( 1 ) 1. These writ appeals are filed against orders made in several Writ Petitions, whereby the petitioners sought for appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to grant affiliations to their respective College of Education (B. Ed. , College) or Teaching Training institute (TCH course); the decision of the state Government not to permit affiliation to any new B. Ed. , College or institution teaching for TCH course etc. , till the end of VII five Year Plan period also was challenged. The writ petitions were dismissed. The main judgment of the learned single Judge is reported in Sarabheshwara Vidya Peeth v state of karnataka (ILR 1988 Kar. 3182 ). The four appeals are by institutions organised by persons who claim to be religious minorities (three by the Muslims and one by the Jains ). W. A. No. 1675 of 1988 is not by any minority group. ( 2 ) THE facts, are similar in all the cases; (except in W. A. No. 1738/1988 which pertains to the permission to start an institution to train students for TCH course ). ( 3 ) THE appellant in W. A. No. 1332/1988 resolved to start a B. Ed. , College in the Bangalore University area and hence made an application seeking affiliation to the Bangalore University, on 10-10-1986. The Committee constituted by the University recomended the grant of the affiliation of the academic year 1987-88, with an intake of 100 students. However, the Syndicate and the academic Council for the University were constrained to hold up the consideration of the question of affiliation, in view of the government's decision not to permit any such new College during the VII Five Year plan period. ( 4 ) THE appellant in W. A. No. 1601/1988 is from Tumkur, resolved to start a B. Ed. , College and sought affiliation from the Bangalore University; the Local Enquiry committee of the University recomended the grant of affiliation; but in view of the governmental decision (referred already) the affiliation was not granted. ( 5 ) THE appellant in W. A. No. 78/1989 is from Belgaum and is an institution of Jains (a religious minority in Karnataka ). It sought affiliation to Karnataka University for its b. Ed. ( 5 ) THE appellant in W. A. No. 78/1989 is from Belgaum and is an institution of Jains (a religious minority in Karnataka ). It sought affiliation to Karnataka University for its b. Ed. , College meant exclusively for women, the Local Inspection committee of the university recommended its case, In the hope the affiliation would be granted, if admitted 75 girl students to its institution. In view of the Governmental policy decision, not to permit new, such Colleges during the vii Plan Period, the petitioner's application was also turned down. ( 6 ) THE appellant in W. A. No. 1738/1988 is from Kolar, wherein, it was constituted by the Muslims. It resolved to start a Teachers' training Institute; but the Government rejected the same in view of the policy decision not to permit any such new institutions during the VII Plan period. ( 7 ) THE appellant in W. A. No. 1675/1988 is running a few educational institutions in Bellary and decided to start a B. Ed. , College for women for which purpose it sought affiliation from Gulbarga University. In spite of the recommendation of the University, its application was not granted in view of the government's policy decision (referred already ). ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners (other than Eversine Educational Trust), they are governed by the provisions of the Karnataka state Universities Act, 1976 (referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter) and since they satisfied the requirements of Section 53 (2) of the Act, they were entitled to the grant of affiliation; according to them Section 53 of the Act, was a mandatory provision which directs the grant of affiliation whenever the statutory requirements are satisfied. The rejection of the petitioners' prayer for affiliation was attacked as arbitrary, based on the policy decision of the State Government, which according to the petitioner, was void and liable to be ignored. ( 9 ) THE petitioners, who claim to be minority institutions, raised an additional plea, claiming a right of affiliation in them as flowing out of Art. 30 of the Constitution. According to these petitioners rejection of their respective applications and the government's policy decision not to permit new Colleges during VII plan period, were violative of Art. 30 of the Constitution. ( 10 ) THE State Government defended its action and supported its policy decision. It was stated or. According to these petitioners rejection of their respective applications and the government's policy decision not to permit new Colleges during VII plan period, were violative of Art. 30 of the Constitution. ( 10 ) THE State Government defended its action and supported its policy decision. It was stated or. behalf of the State Government, in its statement of objections filed in one of the Writ Petitions, out of which w. A. No. 1675/1988 has arisen, thus :"the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 23-4-1987 has taken a policy decision in respect of sanction of new teachers training institutions. It reads thus :- (1) No new teachers training institution at any level (B. Ed, B. P. Ed. , T. C. H. , c. P. Ed. ,) should be sanctioned till the end of the Seventh plan. (2) The working of the existing institutions should be studied by the Department and non-viable and non-quality institutions should be derecognised within six months. The decision of the Cabinet is based on the recommendations of the Technical Committee constituted to examine the question of starting a new B. Ed. /b. P. Ed. /t. C. H. /c. P. Ed. Colleges in Karnataka State. The Committee considered various assets including the education needs of the. ocality. In respect of the B. Ed. , Colleges, the recommendation of the Committee, is as follows:- c. B. Ed. COLLEGES :- demand FOR TRAINED TEACHERS: the existing number of High School is reaching fourth and number of teachers is around 30,000. The retirement vacancy will be 4% of 30,000 i. e. , 1,200 per year. For the next. 5 years, there will be an addition of about 50 new High Schools and there will be only 3 classes of 8th, 9th and 10th in High schools. Each of them will need 5 trained teachers. So, annual demand will be 250 newtraincd teachers. The total demand will be 1450 per year. SUPPLY: There are 58 B. Ed. Colleges and every year the turnover is 4640 trained teachers. Even after taking out about 1500 of them as coming from neighbouring States, there will be 3140 newly trained teachers. The supply thus exceeds the demand. Hence, there is no need for any B. Ed, Colleges. "the Stale Government further contended that "making a policy is a sovereign power of the State and the same cannot be subjected to provisions of an Act. The supply thus exceeds the demand. Hence, there is no need for any B. Ed, Colleges. "the Stale Government further contended that "making a policy is a sovereign power of the State and the same cannot be subjected to provisions of an Act. Provisions of the Act, will have to be "implemented only with reference to policy of the State". ( 11 ) THE learned single Judge formulated the following questions as arising out of the respective arguments of the parties :". . . on these competing contentions, the first duty of this Court in these cases is to ascertain whether the rights of the minoviiv Institutions protected under artical 30 (1) of the Constitution are absolute rights and whether they are subject to regulatory measures of the state? If they are subject to the regulatory measures, is it possible to say that the impugned orders in these cases are proper and come within the scope of regulatory measures which are protected from challenge notwithstanding the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. " ( 12 ) IN the writ petition of non-minority institution, the question mainly revolved around Section 53 of the Act; while the petitioner contended that it casts mandatory duty to grant the affiliation, the respondents contended that the said provision is a directory one. There was also a contention based on Article 14, because of the assertion of the petitioners that the respondents granted affiliation to a few Colleges even after the date of the policy decision, in clear contravention of the said policy. The learned single Judge held that,- (I) The right of affiliation is controlled by the provisions of Section 53 (1) of the act. (II) The language of Section 53 (1) cannot be said to be mandatory, but directory. (III) Even otherwise assuming that it is mandatory, the mandate of Section 53 (1) of the Act is always subject to the Constitutional provisions, namely, the provisions dealing with fundamental rights as also the provisions dealing with Directive Principles. (IV) ". . . . . it is open to the State Government to bring in regulatory measures which may have the effect of imposing restriction on the enjoyment of the right conferred on the minorities under Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution and at the same time achieve the Constitutional goal under Art. 41 of the constitution. . . (IV) ". . . . . it is open to the State Government to bring in regulatory measures which may have the effect of imposing restriction on the enjoyment of the right conferred on the minorities under Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution and at the same time achieve the Constitutional goal under Art. 41 of the constitution. . . " (V) "what is present in this case is only the affiliation to a particular course and not affiliation to the University. Affiliation to University has been granted to the petitioners. The affiliation to a particular course is a smaller right which comes within the ambit of a large right, that larger right being the affiliation to the University" (at p. 3215 ). (VI) "the Constitutional goal sought to be