,there will be an order interim stay of theimpugned order as prayed for and interiminjunction is also granted for the very samereasoning. Learned Government Pleader is directedto take notice." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and it was thereafter, the State Government has constituted TwoCommittees, one for supervising the admissions and another for feesstructure.23. It is also relevant to point out that in the meantime, theSupreme Court was moved by some of the Institutions similar to that ofthe first respondent for clarification to follow the same procedure ofadmission, since there appeared to be a conflict between paragraphs 17and 19. Ultimately, the Apex Court by order dated 30.07.2004 passedin W.P.No.330 of 2004 has given clarification to the said paragraphsin Islamic Academy case in 2003(6) SCC 697, which was as follows:"There appears to be an obvious conflictbetween paragraph-17 and paragraph-19. For thetime being, we prefer to adopt the reasoning inpara-17 which allows a minority professionalinstitute which has been carrying on the sameprocedure for the last more than 25 years to adoptits own procedure for admission in respect of itsinstitution. "24. The said writ petition, viz., W.P.No.330 of 2004, in whichthe first respondent Institution has filed an intervening petition,viz., I.A.No.5 of 2005 was decided along with large number of batchof cases by the Supreme Court in the recent pronouncement in P.A.Inamdhar and others vs. State of Maharashtra (2005 (6) SCC 537). TheSupreme Court has again confirmed about the unique feature and theadmission procedure of the minority educational institutions,delivered judgement on 12.08.2005 in the following words."17. The majority opinion carved out anexception in favour of those minority educationalprofessional institutions which were establishedand were having their own admission procedure forat least 25 years from the requirement of joiningany common entrance test, and such institutionswere permitted to have their own admissionprocedure. The State Governments were directed toappoint a permanent Committee to ensure that thetests conducted by the association of colleges arefair and transparent.”25. In the meantime, based on the consistent orders of theSupreme Court, the first respondent Institution has filed anapplication before the Permanent Committee for Common Entrance Testfor Private Educational Institutions in Tamil Nadu, seeking permissionto have their own admission procedure. That petition was dismissed bythe said Committee on 12.07.2005. On the application filed by thefirst respondent Institution in I.A.No.6 of 2005 in W.P.(C).No.261 of2003, praying for an order of stay of the Committee's order dated12.07.2005, the Supreme Court in the order dated 25.07.2005, whilegranting stay has permitted the first respondent Institution toconduct admission for the year 2005-2006 in the same manner as it wasdone in 2004-2005 as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ " Having heard the learned counsel for theparties and pending decision by the ConstitutionBench in S.L.P.(C).No.9932 of 2004 and connectedmatters, we stay the operation of the order of theCommittee dated 12th July, 2005 and permit theapplicant-College to conduct the admissions in thesame manner in which it was conducted in the Lastacademic year i.e.2004-2005."26. With the disposal of all the cases in the recent judgementof the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdhar's case, the applications and theWrit Petitions have got merged. Therefore, the Institution has movedthis Court by filing W.P.37245 of 2005 and prayed for an order of stayof the Committee's order dated 12.07.2005 and this Court by orderdated 18.11.2005 in WPMP.No.39877 of 2005 in W.P.No.37245 of 2005, hasgranted an order of interim stay. In the mean time, for the year2006-2007, when an application was made before the Committee, theCommittee, after elaborate enquiry, has passed orders on 10.06.2006,accepting the procedure of admission followed by the Institution,however, rejecting the reservation of six seats for admission of staffof the Institution, against which the Institution has filedW.P.No.18384 of 2006.27. In this regard, it is relevant to point out the order ofthe Permanent Committee for Common Entrance Test for PrivateEducational Institutions dated 10.06.2006, which reads as follows:"For the above reasons we hold that exceptfor clause(b) of para 21 of the representation,the procedure for admission seems to be fair andall the seats are to be filled up by commonentrance test and from the brochure, it is seenthat is transparent. The fee fixed by theinstitution also seems to be non exploitative andto a certain extent much less than what theGovernment has fixed. That condition alsosatisfies in this case.6 Seats which are now reserved forchildren of staff of Christian Medical Collegewill have to be distributed among candidates byopen merit quota or open quota of Christianminority candidates. There can be no reservationfor members of staff of the college.The fact that the college has beenfollowing its own admission procedure ever since1948 is not a matter of dispute. It is true thatfrom 1993 onwards there was litigation and on thebasis of interim orders, the college was allowedto follow its own procedure by the Apex Court. As per the orders of the Supreme Court,the college was also submitting the statementsexplaining the basis on which admissions are made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The same was not questioned by the State tilldate. It is true that these interim orders wereobtained at a time when no objection was filed bythe State. But that cannot be an answer to saythat admissions so far made is neither fair,transparent or non exploitative.The special feature which have alreadyextracted also shows that this institution iscommitted to certain ideals. It is only proper onour part to take note of the special surveyconducted by India Today - AC Nielsen - ORG - MARGsurvey of colleges published in India Today issuedated 5.6.2006. About the applicant college, itis stated thus "At CMC, Vellore quality educationis a given. With a unique spread of courses, theinstitute has won accolades for its communityhealth and development programmes, which coverlakhs among the local population. The college isalso involved in epidemiological studies and hasrecently tied up with the Department ofBiotechnology to promote translational research instem cells. In many ways, CMC is only living upto its motto: "Not to be Ministered unto, but toMinister".Even though Committee is not bound toaccept the statement, that does not prevent us totake note of the reputation of the college and itscommitment. We find that during the year 2002 CMC,Vellore ranked first among all the medicalinstitutions in India and in the year 2006, it hasgot 2nd rank. Apart from all the above facts, it is alsoevident that candidates who pass the graduationcourse will have to serve at place where moremedical facilities are needed. They are asked toserve in rural areas. In case the candidate failsto do so, he has to face contain seriousconsequences. The readiness of the candidate toserve the needy is a matter which is taken intoconsideration by the institutions whileconsidering merit. What the institution does is ateam or a missionary work.Taking into consideration the above factsand special features, we are of the view thatpermission could be granted to CMC, Vellore tohave their own admission procedure subject to whatis stated above. We further direct thatimmediately after the admissions are over, thecollege has to submit to the Committee and theDirectors of Medical Education the followingparticulars. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. Copies of total number of applicationsreceived for common entrance test and admission.2. Rank list of all the candidates alongwith the marks obtained in eligibilityqualification examination and CET with roll Nos.inboth examination.3. Admission list of all candidates withtheir roll No.in qualifying examination and CETalong with all supporting documents submitted bythe candidates at the time of admission.4. Such other particulars which theCommittee may ask for should also be submitted."28. Therefore, the entire analysis of the indisputable factsand the consecutive orders of the Apex court in permitting theInstitution to proceed with its procedure as narrated by the PermanentCommittee constituted by the State Government itself shows as astanding testimony and approval by the Apex Court for the procedurefollowed by the Institution in the matter of admission to MBBS coursein these years. While so, the power of judicial review of this Courtin this regard should be limited in the interest of maintainingjudicial discipline. However, since the above points are raised inthese appeals, we would proceed to answer the same keeping in mind theconsistent approval of the manner of selection made by the Institutionin these years by the highest Court in the country.29. In respect of the process of selection, one of the mainpoints raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants isthat, the conversion of marks into a grading system under Staninegrading is not transparent and therefore it cannot be said that theselection based on the said method should be deemed to be on meritbasis. Regarding this process, it is relevant to point out that thefirst respondent Institution conducts All India Common Entranceexamination on 5 papers, viz., Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Generalability and Speed and Accuracy with each paper having 60 multiplechoice objective questions that carry one mark each with a total of 60marks per paper and a total of 300 marks for the five papers together.30. It is seen that each year new questions are invited fromteachers in High Schools/Colleges in different parts of the countryand are added to the question bank maintained by the first respondentInstitution and the questions which are used are deleted and thepapers for each year are newly formulated with a balance of evaluatedquestions from earlier years and new questions. When the admissionprocess starts by December of the previous year, the question papersare prepared and kept under the safe custody. Optical Mark Readable(OMR) answer sheets are also obtained, each sheet scanned to ensurethat no additional markings are present, and then sealed by theRegistrar and the said process is completed in the middle of April. 31. The All India Entrance Examination, was held on 26th May,2006 for the year 2006-2007 and the process of valuation commenced.As stated by the first respondent Institution, the marks obtained ineach of the 5 papers were divided statistically into nine equal bands.Candidates in the highest 4 percentile graded as A, the next 7percentile as B+ and so on till the last or 9th Grade is U, the lowest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 percentile. This banding is done by a computer program.Thereafter, the process of grading starts, where the highest markobtained by a candidate in the subject is taken as 100 percent inworking out the percentiles. The highest mark in Biology in 2006 was54/60, the lowest marks in Grade A-47.2/60, and the highest mark inGrade B+ 47.0/60.32. It was, at this stage, the marks in individual papers areconverted to grades and there is no overlap of marks at the borderbetween two grades when candidates are ranked in descending orderaccording to the marks secured by them in each subject. The lowestmark in Stanine Grade A was 47.0 and the highest mark in Stanine GradeB+ was 46.8. The concept of Stanine Grade is as follows:Stanine Grade 1 1 (A)-4%Very superior 2 (B+)-7%Superior 3 (B)-11%Considerably aboveaverage 4 (C+) -17%Slightly above average 5 (C)-22%Just average 6 (C-) -17%Slightly below average 7 (D) -11%Considerably below average 8 (F) -7%PoorStanine Grade 9 (U) -4%Very Poor33. The Stanine Grading for 2006-2007 in each subject as givenin the table runs as follows:PhysicsChemistryBiologyGeneralAbilitySpeed andAccuracyHighLowHighLow HighLowHighLowHighLowA49.439.255.047.054.047.2 55.046.4 52.841.2B39.035.2 46.843.247.044.446.243.041.036.4C35.0314338.844.241.042.839.636.231.8Therefore, the Grades are assigned for each of the 5 papers in AllIndia Entrance Examination, then they are given an equivalentnumerical score, wherein the higher grade is given a score of 1 andthe last grade is given a score of 9 in the following manner:GradeA BB+ C C+ C- D F UScore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9The composite grade of all the five subjects to determine academicmerit in the All India Entrance Examination or the "Preliminary TestAverage" (PTA) the numeric score for each candidate in each of thefive papers is added and a new stanine derived and final score rangeis determined as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GradeTotal Number ofStudents in GradeTotal scorerange for eachgradeHighest markin GradeLowest markin GradeA3655-10254.8202.2B+68311-14220.6186.0B98415-18197.8165.2Therefore, by demonstration it is clear that theoretically a candidatewho performs consistently and has a B+ grade in all 5 papers wouldhave been in a final Grade of A , even though the candidate was not inthe A grade for even one subject. It is stated that the said staninesystem scoring is widely recognised and followed inter-nationally andthe first respondent Institution has been following it for the past 5decades, about which admittedly, there is no complaint in these years.34. Likewise, interview is conducted for three days withthree assessments for Minority candidates. For bible knowledge to thescore of 10 marks stanine grade is assigned. That apart, in case oftasks for 20 marks, each candidate is given 4 tasks, two are grouptasks and two are individual tasks. Each task is carefully designedand a number of characteristics are marked by atleast three TestObservers, viz., Senior Most Faculty Members of the first respondentInstitution. For each task, independently a final stanine grade isassigned. That apart, it is stated that two senior faculty areassigned to groups of 6 to 8 candidates, who are grouped according totheir age and sex and the Group Observers spend two days with thegroup interview with them individually in depth and in additionobserve them as part of the group during tasks and during meal timesetc. and based on a pre-agreed scheme write a detailed report on thecandidate and assign a grade from A to U based on the characteristicsdetailed in the report.35. We have gone through some of the detailed reports given bythe Group Observers in respect of selected and