achieved by the State Government by refusing permission to start the B. Ed, course is obviously based on the provisions of Art. 41 of the Constitution. " (VII ). . . "in these cases, taking into consideration the large number of B. Ed. graduates who are knocking at the doors of the Government for suitable jobs, it cannot be said that the State government was acting arbitrarily or in contravention of the Constitutional guarantee conferred on the petitioners in the first two petitions under Art. 30 of the Constitution or the right conferred on all the petitioners under Section 53 of the act. . . . the curtailment of the rights of the petitioners for a temporary period, namely, upto the expiry of VII plan period i. e. , till the end of 1990, would not be violative of the Constitutional right guaranteed under Art. 30 of the Constitution or the statutory right conferred under Section 53 of the Act. " (para-24 ). (VII) "provisions of Article 31-C do not impair the right of the State Government to bring in any regulatory measure for regulating the rights of the minority institutions conferred on them under Art. 30. " (at p. 3217 ). (VII) The affiliation granted to a similar institution after the formation of the policy for the VII Plan period, was due to peculiar facts of those cases. " (at p. 3217 ). (VII) The affiliation granted to a similar institution after the formation of the policy for the VII Plan period, was due to peculiar facts of those cases. The decision of the learned single Judge substantially rests on the hypothesis that the policy decision of the State Government was under Art. 41 of the Constitution, and that both the fundamental right under Art. 30 and the statutory right under Section 53 of the act, are subject to the Directive Principles stated in Part IV of the Constitution. ( 13 ) MR. Sequiere, the learned counsel for the appellant in W. A. No. 1332/1988 putforth the following contentions in support of the appeal: (1) Provisions of Section 53 of the Act are mandatory and any institution that satisfies its requirement is entitled to the affiliation to the University. (2) Neither the policy of the Government, nor any law whatsoever can come in the way of the minority's right to establish an educational institution of its choice and as a necessary corollory and stemming from it, of the right to affiliation. (3) Along as there is a statute (the Act, here), Government is bound by its provisions and under Section 53 (6), the Government can consider the question of affiliation only in individual cases. There cannot be any predetermination of the question of affiliation. (4) Art. 31-C affords protection to any law only if it contravenes Articles 14 and 19 (subject to other conditions in art. 31-C) and contravention of art. 30 is not saved by its protection which, establishes the principle that no policy of Government can offend the right guaranteed by Art. 30. (5) Despite the policy decision not to permit new Colleges, till the end of VII plan period, new Colleges were permitted and in several cases, intake strength of the existing College were increased; therefore, non-grant of affiliation to the petitioner was discriminatory. ( 14 ) IN the light of the respective contentions for the appellants and the respondents, we formulate the following questions to be answered in these Writ Appeals. (A) What is scope of Section 53 of the act and whether it imposes an enforceable duty to grant affiliation to an institution which satisfies all the conditions falling under Section 53 (2) of the Act. (A) What is scope of Section 53 of the act and whether it imposes an enforceable duty to grant affiliation to an institution which satisfies all the conditions falling under Section 53 (2) of the Act. (B) Whether the minority institutions are entitled to the affiliations sought as a matter of right flowing out of Art. 30 of the Constitution. (C) Whether the appellants were discriminated by the respondents in not granting the affiliation, in view of the fact that a few other institutions were granted affiliation and in a few existing institutions intake strength of students, were increased. RE. QUESTION (A): 14. Sec. 53 reads as follows:-"53. AFFILIATION OF COLLEGES - (1) Colleges within the University Area may, on satisfying the conditions specified in this section, be affiliated to the university as affiliated colleges by the university on the recommendations made by the State Government. RE. QUESTION (A): 14. Sec. 53 reads as follows:-"53. AFFILIATION OF COLLEGES - (1) Colleges within the University Area may, on satisfying the conditions specified in this section, be affiliated to the university as affiliated colleges by the university on the recommendations made by the State Government. (2) A college applying for affiliation to the university shall send an application to the registrar within the time limit fixed by ordinances and shall satisfy the Syndicate and the Academic Council, (a) that it will supply a need in the locality, having regard to the type of education indeed to be provided by the college, the existing provision for the same type of education made by other colleges in the neighbourhood and the suitability of the locality where the college is to be established; (b) that it is to be under the management of a regularly constituted governing body; (c) that the strength and qualifications of the teaching staff and the conditions governing their tenure of office are such as to make due provision for the courses of instruction, teaching or training to be undertaken by the college; (d) that the buildings in which the college is to be located are suitable and that provision will be made in conformity with the Ordinances for the residence in the college or in lodgings approved by the college, for students not resid- ing with their parents or guardians and for the supervision and welfare of students; (e) that due provision has been made or will be made for a library; (f) where affiliation is sought in any branch of experimental science, that arrangements have been or will be made hi conformity with the Statutes, ordinances and Regulations for imparting instruction in the branch of science in a properly equipped laboratory or museum; (g) that due provision will,d as far as circumstances may permit, be made for the residence of the Principal and members of the teaching staff in or near the college or the place provided for the residence of students; (h) that the financial resources of the college are such as to make due provision for its continued maintenance and efficient working; and (i) that rules fixing the fees (if any) to be paid by the students have been framed or will be framed. (3) The application shall further contain an assurance that after the college is affiliated, any transference of management and all changes in the teaching staff and all other changes which result in any of the aforesaid requirements not being fulfilled or continued to be fulfilled shall be forthwith reported to the Syndicate and to the State Government or such authority as the State Government may specify. (4) On receipt of a letter of application under sub-section (2), the Syndicate shall (a) direct a local inquiry to be made by a competent person or persons authorised by the Syndicate in this behalf in respect of such matters as may be deemed necessary and relevant; (b) make such further inquiry as may appear to it be necessary; and (c) record its opinion after consulting the academic Council on the question whether the application should be granted or refused, either in whole or in part, stating the result of any inquiry under clauses (a) and (b ). (5) The Registrar shall, within such time as the Government may from time to time specify submit the application and all proceedings, if any, of the Academic council and of the Syndicate relating there to the State Government which after such inquiry as may appear to it to be necessary shall make their recommendations for the grant of the application or any part thereof or refuse the application or any part thereof and the University shall issue orders accordingly. (6) Where the application or any part thereof is granted, the order of the university shall specify the courses of instruction in respect of which and the period for which the college is affiliated and where the application or any part thereof is refused by the State government or the University, the grounds of such refusal shall be stated; provided that on the recommendation of the State Government, permanent affiliation may be granted to a college which was affiliated continuously for a period not less than five years and fulfilled all the conditions of affiliation and attained the academic and administrative standards prescribed by the University from time to time. (7) As soon as possible, after the State government or the University makes its order, the Registrar shall submit to the senate a full report regarding the application, the action taken thereon under sub-sections (4) and (6) and of all proceedings connected there with. (7) As soon as possible, after the State government or the University makes its order, the Registrar shall submit to the senate a full report regarding the application, the action taken thereon under sub-sections (4) and (6) and of all proceedings connected there with. (8) An application under sub-section (1) may be withdrawn at any time before an order is made under sub-section (5 ). (9) Where a college desires to add to the courses of instruction in respect of which it is affiliated, the procedure prescribed by sub-sections (2) to (8) shall, so far as may be followed: provided, however, that continuation of affiliation existing courses of study and extension of affiliation for follow on courses may be granted by the Syndicate in consultation with the Academic council. (10) (a) No admission of students shall be made by a new college seeking affiliation to any University or by an existing college seeking affiliation to a new course of study to such course, unless as the case may be, affiliation has been granted to such new college or to the existing college in respect of such course of study. (b) The maximum number of students to be admitted to a course of study shall not exceed the intake fixed by the university or the Government as the case may be and any admission made after this section came into force in excess of the intake shall be invalid. (c) No student whose admission has become invalid under clause (b) shall be eligible to appear nor shall be presented by the college to appear at any examination conducted by the university. " ( 15 ) MR. Sequeira, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that, though the language of Section 53 uses the word "may" for the grant of affiliation, it should be read as 'shall', by applying the rules of interpretation expounded in Julius v Lord Bishop of oxford [49 LJ. QB. 577 = (1880) 5 AC 214] and in re. The Kerala Education Bill ( AIR 1958 SC 956 at 975 ). The principle sought to be applied is;"it is true that the word 'may5 has been used in sub. cl. QB. 577 = (1880) 5 AC 214] and in re. The Kerala Education Bill ( AIR 1958 SC 956 at 975 ). The principle sought to be applied is;"it is true that the word 'may5 has been used in sub. cl. (3), but, according to the well known rule of construction of statutes, if the existence of the purpose is established and the conditions of the exercise of the discretion are fulfilled, the government will be under an obligation to exercise its discretion in furtherance of such purpose and no question of the arbitrary exercise of discretion can arise. "according to Mr. Sequirea, when the Local inspection Committee of the University has recommended the grant of affiliation it follows that, conditions of Section 53 (2) are found to have been satisfied. The object of these conditions, is to see that the college in question would be in a position to import the educational course properly, without falling below the standard of education sought to be maintained by the University. The object of the affiliation is that the students of the institution will have qualifications in the shape of degrees necessary for a useful career in life; and this is possible only by insisting upon achieving and maintaining excellence in education and it is the responsibility of the university to see that this standard is maintained by the affiliated college. ( 16 ) IT was contended by the learned government Advocate, that, Section 53 conferred a discretionary power on the Government to grant affiliation or not and that provisions of Section 53 (2) were not exhaustive of the considerations to be applied to a case of an application for affiliation; it was contended that these provisions are subject of any policy decision of the Government formed to safeguard public interest; the use of the word "may" in Section 53 (1) strongly emphasises this discretionary nature of the power conferred. ( 17 ) THE rule of interpretation of a provision containing the word "may" came up for consideration before the Supreme court in The Official Liquidator v Dharti dhan (P) Ltd. ( AIR 1977 SC 740 ) at paras 7 to 10. At para-8, it was observed,"where the power is wide enough to cover both an acceptance and a refusal of an application for its exercise, depending upon facts it is directory or discretionary. At para-8, it was observed,"where the power is wide enough to cover both an acceptance and a refusal of an application for its exercise, depending upon facts it is directory or discretionary. It is not the conferment of a power which the word "may" indicates that annexes any obligation to its exercise but the legal and factual context of it. This, as we understand it was the principle laid down in the case cited before us. Frederic guilder Julius v The Right Rev. The Lord bishop of Oxford : The Rev. Thomas thellusson Carter, (1880) 5 AC 214". Again, in par-10, Supreme Court stated the principle, thus:". . . . IT is always the purpose of the power which has to be examined in order to determine the scope of the discretion conferred upon the donee of the power. If the conditions in which the power is to be exercised in particular cases are also specified by a statute then, on the fulfilment of those conditions, the power conferred becomes annexed with a duty to exercise it in that manner. "the object of the power and its context are the guiding factors to find out the Obligatori- ness or directive nature of the provision. Sub-clause (a) to (i) or Section 53 (2) requires an applicant to satisfy the Syndicate and the Academic Council regarding certain matters. Section 53 (3) requires the applicant to give an assurance regarding the facts stated therein. Section 53 (4) requires the syndicate to direct a local enquiry to be held; it may also hold further inquiry as may appear to it to be necessary. Syndicate's opinion has to be recorded after consulting the Academic Council. All those proceedings are to be forwarded to the State Government. The State Government is empowered to hold further inquiry, if it appears necessary to do so, before recommending to the university to grant the affiliation or to reject the application for the grant. The University is obliged to make an order in accordance with the recommendations of the Govern- ment. If the application is rejected and affiliation is not granted, the grounds of such refusal shall be stated in the order of the university. The University is obliged to make an order in accordance with the recommendations of the Govern- ment. If the application is rejected and affiliation is not granted, the grounds of such refusal shall be stated in the order of the university. ( 18 ) THE power to be exercised for the grant or refusal of the application cannot be arbitrary, in the context of the basic right of every individual and group of individuals to have their children educated in the context of the need to have a recognised degree, as a passport to obtain jobs or recognition to be self- employed; again, the right to establish a recognised (affiliated) educational institution, cannot be diluted in such a way, so as to rest it entirely on the absolute discretion of the State Government. Grant of affilitation is not a boundry to be disbursed, depending upon the convenience of the State Government. ( 19 ) THE subject of grant of affiliation, here, has been treated by the legislature, by enacting Section 53 of the Act; the field, thus, is occupied by the legislation. The power to grant or refuse affiliation has become statutory. It can be and has to be exercised in the manner laid down by the Statute, to advance its purposes. The Statutory purpose, if any, cannot be subjected to any executive policy, not falling within the statutory scheme. The extreme stand taken by the state Government, that it has an obsolute discretion under Section 53 of the Act and the provisions of Section 53 could be overridden by any policy decision, is patently untenable and stramples the doctrine of ultra vires; the attitude that moulded this contention exhibits a tendency to obstruct and denigrate the rule of law. Executin cannot overstep the limits carved out for it by the legislature; it shall follow the path laid by the legislature, in the exercise of its statutory power. ( 20 ) THE question, then, arises as to the scope of Section 53 Are the provisions of section 53 (2) exhaustive of the factors to be satisfied for the grant of affiliation to a college? the legislature cannot foresee the several situations that any crop up in future while entrusting a power in the State, to deal with an application for affiliation of the college. The factors to be considered, at the outset, are enumerated in Section 53 (2 ). the legislature cannot foresee the several situations that any crop up in future while entrusting a power in the State, to deal with an application for affiliation of the college. The factors to be considered, at the outset, are enumerated in Section 53 (2 ). These are the factors, to be satisfied by the applicant. But, independently of these provisions, the syndicate and the Academic Council are vested with a power under Section 53 (4) to direct a local inquiry "in respect of such matters as may be deemed necessary and relevant", (underlining is by us ). If the inquiry to be held under Section 53 (4) is confined to the matters stated in Section 53 (2), the language of Section 53 (4) would have been different, by directing the inquiry to be made "in respect of matters stated in Section 53 (2 ). " By permitting to hold and an inquiry in respect of such matters as may be deemed necessary and relevant", legislature has widened the scope of consideration of an application seeking affiliation. With the change of situations and other developments, the syndicate or the Academic Council of the university may deem it necessary to enlarge the requirements for an affiliation; these other requirements may be of transitory character or would have arisen due to changed conditions in the University area. But these requirements are to be proximate and relevant to the subject of education, as otherwise, the new requirement under Section 53 (4) found "necessary and relevant" would be legally unnecessary and irrelevant. ( 21 ) HAVING regard to the need to have a flexible power, provisions of Section 53 (5), which vests a similar power in the State government also should be liberally construed, so that the scope of inquiry by the state Government need not always be confined to the enumerated factors under Section 53 (2 ). Again, here, the factors to be considered by the State Government while considering the application for affiliation, cannot be irrelevant or too remote to the purposes of establishing a recognised educational institution. Primary object of affiliation is to safeguard excellence in education; normally, this