non-selectedcandidates. We have also gone through the report of Group Observersin respect of P. Arunkumar, appellant in W.A.No.494 of 2007, whichreads as under:"18 year old boy; both parents-teachers;from a middle class background in South India. Hisfather seems to be a strict disciplinarian, withwhom he seems to have limited interaction. Hismother has been his confidant. Though he studiedin an English medium school, he has difficulty inexpressing himself in English, and so was slightlyanxious in the beginning. He has severalrelatives in the medical field - though none fromhis immediate family. He spent a year at acoaching class for MBBS after the twelfthstandard. His "weak" subject was Biology-as hefound it difficult to 'memorize' the details. Hewon a few interschool table tennis, competitionsin his junior school, but had to give up his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ activities after the 10th standard. He says heused to collect stamps and look after fish when hewas young-though he admits he was not very seriousabout them. He has no other hobby; and does notread books or participate in quiz/debatingcompetitions. His knowledge of current activitiesincluding the Middle East problems is average. Heis aware of the local politics in his town, thoughhas no active involvement in it. He is a memberof the youth fellowship at church, and is regularin attendance in church. However, there does notseem to be any involvement of significant depth.He is tolerant of all religions.In the group tasks, he was more of apassive participant-though not disruptive. He wasnot pushy. He had problems with ragging while ina hostel - on language issues - but being thevictim, could not react - though was reduced totears on several occasions. He had visited a fewCSI hospitals (for a few hours) on the advice ofhis aunt before coming to CMC. He visited thegeneral ward in one hospital, but does not seem tohave been struck by any specific aspect of thework there. He has not done any social service ofnote, and does not seem to have thought about thehealing ministry of the church and its hospitals.Commitment to serve - 5/10Christian Commitment-6/10"We have also gone through a similar report in respect of anotherappellant-J. Jotheebun and also another selected candidates. We feelit relevant to reproduce the reports in respect of two selectedcandidates.“19-year old Aneez Joseph is a quiet andcharming girl from a rural area in south India.Her father is a daily wage construction worker,and her mother a house wife. Most of herchildhood friends did not pursue studies actively,but Aneez's parents saw the potention in her andencouraged her to pursue her studies. Herexcellent performances in school saw her teachers,friends and relatives pitch in to help with schoolfees, uniforms, books and all other needs that herparents could not meet for her due to theireconomic hardships. She consistently topped herclass till class X; coming to an English-mediumschool for the first time in Standard XI saw hergrades slip momentarily, but she was back at thetop of her class in Standard XII. Family problemssuch as a major illness that her father wentthrough as well as his recurrent problem withalcohol have not distracted her single mindedness https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ towards studies.Her extra-curricular activities includeembroidery and reading. She is a constant help toher mother around the home, and has also been partof a team that swept the class rooms. The absenceof Sunday school teachers in her church has madeher take up that role as well from time to tome.She has a simple faith, and is able to drawstrength from her belief in God,rather than lookfor sympathy from others around her.Her primary drive to excel in studies isto reach a position where she can be of use toother lesser privileged members of her community.She has been helping other younger children in herneighborhood with their studies, and sometimes hasreceived small amounts of financial compensationfor these efforts. She has also periodicallyvisited disabled children's homes to spend sometime with them and buying sweets to share withthem. Her firsthand experience of economichardships is combined with a deep desire to be ofuse to her social situation. She has beeninfluenced by reading the life story of MotherTeresa, and is challenged by her model of selflessservice.Although she evidently has somelimitations in conversing in English fluently, shecheerfully participated in the group tasks, andher language limitations did not come in the wayof the relationships she built with her colleaguesin the group.Her quiet determination and confidencemarks her out as a person who will make the mostof any opportunities that will come her way, and,in my opinion, the CMC environment will providejust the right spark she needs to go a long way.COMMITMENT TO SERVE +CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT +”“This quiet and soft-spoken nineteen yearold girl comes from an economically disadvantagedbackground in a rural area. Her father is aconstruction worker, her mother is a housewife andshe has a sister who is four years younger to her.Her father lost his job in a company when she wasseven years old. Since then he has been a dailywage earner, dependent on the availability ofwork, as a manual labourer at construction sites.The family has had several major upheavals sincethe father lost his job. They were staying withher grandfather in the family home till she was inthe IVth Standard. Following a quarrel, herfather was sent out of the joint family home.They moved into a thatched one room hut without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ electricity or water and stayed there for threeyears. She has memories of studying with alantern, fearful if the rain would come in and wether books and afraid that family members would beunkind to her. With help from one of her father'sbrother's they moved into two rented rooms. Whenshe was in the Xth standard, her father had a headinjury following an accident and though he is nowable to go to work, he has not regained his memoryand lacks confidence to do even simple tasks onhis own. Last year he inherited 5 cents of landfrom his father and with the help of a loan theyhave been able to construct a two room house wherethey now live. Ever since her father lost his jobhe started drinking alcohol (toddy). Earlier onit was in moderation but now most evenings he isunder the influence of alcohol and dependent onit. When he is in a clear mind he is veryconcerned about his family but the rest of thetime he is abusive though he has not harmed eitherhis wife or daughters physically.She has studied in Catholic schools andtopped her class from the kindergarten up to theXth Standard in the vernacular medium. She thenmoved to an English medium school and within ayear was back again at the top of the class. Shewas the school topper in the XIIth Standard and inBiology. She won proficiency prizes in all theclasses except in the XIth Standard when shechanged the medium of instruction. She was madethe ambassador of the school in an inter-schoolquiz and also represented the school in districtlevel mathematics competitions, winning a trophy.Every year she received many books as proficiencyprizes and these have been her resource forreading besides the school