could be achieved by entrusting the power to affiliate or refuse affiliation to the University. But legislature has given a substantial power to the State, under Section 53d (5 ). Primary object of affiliation is to safeguard excellence in education; normally, this could be achieved by entrusting the power to affiliate or refuse affiliation to the University. But legislature has given a substantial power to the State, under Section 53d (5 ). This indicates, that, apart from the requirement of maintaining excellence in the standard of education, there are other factors which may have to be considered while granting affiliation. One of the purposes of an affiliation, is to enable the students to get degrees which, in turn would enable them to seek employment. Therefore, the number of graduates that may enter the market of employment would be a relevant factor for the Government to consider, while considering an application seeking affiliation. The state has several Universities within its area. Each University by itself will not be in a position to find out the requirements of the State as a whole, for a particular type of graduates. Employment opportunities are to be created by the State; it has the machinery to measure the needs of its society; in fact, the State government may have regard not only to its requirements and its capacity to provide employment. , but also the situation prevailing generally in the country, as a whole graduates from one State, may go out of the state seeking employment and the State may gather information as to how far the educational institutions in the State may cater to the needs of other parts of the country, to some extent. ( 22 ) IN this context, provisions of Section 53 (10) (b) may be noted. No affiliated college can admit students beyond the intake strength fixed by the University or the government. This is necessary to preserve the excellence in the standard of education; equally, it is necessary to have a ceiling fixed, so that the total output in the State may not exceed the reasonable number of graduates having regard to the various relevant factors, such as job opportunities available to them. ( 23 ) WHETHER, the institution is of a religious or linguistic minority has to be decided with reference to the entire State. ( 23 ) WHETHER, the institution is of a religious or linguistic minority has to be decided with reference to the entire State. In a case where, the University finds that the need of the locality wherein the applicant seeks affiliation is already met by existing educational institutions, it may reject the application; in such a situation, the State may still, step in, while acting under Section 53 (5) to safeguard the interest of the minorities with reference to Art. . 30 of the Constitution. Having regard to the situation in the entire state, the State Government may opine that the particular minority institution may be granted affiliation as an exdceptional measure, in spite of the number of institutions having reached the maximum limit. In a particular case, to advance and protect the interest of the particular minority group, the slate Government may reduce the intake strength fixed in other educational institutions, if possible, so that, the new entrant to the particular filed of education which is a minority institution may be affiliated; however by such alfiliation, the total output of graduates may not exceed the limits which the State should produce. Therefore, having regard to the objects behind the requirement of an alfiliation to the University and its effect, the provisions of section 53 (2), 53 (4) and 53o (5) are to be read together, so as to vest a wide but guided power in the University and the State government, while considering an application for affiliation by a college. ( 24 ) SECTION 53, as we read it, thus, docs not confer an absolute discretion to reject an applicatory power, the power has to be exercised by the application of relevant considerations to the subject matter (i. e. , educations and its objectives) in respect of which the power is exercised. The relevant factors are not confined to the enumerated matters, in Section. 3 (2 ). Similarly, Section 53 does not impose a mandatory duty to grant affiliation, just because, the applicant satisfies the conditions enumerated in Section 53 (2 ). the University and the State have other responsibilities to be discharged to safeguard the public interest, and the legislature has seen to it by enacting inter alia Section 53 (4), 553 (5) and 53 (10) of the Act in this regard. An aspect of the above contention requires to be considered here. the University and the State have other responsibilities to be discharged to safeguard the public interest, and the legislature has seen to it by enacting inter alia Section 53 (4), 553 (5) and 53 (10) of the Act in this regard. An aspect of the above contention requires to be considered here. It was contended that under section 53 (2) (a), need of locality only is to be considered and the decision of the State government not to permit new affiliate colleges in the State, is a decision with respect to the entire geographical area of the State, overlooking the needs of any particular locality. The short answer to this contention lies in understanding the State as a conglomeration of localities and when the State considered the question of the need of the stale as a whole, the needs of several entities (in the nature of localities) are to be assumed to have been considered. State was held to be conglomeration of "particular areas" in bhcemankatte Bheemasethu Munivrunda mutt Swamiji v State of Mysore and Others (1960 Mys. LJ. 576 ). Concept of a locality varies from context to context; it is a comparative term like the idea of a neighbour, varying, - in the context of one house, its neighbour is the one situated next to it or ncarabout; in the context of a Stated, its neighbours are, the States found across its entire boundaries. The concept of "needs of a 'locality' may be understood with reference to a town, a taluk, a District or a Division. With reference to a minority, the 'locality' may have a large area of operation. Further, this concept of 'locality' has to be understood in the context of the subject to be taught in the educational institutions concerned. In the case of a primary school, locality to which it cater may be a village, or a part of the village, din the case of an ordinary college (in contradistinction to a college, imparting professional courses), 'locality' may be a taluk or even a District. A college where professional courses are taught, like, medicine, engineering, law, etc. , where the movement of students for studies extend all over the State, 'locality' may have to be understood as the entire State. Similarly, we are of the view that the needs of the minorities are not foreign to the considerations under Section 53 (2) (a ). A college where professional courses are taught, like, medicine, engineering, law, etc. , where the movement of students for studies extend all over the State, 'locality' may have to be understood as the entire State. Similarly, we are of the view that the needs of the minorities are not foreign to the considerations under Section 53 (2) (a ). Needs of a locality means needs of those who are within the locality. Any 'locality' has, as its residents, majority, as well as minority groups. Expression used in a law like the karnataka State Universities Act, has to be understood broadly so that all the relevant consideration may not be ignored, while applying its provisions to a given set of facts. ( 25 ) SECTION 53 (5) vests a power in the state Government to consider the application for affiliation; several relevant considerations, (as already noted above) would go into the decision; one such consideration, necessarily would be the requirements of the state to have more colleges or need to restrict the colleges having regard to the state's responsibility to provide employment. These considerations are not confined to the individual cases, but to the general situation prevailing in the State. There cannot be anything wrong if the State, having regard to the prevalent situation in the State decides (after a proper inquiry) not to permit new colleges. Such a decision cannot be struck down as clogging the discretion in advance. The prevalent situation in the State which is a relevant consideration, may be such as to override all other considerations and existence of such an overriding factor may be expressed in terms of policy by the State so that, those who are affected may be aware of it. RE. QUESTION (B) : ( 26 ) ART. 300 of the Constitution confers a valuable right on a Minority (religion or linguistic), to establish an educational institution of its own choice. The question, here, is whether such a right includes a right to be affiliated to University, so that by such affiliation, the students coming out of that institution may get degrees and recognition of their academic attainments. According to mr. The question, here, is whether such a right includes a right to be affiliated to University, so that by such affiliation, the students coming out of that institution may get degrees and recognition of their academic attainments. According to mr. Sequiera, without affiliation to the university and the degree from it, the educational institution established by the minority would be of no use and that the right to affiliation flows out of Art. 30, as incidental to the main right conferred by the said Article, of the Constitution. ( 27 ) THE State contended that affiliation is a matter of statutory right and has nothing to do with Art. 30 ; that, it is open to any minority to establish and administer any number of educational institutions, so long as affiliation to the University is not sought. However, if the minority seeks affiliation to university, the affiliation could be granted subject to the general policy evolved by the state having regard to the needs of the society. When the number of educational institutions existing in the State has reached the optimum and establishment of any new institution to impart education of particular kind would adversely affect the employment problem, it was contended that, the State could refuse further affiliations. ( 28 ) PURPOSE of an affiliation to University, is to see that the affiliated institution imparts education by maintaining the stipulated standard; affiliation to the University enables the University to maintain excellence in the standard of education. Importance of affiliation also lies in the degrees conferred on the successful students, which in turn create eligibilities to get employments. The object behind Art. 30 and the effect of affiliation to the university are stated, IN RE. KERALA education BILL, 1957 ( AIR 1958 SC 956 ) - (Quoted in The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission, Bihar, Ranchi and others v Vie State of Bihar and Others - AIR 1984 SC 1757 -at 1759):"the minorities evidently desire that education should be imparted to the children of their community in an atmosphere congenial to the growth of their culture. Our Constitution makers recognised the validity of their claim and to allay their fears conferred on them the fundamental rights referred to above. . . Our Constitution makers recognised the validity of their claim and to allay their fears conferred on them the fundamental rights referred to above. . . They also desire that scholars of their educational institutions should go out in the world well and sufficiently equipped with the qualifications necessary for a useful career in life. But. . . the scholars of unrecognised schools are not permitted to avail themselves of the opportunities for higher education in the University and are not eligible for entering the public serviees. Without recognition, therefore, the educational institutions established or to be established by the minority communities cannot fulfill the real objects of their choice and the rights under art. 30 (1) cannot be effectively exercised. The right to establish educational institutions of their choice must, therefore, mean the right to establish real institutions which will effectively serve the needs of their community and the scholars who resort to their educational institutions. There is, no doubt, no such things as fundamental right to recognition by the state but to deny recognition to the educational institutions except upon terms 'antamount to the surrender of their constitutional right of administration of i he educational institutions of their choice is in truth and in effect to deprive them of their rights under Art. 30 (1 ). We repeat that the legislative power is subject to the fundamental rights and the legislature cannot indirectly take away or abide the fundamental rights which it could not do directly and yet that will be the result if the said Bill containing any offending clause becomes law". Chief Justice A. N. Ray and Justice D. Ci. Paiekar observed, in The Ahmedabad st. Xaviers College Socicty and Another etc v stute of Gujarat A Another (MR 1974 SC 1389) at p. 1395:"minorities will virtually lose their righl to equip their children for ordinary careers if affiliation be on terms which would make them surrender and lose their rights to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30. The primary purpose of affiliation is that the students reading in the minority institutions will have qualifications in the shape of degrees necessary for a useful career in life. The establishment of a minority institution is not only ineffective but also unreal unless such institution is affiliated to a University for the purpose of conferment of degrees on students. The primary purpose of affiliation is that the students reading in the minority institutions will have qualifications in the shape of degrees necessary for a useful career in life. The establishment of a minority institution is not only ineffective but also unreal unless such institution is affiliated to a University for the purpose of conferment of degrees on students. "the relevant law is summarised in AIR 1984 sc 1757 , (referred already), (para-7) thus :" (1) That while Art. 30 undoubtedly seeks to preserve the religious freedom, autonomy and its individuality; there is no fundamental right under which an institution can claim either aid or affiliation as a matter of right. It is permissible for the State or the University, as the ease may be, to lay down reasonable conditions to maintain the excellence of standard of education but in the garb of doing so, refusal to grant affiliation cannot be made a ruse or pretext lor destroying, the individuality and personality of Ihe said institution. it this is done, then apart from being wholly arbitrary and unreasonable it would amount to a clear infraction ol the provisions of Art. 30 because what cannot be done directly is done indirectly. "" (2) While the Slate or a University has got absolute right to insist on certain courses of study to be followed by institutions before they could be considered for affiliation but these conditions should not in any way take away the frcedom of management or administration ot the institution so as to reduce it to a satellite of the University or the Stale. This is wholly impermissible because such a course ol action directly violates Art. 30 of the Constitution. "" (3) While imposing conditions before granting affiliation, as indicated above, the stale or the University cannot kill or annihilate the individuality or personality of the institution in question by insisting on following a particular kind of syllabus or a course of study which may be directly opposed to the aims, objects and ideals sought to be achieved by the institutions. "" (4) There is a very thin line of distinction between withholding of affiliation for a particular purpose on extraneous grounds so as to subject the institution to rigorous orders, edicts or resolutions which may run counter to the dominant purpose for which the institution has been founded, and insisting on genuine and reasonable conditions to be imposed in the larger interest of education. "therefore, it can be safely said that right to affiliation does not automatically flow out of art. 30, though without affiliation the right to establish and administer an educational institution of one's choice may become illusory. ( 29 ) IN none of these cases before the supreme Court, the problem now faced by us arose, directly. In most of the cases, the affiliation was granted subject to certain conditions, some of which resulted in, practically depriving the minority of its right to administer the institution in question. In some cases, conditions for affiliation were upheld, which, in effect touched the service conditions of the teachers and other employees of the institution, which in turn contributed to the welfare of the institution ultimately. In the instant cases, the question does not pertain to the reasonableness of any such regulatory measures, but, the very right to establish a recognised educational institution. That is why, Mr. Sequeire contended that, denial of the affiliation, here, is a clear annihilation of the right guaranteed under art. 30, because, it serves no purpose to establish an educational institution, without affiliation to the University. ( 30 ) THE State, on the other hand, contends that, the denial of affiliation is not because the institution is a minority institution, but is based on the general policy, evolved having regard to the situation in the State; it has been found absolutely necessary to curb unemployment amongst the B. Ed. , graduates and other trained teachers. The State has, invoked Art. 41 in this regard. The contention of the State found favour with the learned single Judge who held that Directive principles stated in Part-IV of the Constitution should be harmoniously read with the rights guaranteed under Part-Ill and the right conferred by Art. 30, should be read along with Art. 41 of the Constitution. An illustration may help to appreciate the contention of the State. The linguistic and religious minorities may consist of more than twelve groups in the State. An illustration may help to appreciate the contention of the State. The linguistic and religious minorities may consist of more than twelve groups in the State. Some of the linguistic minorities are formed by those who speak Tulu, Konkani, Marathi, Telugu, malayalam, Tamil and Hindi. Religious minorities such as Christians, Muslims and jains are also residents of the State. Among the Christians, there are Roman Catholics and other kinds of Christians. Most of these minorities (religious as well as linguistic) have not confined themselves to one single organisation for each of them. Several organisations or societies of Muslims can be found in the State which are running educational institutions. Similarly there may be more than one Tamil Organisation in the state. If Mr. Sequeira's contention is accepted and Art. 30 of the Constitution is held as conferring a right to affiliation whenever a minority institution seeks affiliation, then, in a situation where each of the minority groups seek affiliation to a particular kind of educational institution, it will lead to chaotic conditions. If 12 minority groups seek affiliation for 12 new B. Ed. , colleges, can it be said that affiliation should be granted to all of them even though, the number of existing B. Ed. , colleges have reached to optimum level in the State and the existing output of B. Ed. , graduates far exceed the reqduisite number who could be suitably employed? Can it be the intention of the Constitution makers to make the State a helpless spectator of such a situation and to permit the religious or linguistic minorities to add to