libraries. One of thesisters from the taught her embroidery and she hastaken part in district level embroiderycompetitions. She has received certificates andcash awards in the school moral scienceexaminations and an award from the Panchayat forscoring high marks.Her other hobbies include flower makingand dress painting. She dans her own clothes,helps her mother in the house and would also sweepthe school rooms after class. Her recentinnovation has been to take sacks of mud to theterrace of their house and plant vegetables likeladies finger and beans for the family use. Shehas taken tuition regularly for neighbouringchildren of various ages. She has not asked forpayment but some of the parents have given hersmall amounts in appreciation of her help. Thereis a home of disabled adults called the “Home ofFaith” very close to her home where her aunt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (mother's sister) is an inmate due to mentaldisability. She regularly visits the home andspends time there and helps in small ways. She isvery sensitive to people in need and feels drawnto help them. She has been an emotional supportto a friend whose father has had to leave the homebecause of substance abuse.Her English comprehension is good she canunderstand conversation fairly well though herexpressive language is limited. She had not hadthe opportunity to hear much spoken English tillthe Xth Standard, however her English teacher in+2 commends her diligence and dedication to learnwhich helped her to do well in plus 2 in Englishmedium. As she has such a keen motivation toachieve her goal I think she will soon developadequate language skills.Even though she was one of the quietergirls in the group she related well with theothers and joined in with the group activities.She was friendly and did not shy away frominteracting with them. She took the initiative tomake comments during the group discussions inspite of the limitations of language.The family worship regularly in a Churchwhich consists mainly of people from low incomegroup. She has taken part in Church activitieswith enthusiasm. She was a regular member of theSunday school and has won prizes in quizzes. Nowshe is a member of the youth group and herinvolvement include taking part in retreats, biblereading and teaching classes. The youth groupcollects clothes and food and takes it regularlyto “Mother Theresa” orphanage and she has been oneof the leaders in this involvement. Her motherhas been her inspiration and though she has onlypassed SSLC she has a strong faith and hasencouraged her children to trust in God. Hersimplicity and thrift have enabled the family tosurvive on so little. Both her parents haveencouraged her to study inspite of her father'sdependence on alcohol he communicates his love toher and so she is able to look at him with empathyrather than disdain. She says she has sufferedbecause of the abject poverty she has faced, whensometimes there has been no food to eat. Yet sheis grateful to God who has provided so that theyhave never starved and there has always been aroof over her head even if it has been only athatched one. Recently during the floods, she sawan old man sitting on a bed. There was knee deepwater in the house and she was able to thank Godthat she had a dry place to stay. She does nottalk about her needs but people have quietly foundout and supplied many needs. The sisters in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ schools have waived the fees, some teachers havegiven her books and clothes, her friends haveshared books, stationary and uniforms with her. Afriends who went to a coaching class shared allher books and papers with her and even came andstudied with her in her home because she could notafford to go to a coaching class. Finally she wasable to attend a coaching class in a new centrenear her home for two months because they wereready to accept payment in instalments. She isaware that God has taken care of her and she feelsthis is the reason she wants to help others inneed.She likes to work with people and has asincere desire to serve the poor. She did nottake up an engineering seat last year because shewants to study medicine. She feels it is a greathonour to study the “mysteries of the human body”which God has created. When her father was sickthe family experienced again the burden of povertyand this has strengthened her desire to providegood ethical medical care for the poor. She feelsshe has been blessed because she has receivedtimely help in her time of need and so she wouldlike to dedicate her life to serve the poor. Asshe has lived in a village all her life she feelsher needs are simple and few and she is very happyto serve in a rural area.In conclusion she has a gentle and caringspirit which was evident in the way she spoke ofher various involvement. She has been diligentand hardworking and has made good use of theresources that were available to her. What standsout in her story is that she is a “survivor”. Herown pain has made her sensitive to those in needaround her. There is a also a quiet dignity abouther which makes her want to 'earn her keep' andnot be inordinately obliged to those who help her.Her resilience, courage and determination in theface of the challenges she has faced are evidentand commendable.” On seeing the reports, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusionthat the manner of selection made by the first respondent Institutionis in accordance with the objectives of the Institution, which isstated to be service oriented with religious instinct and it cannot beslightly brushed aside as arbitrary. 36. The process of selection for determining the academicmerit, ensuring that the minimum marks in the qualifying examinationis attained by all candidates and determining the suitability fortraining as Doctors in this Minority Educational Institution run onall India basis, remains the same for the past 50 years. It is alsostated that in order to avoid geographical imbalances in selectionprocess, the first respondent Institution has also given up an inter- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ se merit of Christian minority candidates from each of the Churchesand Christian bodies as it was suggested by the Permanent Committee. 