the problem of unemployment in the State? The answer, seems to us too obvious to be stated. Therefore, the incidental right claimed by Mr. Se- quiera need not be and cannot be read as an unbreakable integral part of the right conferred by Art. 30. Since the degrees conferred by the University on the students of the affiliated colleges, will open up avenues for employment and other careers in life and the employment situation in the State is the concern of the State, it cannot be held that state is helpless in regulating and restricting the establishment of 'affiliated' colleges within the State boundaries. Since the degrees conferred by the University on the students of the affiliated colleges, will open up avenues for employment and other careers in life and the employment situation in the State is the concern of the State, it cannot be held that state is helpless in regulating and restricting the establishment of 'affiliated' colleges within the State boundaries. The social evil of umemployed caused by a large output of graduates in a particular field would equally damage the interests of the minorities as it would damage the interests of the majorities in the State. When the State finds that output of qualified teachers in the State out number the requirement, the resulting situation cannot be ignored by the minorities, as not their concern at all. The output of unwanted graduates would be defeating one of the objects of affiliation, viz. , to train the students who can be absorbed in jobs and other kinds of employment. When it is not possible to provide employment to them, the output of such trained men and women will be problematic to all sections of the people in the State. The establishment of affiliated colleges would pose a greater danger to the interest of minorities, rather than, advancing their interest, in such a situation. Therefore, the restriction as to the number of colleges in the State and the limit on the intake of students by any institution so that the total output of qualified persons and graduates in the state may not exceed a reasonable number, ultimately is conducive to the advancement of the interests of minorities also. Such a restriction is closely proximate and relevant to the question of public order and maintenance of morale of younger generation. Every restriction is not destructive of the right under Art. 30; restrictions which are imposed in the interest of every segment of the society of which the minorities form an integral part, make the right, on which the restriction is imposed, more effective and utilitarian. ( 31 ) MINORITIES ore spread over the entire state. Any given particular minority group has its members living in several parts of the state. A section of that particular minority group may not know the existence of similar educational institution established by another section of the same minority group, at a different place. ( 31 ) MINORITIES ore spread over the entire state. Any given particular minority group has its members living in several parts of the state. A section of that particular minority group may not know the existence of similar educational institution established by another section of the same minority group, at a different place. It is possible only for the state, with its vast resources and integrated machinery to gauge the situation and arrive at a proper conclusion, as to whether, the in- terest of the particular minority requires the establishment of a new affiliated educational institution. The 'choice' referred in Art. 30, pertains to the choice of the subject of education and not to the number of institutions in a particular subject. ( 32 ) THEREFORE, we are of the view that the state is entitled to consider the reasonableness of the requirement of a minority institution when it seeks affiliation, having regard to the existing number of affiliated and recognised institutions imparting education in the particular subject, in the background of the requirements of the State and the state's capacity to absorb the graduates (or the diploma holders) in the employment, the possible outflow of a few such qualified persons from the State. The State has to perform a balancing act while considering these and other relevant matters, while considering the requirement of a minority group for affiliation or recognition. ( 33 ) BEFORE parting with this subject, it is necessary to note that no institution or organisation can claim a right under Art. 30 just because it is formed by a group belonging to a particular minority. The Supreme court in A. P. Christians Medical Educational society v Government of Andhra Pradesh and another etc. ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ) at 1496, has expressed words of caution in this regard as:"these institutions must be educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked phantoms. They may be institutions intended to give the children of the minorities the best general and professional education, to make them complete men and women of the country and to enable them to go out into the world fully prepared and equipped. They may be institutions where special provision is made to the advantage and for the advancement of the minority children. They may be institutions where special provision is made to the advantage and for the advancement of the minority children. They may be institutions where the parents of the children of the minority community may expect that education in accordance with the basic tenets of their religion would be imparted by or under the guidance of teachers, learned and steeped in the faith. They may be institutions where the parents expect their children to grow in a pervasive atmosphere which is in harmony with their religion or conductive to the pursuit of it. What is important and what is imperative is that there must exist some real position index to enable the institution to be identified as an educational institution of the minorities. " ( 34 ) MR. Sequeire referred to Ar. 31-C of the Constitution, to contend that, the right conferred under Art. 30 is of dominant nature, which cannot be taken away, even to give effect to any of the Directive Principles enumerated under Part-IV of the Constitution. Art. 31-C is attracted where the law is attacked as violative of Art. 14 or 19 and the state justifies such a law as giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part-IV of the Constitution. His contention is that, the immunity from attack given by Art. 31-C only against an attack based on Art. 14 or 19 and if the State's policy comes in the way of enforcement of Art. 30, no immunity is attracted. According to Mr. Sequeire, Art. 31-C highlights the extraordinary status of the right conferred by Art. 30 and no directive principle can come in the way of its enforcement. ( 35 ) ART. 31-C was first introduced into the constitution with effect from 29-1-1972 by virtue of the Constitution (25th Amendment) act 1971. Originally, the immunity of Art. 31-C was confined to a law made to secure the Directive Principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39. The blanket immunity in respect of all the Directive Principles was created, by enlarging the scope of protection to the laws, by the 42nd Amendment to the constitution. Originally, the immunity of Art. 31-C was confined to a law made to secure the Directive Principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Art. 39. The blanket immunity in respect of all the Directive Principles was created, by enlarging the scope of protection to the laws, by the 42nd Amendment to the constitution. However, in Minerva Mills Ltd. and others v Union of India and Others ( AIR 1980 sc 1789 ), the Supreme Court held this extension of the Article 31-C to cover all the directive Principles was beyond the amending power of the Constitution; thus the shield of protection, to the law, was confined if the law was to ensure the securing of the principles stated in clauses (a) or (b) of Art. 39. The contention of Mr. Sequeira has two facets: (i) Art. 30 is outside the scope of the protective umbrella of Art. 31-C and hence enforcement of the right given by Art. 30 cannot be stopped by invoking any of the similar principles; (ii) Art. 41 on which the state has relied in the instant case, also does not fall within the scope of Art. 31-C and the policy to secure the policy of Art. 41 is not all protected, if the said policy violates any of the fundamental rights. ( 36 ) IN Minerva Mills' case, the extension of the protective arm of Article 31-C was curtailed. At the same time, the Court pointed out the importance of the Directive principles found in part-IV of the Constitution:"there is no doubt that though the courts have always attach very great importance to the preservation of human liberties, no less importance has been attached to some of the Directive Principles of State policy enunciated in Part IV. In the words of Granville Austin, (The Indian constitution: Corner Stone of a Nation, p. 50) the Indian Constitution is first and foremost a social document and the majority of its provisions are aimed at furthering the goals of social revolution by establishing the conditions necessary for its achievement. Therefore, the importance of Directive Principles in the scheme of Our Constitution cannot ever be overemphasized. Those principles project the high ideal which the Constitution aims to achieve. Therefore, the importance of Directive Principles in the scheme of Our Constitution cannot ever be overemphasized. Those principles project the high ideal which the Constitution aims to achieve. In fact Directive principles of state policy are fundamental in the governance of the country and the attorney General is right that there is no sphere of public life where delay can defeat justice with more telling effect than the one in which the common man seeks the realisation of his aspirations. The promise of a better tomorrow must be fulfilled today, day after tomorrow it runs the risk of being conveniently for gotten. Indeed, so many tomorrows have come and gone without a leaf turning that today there is lurking danger that people will work out their destiny through the compelled cult of their own 'dirty hands'. Words bandied about an marbled halls say much but fail to achieve as much. But there is another competing constitutional interest which occupies an equally important place in that scheme. That interest is reflected in the provisions of Part III which confer fundamental rights, some on citizens as Articles 15, 16 and 19 do and some on all persons alike as Articles 14,20, 21 and 22 do. As Granville Austin says: "the core of the commitment to the social revolution lies in Parts III and IV. . . These are the conscience of the Constitution. "after some discussion, it was observed at page 1806:"the significance of the perception that parts HI and IV together constitute the core of commitment to social revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the Constitution is to be traced to a deep understanding of the scheme of the Indian constitution. Granville Austin's observation brings out the true position than Parts iii and IV are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less important than the other. You snap one and the other will lose its efficacy. They are like a twin formula for achieving the social revolution, which is the ideal which the visionary founders of the Constitution set before themselves. In other words, the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution. In other words, the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. "proceeding further, it was said:-"this is not mere semantics. The edifice of our Constitution is built upon the concepts crystallised in the Preamble. We resolved to constitute ourselves into a socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice social, economic and political. We, therefore, put Part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of state policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved. We promised to our people a democratic policy which carries with it the obligation of securing to the people liberty of thought, expression, be life, faith and worship, equality of status and of opportunity and the assurance that the dignity of the individual will at all costs be preserved. We, therefore, put Part III in our Constitution conferring those rights on the people. Those rights are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end. The end is specified in Part IV. Therefore, the rights conferred by Part III are subject to reasonable restrictions and the Constitution provides that enforcement of some of them may, in stated uncommon circumstances, be suspended. But just as the rights conferred by part III would be without a radar and a compass if they were not geared to an ideal, in the same manner the attainment of the ideals set out in Part IV would become a pretence or tyranny if the price to be paid for achieving that ideal is human freedoms. One of the faiths of our founding fathers was the purity of means. Indeed, under our law, even a dacoit who has committed a murder cannot be put to death in the exercise of rights of self- defence after he has made good his escape. So great is the insistence of civilised laws on the purity of means. The goals set out in Part IV have, therefore, to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. So great is the insistence of civilised laws on the purity of means. The goals set out in Part IV have, therefore, to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. It is in this sense that Parts III and IV together constitute the core of our Constitution and combine to form its conscience. Anything that destroys the balance between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our Constitution. "as to the purpose of Article 31-C, it was observed, at page 1808:"the object and purpose of the amendment of Article 31c is really to save laws which cannot be saved under Article 19 (2) to (6 ). Laws which fall under those provisions are in the nature of reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights in public interest and therefore they abridge but do not abrogate the fundamental rights. It was in order to deal with laws which do not get the protection of Article 19 (2) to (6) that Article 31c was amended to say that the provisions of Article 19, inter alia, cannot be invoked for voiding the laws of the description mentioned in article 31c. "this is a clear indication of the fact that article 31-C is attracted to save a law falling within its scope, if the law clearly violates Article 14 or 19. ( 37 ) A law may offend a particular fundamental right, even though, it is made to secure any of the Directive Principles; in such a case, Article 31c may come to the protection of the law. This, station is, quite different, from reading a particular fundamental right harmoniously with a directive principle, so as to confine the content of the fundamental right not to impede the State's duty to implement a particular directive principle. To this latter situation, there is no need to invoke Article 31-C at all, because, having regard to the content of the fundamental right as applied, the law would not be invalid at all. ( 38 ) ARTICLE 31-C does not enact a principle of interpretation, but spreads a protective umbrella by its own force. If Article 31-C is attracted to a law, question of examining the validity of such a law under Article 14 or 16 does not arise. ( 38 ) ARTICLE 31-C does not enact a principle of interpretation, but spreads a protective umbrella by its own force. If Article 31-C is attracted to a law, question of examining the validity of such a law under Article 14 or 16 does not arise. In the instant case, we have to find out the content of the right conferred by Article 30 in the light of article 41 of the Constitution. To what extent a fundamental right can be stretched or to be limited in the entire setting of Part IV of the Constitution, is a question that arises in the domain of construction of the provisions of Part III. Article 31-C has no role at all in this process of interpretation. ( 39 ) A reading of some of the observations of the Supreme Court in Minerva Mill's case, excerpted above also indicate the advisability of harmonising the two important parts of the Constitution, Parts HI and IV. The two competing constitutional interests rights of the people and the duties of the State -, if could be harmonised, like wheels of a chariot, the journey for the attainment of the constitutional goal would be smoother. Here, the contention of the State is not based on Article 31-C. The State relies on article 41 of the Constitution and seeks sanctity to its policy, to limit the number of educational institutions. According to the state, Article 41 has to be read with Article 30 so as to read both of them harmoniously and if so read, denial of affiliation sought by the alleged minority institutions would not contravene the rights guaranteed by Article 30. In fact, the same is the ratio of the decision of the learned single Judge with whom we respectfully agree. ( 40 ) THE learned single Judge referred to several decisions of Supreme Court to opine that a real attempt at harmonising and reconciling the directive principles and the fundamental rights should be made and any collusion between the two should be avoided so far as possible - State of Tamil Nadu v Abu kavur Bai ( AIR 1984 SC 326 ) - [vide page 3212 of ILR 1988 Kar.- Similarly AIR 1983 sc 130 - D. S. Nakara v Union of India - was quoted at page 3213 of the same ILR]. The relevant passage from D. S. Nakara ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) is repeated here:"it therefore, appears to be well established that while interpreting or examining the constitutional validity of legislative/administrative action, the touch stone of Directive principles of State policy in the light of the Preamble will provide a reliable yardstick to hold one way or the other. " ( 41 ) IN a case where harmonious construction is not at all possible, and the law offends any of the fundamental rights, said law has to be declared valid unless Article 31-C affords protection to it. Such a situation arises where the two competing interests (as referred by Supreme Court regarding Parts III and IV of the Constitution) cannot be harmonised. But, if the two interests - one under Part III and the other under Part IV - could be read together and reconciled, question of declaring the law as void, does not arise. The contention of Mr. Sequeira is based on his assumption that the policy evolved by the State in the instant case, cannot harmonised with the right conferred by Article 30. It is not possible for us to agree with this contention. The policy of the State does not permanently prohibit the minorities from seeking affiliation. The policy postpones the consideration of permitting affiliated/recognised institutions to a further date. The said policy as already held by us, furthers the interest of minorities also and advances one of the objects behind the requirement of affiliation/recognition for an educational institution. Therefore, we hold that the policy in no way contravenes the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution. ( 42 ) THE decision of Kerala High Court in state of Kerala and others v Manager, Corporate management of Schools of the Diocese of Palai and others (1970 K. L. T. 106), is distinguishable. There, the Rule framed by the Government required, every Aided Training School to reserve 80 per cent of seats to be filled up by the governmental bodies; the management was allowed to have only 20 per cent of the seats for itself to fill up; such a rule was held to violate article 30 of the Constitution, and not binding on a minority