37. It is also seen that the stanine method of grading is inexistence in many of the Universities in the World. Universallyrecognised stanine grades as given by the University of Alberta are asfollows:"Grade CriterionAll assignments will be given the percentagemarks. These percentages will be weighted beforea final grade in the Stanine is assigned.GradePercentageGradePoints A+ 93-100 4.0 A 90-92 4.0 A- 85-89 3.7 B+ 80-84 3.3 B 76-79 3.0 B- 72-75 2.7 C+ 68-71 2.3 C 64-67 2.0 C- 60-63 1.7 D+ 55-59 1.0 D 50-54 1.0 F 0-49 038. The University of Minnesota in its deciding terms hasrecognised the grade of stanine as a method of conversion of studentsperformance. The 9 Grade Stanine is explained in the said Universityis as follows:"Stanine: The name stanine is simply a derivationof the term "star scale. Stanines are normalizedstandard scores, ranging in value fromdistribution has a mean of 5 and a standarddeviation of 2. Stanines 2 are equal to a ½standard deviation unit in width, with the middlestanine defined as the range of scores ¼ of astandard deviation below to ¼ of deviation abovethe mean. Stanines can, more easily, be thoughtof groupings of percentile ranks (see below), andlike percentile ranks xxx status or relative rankof a score within a particular group. Duecoarseness, stanines are less precise indicatorsthan percentile ran times may be misleading (e.g.,similar PR's can be grouped into different (e.g.,PR=23 and PR=24) and dissimilar PR's can begrouped into stanine (e.g., PR=24 and PR=40)).However, some find that using stanine to minimizethe apparent importance of minor scorefluctuations, and helpful in the determination ofareas of strength and weakness. Standard Score,Status Scores, Percentile Rank, Arithmetic Mean,and Deviation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Approximate Percentile RankRange Stanine Percent of Examinees Descriptor 96-99 9 4% high89-95 8 7% well above average77-88 7 12% about average60-76 6 17% somewhat above average41-59 5 20% above average24-40 4 17% somewhat below average12-23 3 12% below average5-11 2 7% well below average1-4 1 4% low"39. Likewise, Indiana University of Pennsylvania has alsorecognised the 9 Scale Stanine with percentile marks: Stanine:A stanine is a standard score on a scale of 1 to9. The stanine scale has a mean of 5 and astandard deviation of 2. The stanine is part ofthe Test Score Distribution Report. Each staninecorresponds to the following range of percentiles:Stanine Percentile 9 97-100 8 90-96 7 78-89 6 61-77 5 40-60 4 23-39 3 11-22 2 4-10 1 0-340.The Ohio State University has also recognised the Stanineas a method of selection, which reads as under:10-Stanine: The stanine is another transformationof a z-score, using a mean of 5 and a standardxxxxx of 2, with the result rounded to a singledigit. When the data are normally distributed,stanines range from 1 to 9, and correspond to thefollowing ranges of percentiles.------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Stanine 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Percentile 97-99 90-96 78-89 61-77 40-60 23-39 11-22 4-10 1-3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Example: For the student Tara Tester in the above sample report,Stanine=(z-score). (standard deviation)+mean = (-38)(2)+5=4" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

41. The Standard Grading System is also followed by theCouncil for Indian School of Certificate External Examination, NewDelhi for the international assessment is as follows:Meaning of GradesI. EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:Attainment in a subject is indicated by agrade of which Grade 1 is the highest and Grade 9the lowest: only Grades 1 to 8 are recorded onCertificates. The interpretation of the grades isas follows:Grade 1 } 2 } very good 3 } 4 } Credit 5 } 6 } 7 } Pass 8 } 9 BadII. INTERNAL ASSESSMENTThe standard attained in Socially UsefulProductive Works & Community Service, abbreviatedon the he face of the Certificate as SUPW &COMUNITY SERVICE, is indicated by a letter grade,of which Grade A is the highest and Grade E thelowest. Only Grades A to D are recorded onCertificates. The interpretation of the grades asfollows:Grade Standard A Very good B Good C Satisfactory D Fail E Fail42. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Stanine Grade Systemis unknown in the method of selection for the reason that it iscomplicated and requires mathematically trained mind to understand.That itself cannot be a ground to brush aside the said method ofselection, which can never be stated to be either prejudicial ordiscriminatory between the candidates.43. It is not even the case of the appellants that this systemamounts to mal-administration. There cannot be any imputation on thefirst respondent Institution in following the said system, which is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certainly complicated and unique. These are the matters which areconcerning the specialised mind and so long as they do not infringethe triple tests of selection, viz., merit, transparency and non-exploitative, one cannot say that the system should be ignored bylightly setting aside the importance of the same. Especially, asnarrated above, the system has been used world wide and even inrespect of the first respondent Institution, it is in un-interrupteduse for the past five decades without any complaints.44. As far as the argument regarding the allotment of 40%marks for interview, for the same reasons on which we have acceptedthe Entrance Examination, we have to only confirm and say that it isnot as if the interviews are conducted in three minutes or fourminutes as it is stated by the appellants, but as detailed andevidenced before us, they have been conducted for two days by activeinvolvement of the Teachers of the first respondent Institution andmaking the students to thoroughly be tested to identify them assuitable based on the common objects of the first respondentInstitution. Considering the manner in which the interview isconducted, there is absolutely no scope for wide discretion to theSelection Committee to pick and choose any candidate of their choiceand the discretion is limited. 45. It is, in this regard, relevant to note that thejudgement of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case, wherein theSupreme Court has directed that not more than 15% of total marks couldbe allotted for the subjective examination like that of the interview.The said judgement was considered by the Apex Court in St. Stephen'scase (1992 (1) SCC 558) and held that even though it is generalindication that there should not be more than 15% of the total marksfor the interview, percentage of marks conferred depends upon themanner in which the discretion is exercised in the interview and infact the Supreme Court has upheld the concept of grading system as amethod of selection in the following words." 62. The grievance of the University andthe Students’ Union is that the College AdmissionProgramme is a device to manipulate the merits andnot a scientific test to assess performance ofcandidates. The selection is made by judging thecandidates at the interview and the marks securedin the qualifying examinations are not taken intoaccount for selection. The marks are only relevantfor calling the candidates for interview. We havecarefully examined the College Admission Programmeand in our opinion, the contention urged for theUniversity and Students’ Union is misconceived.The purpose of the interview is not to reassess orremeasure the merits of the applicants in thequalifying examinations. The marks secured in thequalifying examinations are indeed relevant forselection and the interview is only supplementarytest. The College fixes different cut-offpercentage of marks in different subjects. Thecandidates are called for interview in the ratio https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of 1:4 or 1:5 depending upon the candidate’schoice of selection of courses of study. Theinterview is conducted by men of high integrity,calibre and qualification. They are men who dealwith education and the students. During theinterview, questions are asked to test thecandidate’s knowledge of the subject and hisgeneral awareness of the current problems. Thestudent is also required to furnish in theapplication form his interest, hobbies, values,career plan etc. Each member of the InterviewCommittee grades the performance of the candidatesand the selection is made for each course of studyby taking into consideration the opinion expressedby all the members of the Interview Committee. Byconsensus the final list of candidates isprepared. The selection is thus made on the basisof the candidate’s academic record and performanceat the interview keeping in mind his/her all roundcompetence, capacity to benefit from being in theCollege as well as potential to contribute to thelife of College. Judging the performance bygrading is a well known method followed in theacademic field. 63. The oral interview as a supplementarytest and not as exclusive test for assessing thesuitability of candidates for college admissionhas been recognised by this Court. But at the sametime, to avoid arbitrariness in the selection ithas been repeatedly held that there shall not beallocation of high percentage of marks for oralinterview test. Where candidate’s personality isyet to develop, it has been emphasised thatgreater weight has perforce to be given toperformance in the written examination and theimportance to be attached to the interview testmust be minimal. The Court has generally indicatedthat interview marks should not be more than 15per cent of the total marks. (See: R. Chitralekhav. State of Mysore ; A. Peeriakaruppan v. State ofT.N. ; Miss Nishi Maghu v. State of J&K ; AjayHasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ; Lila Dhar v.State of Rajasthan and Koshal Kumar Gupta v. Stateof J&K.) 64. There is nothing on record to suggestthat the interview conducted by the SelectionCommittee was contary to the principles laid downby this Court in the aforesaid decisions. We seeneither any arbitrariness nor any vice or lack ofscientific basis in the interview or in theselection. The interview confers no widediscretion to the Selection Committee to pick andchoose any candidate of their choice. They haveto select the best among those who are called forinterview and the discretion is narrowly limited https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to select one out of every 4 of 5. In thesepremises, we would defer to the choice anddiscretion of the Selection Committee so long asthey act properly and not arbitrarily and actwithin the recognised principles.65. The College seems to have compellingreasons to follow its own admission programme.The College receives applications from studentsall over the country. The applications rangingfrom 12000 to 20000 are received every year asagainst a limited number of 400 seats availablefor admission. The applicants come from differentinstitutions with diverse standards. The meritjudging by percentage of marks secured byapplicants in different qualifying examinationswith different standards may not lead to properand fair selection. It may not also have anyrelevance to maintain the standards of excellenceof education. As observed by this Court in D.N.Chanchala v. State of Mysore (1971 Supp. SCR 608)the result obtained by a student in an examinationheld by one University cannot be comparable withthe result obtained by another candidate in anexamination of another University . Suchstandards depends on several human factors,methods of teaching, examining and evaluation ofanswer papers. The subjects taught and examinedmay be the same, but the standard of examinationand valuation may vary, and the variations areinevitable. In the premises, the admission solelydetermined by the marks obtained by students,cannot be the best available objective guide tofuture academic performance. The CollegeAdmission Programme on the other hand, based onthe test of promise and accomplishment ofcandidates, seems to be better than the blindmethod of selection based on the marks secured inthe qualifying examinations. We are, therefore,unable to accept the submission that the CollegeAdmission Programme is arbitrary and theUniversity criteria for selection is objective.66. So in the end we are driven toconclude that St. Stephen's College is not boundby the impugned circulars of the University.“(Emphasis supplied)46. The right of Minority Institutions to follow its ownprocedure, of course subject to the transparency and merit inselection of students has subsequently been confirmed by the SupremeCourt in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case in the following words."125. In St. Stephen’s College case the rightof minorities to administer educational institutionsand the applicability of Article 29(2) to aninstitution to which Article 30(1) was applicable came https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ up for consideration. St. Stephen’s College claimed tobe a minority institution, which was affiliated toDelhi University; the College had its own provisionswith regard to the admission of students. Thisprovision postulated that applications would beinvited by the College by a particular date. Theapplications were processed and a cut-off percentagefor each subject was determined by the Head of therespective departments and a list of potentiallysuitable candidates was prepared on the basis of 1:4and 1:5 ratios for Arts and Science studentsrespectively, and they were then called for aninterview (i.e. for every available seat in the ArtsDepartment, four candidates were called forinterviews; similarly, for every available seat in theScience Department, five candidates were called forinterviews). In respect of Christian students, arelaxation of up to 10% was given in determining thecut-off point. Thereafter, the interviews wereconducted and admission was granted. Delhi University,however, had issued a circular, which provided thatadmission should be granted to the various coursespurely on the basis of merit i.e. the percentage ofmarks secured by the students in the qualifyingexamination. The said circular did not postulate anyinterview. Thereafter, the admission policy of St.Stephen’s College was challenged by a petition underArticle 32. It was contended by the petitioners thatthe College was bound to follow the university policy,rules and regulations regarding admission, and furtherargued that it was not a minority institution, and inthe alternative, it was not entitled to discriminateagainst students on the ground of religion, as theCollege was receiving grant-in-aid from theGovernment, and that such discrimination was violativeof Article 29(2). The College had also filed a writpetition in the Supreme Court taking the stand that itwas a religious minority institution, and that thecircular of the University regarding admissionviolated its fundamental right under Article 30. ThisCourt held that St. Stephen’s College was a minorityinstitution. With regard to the second question as towhether the College was bound by the universitycirculars regarding admission, this Court, by amajority of 4:1, upheld the admission procedure usedby the College, even though it was different from theone laid down by the University. In this context, thecontention of the College was that it had beenfollowing its own admission programme for more than ahundred years and that it had built a tradition ofexcellence in a number of distinctive activities. TheCollege challenged the university circular on theground that it was not regulatory in nature, and thatit violated its right under Article 30. Its submissionwas that if students were admitted purely on the basis https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of marks obtained by them in the qualifyingexamination, it would not be possible for anyChristian student to gain admission. The College hadalso found that unless a concession was afforded, theChristian students could not be brought within thezone of consideration as they generally lacked meritwhen compared to the other applicants. This Courtreferred to the earlier decisions, and with regard toArticle 30(1), observed at SCC p. 596, para 54, asfollows: “ 54 . The minorities whether based on religion orlanguage have the right to establish and administereducational institutions of their choice. Theadministration of educational institutions of theirchoice under Article 30(1) means ‘management of theaffairs of the institution’. This management must befree from control so that the founder or theirnominees can mould the institution as they think fit,and in accordance with their ideas of how theinterests of the community in general and theinstitution in particular will be best served. But thestandards of education are not a part of themanagement as such. The standard concerns the bodypolitic and is governed by considerations of theadvancement of the country and its people. Suchregulations do not bear directly upon managementalthough they may indirectly affect it. The State,therefore has the right to regulate the standard ofeducation and allied matters. Minority institutionscannot be permitted to fall below the standards ofexcellence expected of educational institutions. Theycannot decline to follow the general pattern ofeducation under the guise of exclusive right ofmanagement. While the management must be left to them,they may be compelled to keep in step with others.” 126. It was further noticed that the rightunder Article 30(1) had to be read subject to thepower of the State to regulate education, educationalstandards and allied matters. In this connection, atSCC pp. 598-99, para 59, it was observed as follows: “ 59 . The need for a detailed study on thisaspect is indeed not necessary. The right tominorities whether religious or linguistic, toadminister educational institutions and the power ofthe State to regulate academic matters and managementis now fairly well settled. The right to administerdoes not include the right to maladminister. The Statebeing the controlling authority has right and duty toregulate all academic matters. Regulations which willserve the interests of students and teachers, and topreserve the uniformity in standards of educationamong the affiliated institutions could be made. Theminority institutions cannot claim immunity against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such general pattern and standard or against generallaws such as laws relating to law and order, health,hygiene, labour relations, social welfarelegislations, contracts, torts etc. which areapplicable to all communities. So long as the basicright of minorities to manage educational institutionis not taken away, the State is competent to makeregulatory legislation. Regulations, however, shallnot have the effect of depriving the right ofminorities to educate their children in their owninstitution. That is a privilege which is implied inthe right conferred by Article 30(1).” 127. Dealing with the question of theselection of students, it was accepted that the rightto select students for admission was a part ofadministration, and that this power could beregulated, but it was held that the regulation must bereasonable and should be conducive to the welfare ofthe minority institution or for the betterment ofthose who resort to it. Bearing this principle inmind, this Court took note of the fact that if theCollege was to admit students as per the circularissued by the University, it would have to denyadmissions to the students belonging to the Christiancommunity because of the prevailing situation thateven after the concession, only a small number ofminority applicants would gain admission. It was thecase of the College that the selection was made on thebasis of the candidate’s academic record, and his/herperformance at the interview keeping in mind his/herall- round competence, his/her capacity to benefitfrom attendance at the College, as well as his/herpotential to contribute to the life of the College.While observing that the oral interview as asupplementary test and not as the exclusive test forassessing the suitability of the candidates forcollege admission had been recognized by this Court,this Court observed (at SCC p. 602, para 65) that theadmission programme of the College “ based on the testof promise and accomplishment of candidates seems tobe better than the blind method of selection based onthe marks secured in the qualifying examinations ”.The Court accordingly held that St. Stephen’s Collegewas not bound by the impugned circulars of theUniversity. This Court then dealt with the question asto whether a preference in favour of, or a reservationof seats for candidates belonging to, its owncommunity by the minority institutions would beinvalid under Article 29(2) of the Constitution. Afterreferring to the Constituent Assembly Debates and theproceedings of the Draft Committee that led to theincorporation of Articles 29 and 30, this Courtproceeded to examine the question of the true importand effect of Articles 29(2) and 30(1) of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution. On behalf of the institutions, it wasargued that a preference given to minority candidatesin their own educational institutions, on the groundthat those candidates belonged to that minoritycommunity, was not violative of Article 29(2), andthat in the exercise of Article 30(1), the minoritieswere entitled to establish and administer educationalinstitutions for the exclusive advantage of their owncommunity’s candidates. This contention was notaccepted by this Court on two grounds. Firstly, it washeld that institutional preference to minoritycandidates based on religion was apparently aninstitutional discrimination on the forbidden groundof religion — the Court stated that: (SCC p. 607, para79) “If an educational institution says ‘yes’ to onecandidate but says ‘no’ to another candidate on groundof religion, it amounts to discrimination on ground ofreligion. The mandate of Article 29(2) is that thereshall not be any such discrimination.” It further held that, as pointed out in KeralaEducation Bill, 1957 case the minorities could notestablish educational institutions for the benefit oftheir own community alone. For if such was the aim,Article 30(1) would have been differently worded andit would have contained the words “for their owncommunity”. In this regard, it would be useful to bearin mind that the Court at SCC p. 607, para 81, noticedthat: “ 81 . Even in practice, such claims arelikely to be met with considerable hostility. It maynot be conducive to have a relatively homogeneoussociety. It may lead to religious bigotry which is thebane of mankind. In the nation building with secularcharacter sectarian schools or colleges, segregatedfaculties or universities for imparting generalsecular education are undesirable and they mayundermine secular democracy. They would beinconsistent with the central concept of secularismand equality embedded in the Constitution. Everyeducational institution irrespective of community towhich it belongs is a ‘melting pot’ in our nationallife. The students and teachers are the criticalingredients. It is there they develop respect for, andtolerance of, the cultures and beliefs of others. Itis essential therefore, that there should be propermix of students of different communities in alleducational institutions.” Therefore, by applying the principles enunciated above, to the factualsituation of the manner in which the interview is conducted by thefirst respondent Institution and grading system made like that of theentrance examination, we do not see any arbitrariness or violation ofArticle 14 of the Constitution in the said process. As long as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ procedure followed by the first respondent Institution for admissionof students is fair, transparent and non-exploitative, based on meritas held by the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdhar's case, there is noreason to interfere with the selection process, which is ancient inthe first respondent Institution.47. Coming to the next aspect of six seats to children ofstaff or members of the first respondent Institution, it is relevantto point out that the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdhar's case has infact upheld the validity of allotting number of seats for NRIcandidates, of course subject to the condition that merit should notbe given a go-bye on the reason that the amount of money collectedfrom such NRIs could be utilised for benefiting students fromeconomically weaker sections of the Society, who can be admitted onsubsidised payment of their fees, in the following words:"131. Here itself we are inclined to deal withthe question as to seats allocated for Non-ResidentIndians (“NRI” for short) or NRI seats. It is commonknowledge that some of the institutions grantadmissions to a certain number of students under suchquota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, theterm “NRI” in relation to admissions is a misnomer. Byand large, we have noticed in cases after cases comingto this Court, neither the students who get admissionsunder this category nor their parents are NRIs. Ineffect and reality, under this category, lessmeritorious students, but who can afford to bring moremoney, get admission. During the course of hearing, itwas pointed out that a limited number of such seatsshould be made available as the money brought by suchstudents admitted against NRI quota enables theeducational institutions to strengthen their level ofeducation and also to enlarge their educationalactivities. It was also pointed out that people ofIndian origin, who have migrated to other countries,have a desire to bring back their children to their owncountry as they not only get education but also getreunited with the Indian cultural ethos by virtue ofbeing here. They also wish the money which they wouldbe spending elsewhere on education of their childrenshould rather reach their own motherland. A limitedreservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in ouropinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on thediscretion of the management subject to two conditions.First, such seats should be utilised bona fide by NRIsonly and for their children or wards. Secondly, withinthis quota, merit should not be given a complete go-by.The amount of money, in whatever form collected fromsuch NRIs, should be utilised for benefiting studentssuch as from economically weaker sections of thesociety, whom, on well-defined criteria, theeducational institution may admit on subsidised payment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quotaor any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats,suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed.So long as the State does not do it, it will be for theCommittees constituted pursuant to the direction inIslamic Academy to regulate. "48. In respect of the first respondent Institution it isclear that they do not have the NRI quota or Management quota or anyreservation for the Founders of the Institution. Allotment of sixseats as stated in the prospectus is clearly based on certainguidelines, viz., that the same is available only to the children ofthe staff of the Institution who have got 10 years of completedservice or after completing 10 years has retired or died, however,subject to merit as a criteria and the intention is, as correctlypointed out by the learned senior counsel for the first respondent tocreate a human and intellectual wealth of the institution synonyms tothe monetary wealth as recommended by the Supreme Court. It is not asif the children of the staff confirming to the said requirement areadmitted without necessary qualifications and it is made very clearthat the merit can never be compromised and the transparency is invogue in making selection under this category. The very object asstated in the prospectus that the said allotment of six seats startsfrom the Senior Faculty down towards Clause IV employees, certainlyconfirms to the twin tests of reasonable and intellectual differentiaand having a rational basis as enunciated by the Supreme Court inDr.Saurabh Chaudhri vs. Union of India (2003 (11) SCC 146).49. In view of the above said facts, there is nodifficulty to come to the conclusion that the allotment of six sets tothe children for the staff of the Institution is on the basis of theexplained criteria and subject to the fulfilment of the triple testsand therefore is not invalid. 50. As far as the last point insisted, viz., theadmission of Christian students from the States where they aremajority, on fact, it is found that it was only a sprinkling number ofcandidates from the other States were appointed and merely because onestudent from State of Meghalaya wherein Christians are majority gotadmitted, the selection cannot be held to be invalid, as long as thetest of conserving, the religion and to give thorough, good andgeneral education, to the children belonging to such minority isfollowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

51. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above,predominantly taking into consideration that the manner and method ofselection is followed by the first respondent Institution in thesemore than five decades have been approved by the Apex Court atleastfrom 1993 till date, and therefore, there is no reason to interferewith the order of the learned single Judge; accordingly, the writappeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.khSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil NaduEducation DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai 9.2.The Registrar. Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University No.69 Anna Salai Guindy, Chennai 32 3.The Registrar Christian Medical College Vellore 632 002.4.The Permanent Committee for the Conduct of Common Entrance Examination in Private Colleges NCB 7A Greenways Road Chennai.5.The Secretary (Health) State of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai.+ 3 ccs to Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates SR No. 45930+ 2 ccs to Mr. K. Ravichandra babu, Advocate SR No. 45916+ 1 cc to Mr. Gladys Daniel, Advocate SR No. 45907NSM(CO)SR/31.7.2007 Common JudgementinW.A.Nos.494, 495 & 812 of 2007