institution. It was not a case where, the State limited the total output of trained teachers, by not permitting new recognised schools or colleges to be established. It was not a case where, the State limited the total output of trained teachers, by not permitting new recognised schools or colleges to be established. The restriction which is held to be destructive of the minorities' right under article 30 of the Constitution, in Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabbai and others v State of Gujarat and another ( AIR 1963 SC 640 ) again is of a different nature. Sixty per cent of the seats in an institution receiving Aid had to be given up for the government and the management had to be satisfied with forty per cent of the seats; such a condition was held to be impermissible, because, it interfered with the right to administer the institution of its choice, by a minority. However, at para 15, the permissible restrictions on the right under Article 30 are stated thus:-"regulations which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution effective as an educational institution. Such regulation must satisfy a dual test - the test of reasonableness and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. " ( 43 ) THEREFORE, if an educational institution when established cannot be "an effective vehicle of education", State should have a power not to recognise it as an effective vehicle of education so that the institution may not impart an education recognisable by the State which would confer eligibility on the students to seek employment or careers. In an atmosphere where unemployment threatens every trained teacher, any new institution to train teachers cannot be held to-be an effective vehicle of "education", in the sense, the word is understood for the purposes of State recognition. Rt. Revenue Manager Mark Netto v government of Kerala and others ( AIR 1979 SC 83 ) referred by Mr. Sequeira is again distinguishable. The question pertained to co-education in a High School. Refusal of permission to admit girl students in a hitherto boys' school was motivated to favour another existing Girls' school in the locality, as is clear from para-6 of the decision. Sequeira is again distinguishable. The question pertained to co-education in a High School. Refusal of permission to admit girl students in a hitherto boys' school was motivated to favour another existing Girls' school in the locality, as is clear from para-6 of the decision. Further, the Rule compelled bifurcation of girls and boys for studies in different schools. At one stage, Mr. Sequeira agreed that in case any restriction is imperative, the claim of the minority may have to yield to the purpose of such a restriction. The restriction limiting the number of institutions to train teachers, in the ultimate analysis, here, is a restriction that is conducive to protect the minorities' interest also. The problems resulting from huge unemployment cannot be the concern of non-minorities only, the problem would damage the interests of the minorities, as well. RE. ARTICLE 14 : ( 44 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the State government has enhanced the intake strength of several colleges, after evolving the impugned policy decision; by enhancing the intake strength, the basis of the policy is taken away. If output of B. Ed, or diploma holders in teaching course in the State should not exceed the limit recommended by the Expert committee, it was contended, how can the intake strength in several colleges be increased. It was also contended that three new colleges were permitted and affiliation were granted to them despite policy decision. ( 45 ) ON behalf of the State it was pointed out that the affiliations granted to the three institutions, referred by the petitioners, were old applicants and the academic periods for which these affiliations related, were anterior to the academic years during which the impugned policy of the State, was evolved. It was also stated by the State, that as some of the existing affiliated colleges had admitted students, slightly in excess of their permitted intake strength; and in the interest of these students, the Government relaxed the rigidity of the policy, the permitted excess intake was pointed out, as only marginal. ( 46 ) THE principle of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution is not a rigid and inflexible rule, having mathematical precision. ( 46 ) THE principle of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution is not a rigid and inflexible rule, having mathematical precision. The Court has to examine the reasonableness of the law or the action of the State having regard to all the relevant circumstances, while testing the validity of the law and the State action, under Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality has to be amongst those who are really equal, with reference to the subject matter of the law or the State action. Further, every marginal deviation from the propounded policy would not give rise to a similar right in others to whom the benefit of such deviation is not given by the State. If the State permitted a few more students to be admitted by a few existing affiliated educational institutions, a new entrant to the field of education cannot make it a ground to seek affiliation to its educational institution. Similarly, the relevant facts pertaining to these three new colleges, permitted by the State as explained which make them different from the petitioners, for the purposes of affiliation. The Court has accepted the policy of the State against starting of the new affiliated/recognised institutions, as a valid policy. In fact, the State has traced this policy to the Directive Principle enunciated by article 41 of the Constitution. In such a circumstance, if further new colleges are to be permitted by issuance of any writ by this Court, such a judicial action will be destructive of the accepted principle behind the said valid policy. Court cannot contribute to the negation of the law or the policy, found by it and accepted by all, as advancing an ameliorative measure. As observed by the Supreme Court in Coromandel fertilisers Ltd. v Union of India and Others ( AIR 1984 SC 1772 ) - (at p. 1777 para 12) - a wrong decision by the governmental authorities in favour of any particular party would not entitle any other party to claim the benefit on the basis of the wrong decision. As observed by the Supreme Court in Coromandel fertilisers Ltd. v Union of India and Others ( AIR 1984 SC 1772 ) - (at p. 1777 para 12) - a wrong decision by the governmental authorities in favour of any particular party would not entitle any other party to claim the benefit on the basis of the wrong decision. Hence this contention of the petitioners also has to fail, because, (i) the respondents have explained the reasons for enhancing the intake strength of a few colleges, as also for granting affiliation to the three colleges, and (ii) assuming that the affiliation granted to these three educational institutions and enhancement of intake in other colleges, contravened the policy decision of the government, same would not create a right in favour of the petitioners, for a similar benefit. ( 47 ) APPELLANT in W. A. No. 78/1989 also contended that it admitted 75 students in the hope that affiliation would be granted. The karnataka University, on the other hand, pointed out that, the institution in question admitted those students despite a warning not to do so. Those students were permitted to appear for the relevant examinations subject to the result of the writ petition (the Writ appeal ). On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the petitioner-institution, which admitted the students, in spite of the university's warning not to admit them, we are of the view that this Court cannot grant any relief to the institution, or to the students. The situation is similar to the facts found in two decisions of the Supreme Court (i) Nageshwaramma v State of Andhra pradesh and Another ( AIR 1986 SC 1188 ); (ii) A. P. Christians Medical Educational society v Government of Andhra pradesh and Another etc. ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ). The Supreme Court, in both these decisions, under similar circumstances, refused to rescue the students involved therein, who were admitted to institutions, which were either not recognised or affiliated, by permitting them to take up the examination. In Nageshwaramma's case ( AIR 1986 SC 1188 ), the Supreme Court observed, at p. 1191:"if by a fiat of the Court we direct the government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. In Nageshwaramma's case ( AIR 1986 SC 1188 ), the Supreme Court observed, at p. 1191:"if by a fiat of the Court we direct the government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Article 32 of the constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs. "in the latter decision (AIR 1986 SC 1480), it was observed, at p. 1497:"shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the university to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Sri venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our flat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the university itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. "consequently, we reject this contention of the appellants. ( 48 ) IN the view we have taken as above, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Consequently these appeals are dismissed, without any order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice. ORDER ON ORAL PRAYER cj and KSBJ september, 6,1989. An oral prayer is made by the learned counsel for the appellants for certifying these appeals as fit ones to appeal to the Supreme court. In our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, arises in these appeals. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .