Judgment : The petitioner-college challenges the proceedings of the first respondent-University by which the University informed the College that the admission of the students to I M.Sc, Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry for the academic year 1993-94 is not approved by the Syndicate since it has been done on the basis of adding 25 marks for their performance in an interview to test their knowledge of Saiva Siddantha and such a prescription is against admission rules laid down by the Government and the University. The proceedings further stated that it is also resolved not to admit the said students for examinations. It is also stated that the College is permitted to fill up the vacancies caused by the cancellation of the above said admissions by fresh admissions on the basis of merit and rules of reservation. 2. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that the petitioner-college was established in the year 1961 and is being administercd by Sri Kasi Mutt, Thirupanan-dal and Sri La Sri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswami Thambiran Swamigal is the head of the Mult. The petitioner also alleges that Kasi Mutt is a Saivaite Religious Denominational Minority Institution under Art.26 of the Constitution of India and that the said Kasi Mutt has been established and is administering several Educational Institutions, one Kasivasi Swaminatha Swamigal Senthamil College at Tirupanandal, Sri Kumaragurubara Swamigal Matriculation School and other middle schools at Tiruloki, Tirupanandal etc., apart from the petitioner-college. It is also stated that the educational agency of the petitioner-college filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1985 before the Sub Court, Kumbakonam for declaration, declaring its institution as a denominational minority educational institution and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation Act) are not applicable to its colleges, including the petitioner-college. It is also stated that a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner by judgment dated 18. 1985 granting declaration and than an appeal has also been filed by the State in A.S.No.62 of 1986 before the District Court, Thanjavur West, Thanjavur and it was dismissed by judgment dated 22. 1990. The said judgment and decree had become final. As such, it is staled that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority institution declared by the competent civil court. 1990. The said judgment and decree had become final. As such, it is staled that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority institution declared by the competent civil court. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the Madurai-Kamaraj University under whose jurisdiction the petitioner-college was functioning, granted affiliation to the petitioner-college to M.Sc, Physics from 19S5-86 and M.Sc. Chemistry from 1988-89, and that after the establishment of the first respondent University by virtue of the provisions of the Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 (Act No.31 of 1990), the petitioner-college has come under the purview of the first respondent-University. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the Madurai University Teachers Association, which is called ‘MUTA’ used to make false allegations against the petitioner management and started giving trouble to the Management. It is also pointed out that ‘MUTA’ also sent frivolous applications to the respondent-University with regard to the admission of M.Sc, Physics and M.Sc, Chemistry for the present academic year. It is also stated that for the first year M.Sc, Physics and M.Sc, Chemistry course, 12 seats in each course are sanctioned to the petitioner-college and the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 16. 1993. stated to adhere to the norms prescribed by the University while making admission to various post-graduate courses. It is pointed out that the candidate for admission to M.Sc, degree course, candidates should have secured atleast 55% marks in Part III of B.Sc, in the particular subject and in case of S.C./S.T. Candidates minimum marks may be reduced from 55 to 45. It is also pointed out that by communication dated 5. 1993, the first respondent-University has stated that with reference to admission of students in any college, except minority, the admission should be strictly on merit basis subject to the rule of reservation and physically handicapped candidates. It is also alleged that the petitioner-college being declared minority college is empowered to admit students according to its faith, and that the only requirement is not to select any student who does not have the minimum prescribed marks of 55% in B.Sc, degree. It is also alleged in the affidavit that out of 12 seats permitted to the petitioner-college for each subject in M.Sc, and that the petitioner has selected 50% of seats purely on merits. It is also alleged in the affidavit that out of 12 seats permitted to the petitioner-college for each subject in M.Sc, and that the petitioner has selected 50% of seats purely on merits. It is also alleged that in the minority quota, the petitioner management conducted an interview to assess the knowledge of Saiva Siddantha for 25 marks and college candidates were selected. So the petitioner alleges that all the candidates under merit quota in M.Sc, Physics and Chemistry are admitted purely on merits basis and that the scats under minority quota were filled up after conducting an interview with academic marks and all the selected candi-dates are admittedly having more than 55% marks in their B.Sc, subject. It is also stated that the last date for admission of students was 38. 1993 and that the selection list was duly intimated to the respondents after the completion of select ion. It is also stated, that being, so the first respondent-University at the instance of MUTA orders an enquiry by constituting a commission consisting of three members and the commission before completion of admission on 18. 1993. visited the college and noted that two candidates from S.C. were not admitted in M.Sc, Physics and M.Sc, Chemistry. It is specifically pointed out that the said inspection was conducted before the completion of admission. It is also alleged in the affidavit that on the basis of the said inspection report, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the admissions are not made strictly in accordance with merit and also threatening to cancel the admissions made, if no explanation is offered. It stated that after getting a copy of the enquiry report, sent an explanation dated 29. 1993. stating that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority college and it is entitled to admit students upto 50% as management quota and 50% alone is bound to be filled up strictly on merit. It is also pointed out that in the respondents without conducting an enquiry properly of verifying the actual facts passed the impugned order dated 210. 1993 cancelling the admission of 1 M.Sc., Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry for the year 1993-94 alleging that the management has violated the rules laid down by the Government and the University. It is also pointed out that in the respondents without conducting an enquiry properly of verifying the actual facts passed the impugned order dated 210. 1993 cancelling the admission of 1 M.Sc., Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry for the year 1993-94 alleging that the management has violated the rules laid down by the Government and the University. It is also alleged that a reading of the order will disclose that the respondents have proceeded as if the petitioner-college is a non-minority college when the civil court has declared that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority college. It is also pointed out the affidavit that no candidate is admitted in M.Sc, course who has less than the minimum marks prescribed by the University and as such the respondents are not empowered to cancel the admission of Post Graduate courses of the petitioner-college. It is also pointed out that all the 24 candidates in Post Graduate course in I M.Sc. Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry had paid the examination fees for the first semester examination commencing from 11. 1993 and that by virtue of the impugned order, the students are unable to sit for the first semester examination. It is also pointed out that the petitioner-college is entitled to follow its own procedure for admission upto 50% as held by the Supreme Court in St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1630: (1992)1 S.C.C 558 and that the impugned order is in violation of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. It is further pointed that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to cancel the admission under the provisions of the Manon-maniyam Sundaranar University Act and that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the declaration obtained by the petitioner in the civil court is that Sri Kasi Mutt is a religious denomination and that being a religious denomination certain provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 would not apply to the said Mult and that there is no declaration that the provisions of the Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 should not apply to the petitioner institution. It is also pointed out that the petitioner institution was originally affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University, and that by Act, 31 of 1990, mentioned above, it stands affiliated to the first respondent-University. It is also pointed out that the petitioner institution was originally affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University, and that by Act, 31 of 1990, mentioned above, it stands affiliated to the first respondent-University. It is also stated under Scc.4 of the Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) the University has prescribed conditions for affiliation. The counter-affidavit refers to the decision in Un-nikrishnan v. State of A.P., (1993)1 S.C.C. 645 , in which the Supreme court has directed that private educational institutions in the matter of admission of students will have to follow the rule of merit subject to the rule of reservation alone, that it is understood to be a condition for the grant of aid and as such the first respondent directed all the colleges to make admissions on the basis of merit subject to the rule of reservation and the said direction will equally apply to the petitioner-college. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that in respect of some colleges complaints were received from public parents and from students that the admission norms had been violated. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the first respondent University appointed an inspection committee to go into the issue of the deviations and violations of the norms prescribed by the University. It is also stated that the petitioner-college receives cent percent aid from the Government and the Inspection Committee visited the college, after due notice, and in the report it is stated that though the last date for receipt of application forms was 17. 1993, a communication was sent by the petitioner-college to all the Hindu students on 8. 1993 calling upon them 10 attend an interview at a place called Kalairkoil. It is also stated that the Principal and Secretary conducted an oral test for 25 marks and applicants appear to have been questioned on Saiva Siddhanta. It is also stated that the details regarding faith in Saiva Siddantha was not asked in the application forms, nor was it stated in the prospectus that 50% of the seats would be reserved for those following Saiva Siddantha. It is also stated that the details regarding faith in Saiva Siddantha was not asked in the application forms, nor was it stated in the prospectus that 50% of the seats would be reserved for those following Saiva Siddantha. It is also pointed out that in the absence of mechanism to identify such persons led to two members of the Admissions Committee objecting to such a course, the Principal went ahead with allotment of 50% scats to M.Sc, Physics and Chemistry courses on the basis of academic performance and marks obtained in the interview. It is also pointed out that the inspection commission received complaints from the second year M.Sc, Physics and Chemistry Students that they had paid capitation fee ranging from Rs.9,000 to Rs. 15,000 in the previous year at Tiruppanandal Mull and only after that they were given seats. it is also stated that the commission could not meet the second year students as the classes were not functioning-then. It is also stated that after the receipt of the report of the commission, the respondent University issued a show cause notice dated 19. 1993. to the principal of the college asking his explanations. It is also staled that the principal sent a letter dated 29. 1993. asking for the copies of the annexures and also sent a reply letter dated 29. 1993 followed by another letter dated 10. 1993. It is also stated that a meeting of the University Syndicate was summoned on 210. 1993. and the subject was placed before the Syndicate with all relevant records on the subject and therein it was decided that the admissions made on the basis of allotment of 25 marks for the performance in the interview to test the knowledge of “Saiva Siddhanta” was not acceptable as it was against the admission norms and it further resolved not to accept the admissions of the students. It is also pointed out that the declaration issued by the civil court in favour of petitioner-college will not enable it to claim protection under Art.30 of the Constitution, and that the protection under Art.30 is given only to a religious minority. It is also stated that even assuming that the religious denomination is also entitled to the benefit of Art.30 of the Constitution, the question whether the minority institution can have its own method of selection was considered in St. It is also stated that even assuming that the religious denomination is also entitled to the benefit of Art.30 of the Constitution, the question whether the minority institution can have its own method of selection was considered in St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1930: (1992)1 S.C.C. 558 . It is also stated that the Supreme Court has held that the minority institution had power to admit students belonging to that minority to the extent of 50% of total seats. It is also pointed out that the view that the minority institution can adopt its own selection procedure had been disagreed by five Judges bench of the Supreme Court and the said issue has been referred to a larger Bench. It is also stated that it has been held by the Supreme Court that the University can stipulate that the students including the minority students should be drawn from the common merit list and that even minority community candidates must be admitted on the basis of inter se merit from the same list, that the said requirement was held to be a regulation in the interest of fairness and maintenance of standards and as such the University can stipulate that admission should be made only on the basis of merit. It is also pointed out that assuming without admitting, the petitioner-college is entitled to the benefits under Art.30, it can admit students belonging to that minority community alone to the extent of 50% i.e., the candidates who profess and practise Saiva Siddhanta. It is also stated that the application form did not contain any column which requires the students to indicate such practice of “Saiva Siddhanta” and that in the affidavit it has been stated that the interview was conducted to assess the knowledge of ‘Saiva Siddhanta’ and 25 marks were allotted for the interview. It is also stated that the petitioner-college called for the candidates belonging to Hindu Religion, for the oral interview at its mutt office and that for ascertaining as to how they belonged to Hindu religion, no proof was called for by the petitioner-college. It is also stated that the petitioner-college called for the candidates belonging to Hindu Religion, for the oral interview at its mutt office and that for ascertaining as to how they belonged to Hindu religion, no proof was called for by the petitioner-college. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the fact that the petitioner-college called for the students belonging to Hindu religion alone was admitted, that at the same time it is claimed in the affidavit that Saiva Siddhanta was a separate religion and as such when Saiva Siddantha is a separate religion, calling students belonging to Hindu religion was erroneous and that the stand of the petitioner-college is self-contradictory. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner-college had not admitted students in any of the previous years on the basis of such a procedure, that even this year it has been adopted only for the P.G. course and as such students who have secured high marks in the academic examinations have been deprived of seals in the 50% quota filled up by the petitioner management. It is also staled that allotting 25 marks for the intervicw is violative of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., (1993)1 S.C.C. 645 . It is also pointed out that the declaration granted by the Civil Court is only that Sri Kasi Mult is a religious denomination within the meaning of Art.26 of the Constitution, that no such declaration was granted under Art. 30 of the Constitution as required under Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and as such to say that the petitioner-college is a denominational minority institution would be incorrect. The allegation made by the petitioner that the Inspection Commission was set up only at the instance of MUTA is denied in the counter. It is also pointed out that the Commission was set up not only for the petitioner-college but also for several colleges on the basis of complaints received from parents, students as well as the teaching staff. The allegation made by the petitioner that the Inspection Commission was set up only at the instance of MUTA is denied in the counter. It is also pointed out that the Commission was set up not only for the petitioner-college but also for several colleges on the basis of complaints received from parents, students as well as the teaching staff. It is also stated that the petitioner-college receives 100% grant from the Government, that it is bound to follow the rule of merit in respect of admission to students, that the admission of students to the extent of 50% by the minority can only be students belonging to the minority and as such the proce-dure adoptcd by the college is arbitrary and illegal, as the students did not belong to the religious denomination. It is also stated in the counter-affi-davit that the students have completed one semester cannot clothe them with any right and that the admissions made contrary to law cannot be sustained. It is also stated that the Supreme Court has held that the minority institutions can prefer their own community candidates upto the extent prescribed by the State which cannot exceed 50% of total seats and that the petitioner-college, even though not a minority college, has not admitted 50% of the students on that basis. It is also stated that the selection of students to the extent of 50% by the petitioner management on the basis of performance in the examination as well as in the interview is totally illegal and arbitrary, and that if the students are permitted to write the examinations, great prejudice will be caused. 4. Originally, the State of Tamil Nadu was not impleaded as party-respondent and it has been impleaded as fourth respondent by order dated 111. 1993. in W.M.P.No.31419 of 1993. .5. Two students, who have been admitted in the petitioner-college, filed W.M.P.No.31292 of 1993 in W.P.No. 19833 of 1993 praying to implead them as party-respondents, and it has been ordered on 111. 1993. 1993. in W.M.P.No.31419 of 1993. .5. Two students, who have been admitted in the petitioner-college, filed W.M.P.No.31292 of 1993 in W.P.No. 19833 of 1993 praying to implead them as party-respondents, and it has been ordered on 111. 1993. It is pointed out in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner that the students were not given any notice before passing of the impugned order, cancelling their admissions, that all the students admitted are having more than 55% of marks as prescribed by the University and that the petitioner-college selected the students after assessing their knowledge in Saiva Siddantha as the college is a denominational minority college. It is also stated that the respondent University has no power to cancel the admission of students, that no student who was denied admission had challenged his non-selection and that the respondent University has passed the order with mala fide intention. It is also pointed out that the im-pleading-respondents and the students of the petitioner-college having not been served with any notice, the principles of natural justice have been denied and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. .6. Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned senior counsel ap-pearingfor the petitioner-college contends that in so far as this writ petition is concerned, six scats each in I M.Sc, Physics and I M.Sc, Chemistry are in dispute, that with regard to the said admission made by the petitioner-college, no candidate who has applied for the said course and denied a seat, has come up before this Court and as such the impugned order passed by the first respondent-University is illegal. The learned senior counsel points out that a declaration in the civil court has been obtained by Sri Kasi Mutt declaring it as denominational minority and the said judgment and decree has been confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.62 of 1986, dated 22. 1990 on the file of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur and that it had become final, since the Stale has not preferred any appeal and as such the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 will not apply as matter stands to-day. The learned senior counsel further refers to the judgment of Swamidurai, J. in W.P.No.19419 of 1990 dated 9. 1991 in which the learned Judge has held that it will apply to all colleges which were managed by mutt. The learned senior counsel further refers to the judgment of Swamidurai, J. in W.P.No.19419 of 1990 dated 9. 1991 in which the learned Judge has held that it will apply to all colleges which were managed by mutt. Learned Senior counsel also refers to the decision in St.Stephen ‘s College v. University of Delhi, A.I.R. 1092 S.C. 1630: (1902)1 S.C.C. 558, especially paragraph 64, and contends that the petitioner-college has got the right to select the students for 5% of the seals who belong to religious minority denomination and that the University has no power to cancel the admission. Learned senior counsel also points out Sec.24 of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act and contends that there is no provision under the Act tocancel the admission. Learned senior coun-sel specially points out that all the students, who have got admission, had secured more marks than the minimum marks prescribed by the University and no other regulation is violated and as such when all the students have completed one semester, it is not open to the respondent-University to pass the resolution was not to approve the admission and also asking the college to select a fresh set of students, virtually canceling the admissions made already. 7. Mr.K.Chandru, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, vehemently contends that the petitioner-college can select students only purely on merits and that even assuming that it is a minority institution can admit students it can be made only interse merit. It is also pointed out by Mr.K.Chandru, the learned counsel for the respondent-University that the declaration granted by the civil court for Sri Kasi Mult is not one under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India and that it is only to the effect that it is only the religious denomination under Art.26 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also points out that fixing 25 marks for interview is against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions and on this ground alone, the admission has got to be disapproved. That apart, the learned counsel contends that the decree obtained by the petitioner is a nullity and it can be challenged in other proceedings and relies upon the decision in St. John’s Teachers Training Insitute, (For Women), Madurai v. Stale of Tamil Nadu, (1993)3 S.C.C. 595 . That apart, the learned counsel contends that the decree obtained by the petitioner is a nullity and it can be challenged in other proceedings and relies upon the decision in St. John’s Teachers Training Insitute, (For Women), Madurai v. Stale of Tamil Nadu, (1993)3 S.C.C. 595 . The learned counsel also points out the decisions in Sidhrajbhat Sabbai v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 540: 1962 K.L.T. 135: (1963)2 S.C.A. 394 and also in Azeez Bahsa v. Union of India. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 663: (1968)1 S.C.A. 357: (1968)2 S.C.J. 299 and contends that the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the right of the minority institution which claims the right under Art. 36 of the Consti-tuiton. Learned counsel also refers to the decisions in Sh.ahal H.Musalliar v. State of Kerala, (1993)4 S.C.C. 112 . and also in 7. T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others (1) v. State of Karnataka, (1993)4 S.C.C. 276 , wherein the Supreme Court has clarified the position with regard to admission into medical institutions. Learned counsel also points out the decision in St. John’s Teachers Training Institute, (For Women), Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1993)3 S.C.C. 595 , especially paragraph 21, to substantiate his contention that the petitioner’s claim has got to be rejected, as (he admission has been made illegally. .8. Mr.G.Subramaniam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the students, who have impleaded themselves as party respondents, contends that the decree passed by the civil court in favour of the petitioner-college had become final, and in fact in the said matter Teachers’ Association in Madurai Kamaraj University wanted to implead itself as party-respondent and it was rejected, and when it came up before this Court in civil revision petition, the said plea was rejected. According to the learned senior counsel, in so far as the decree of the civil court declaring Sri Kasi Mutt as a religious denominational minority stands, the petitioner-college has got the right of admission for 50% of its own choice. Learned senior counsel also points out that no candidate, who has been denied seal, challenges the admission, when there were about 100 applicants for the courses. Learned senior counsel contends that it shows that the non-selected candidates have not been aggrieved, that they have not questioned the norms prescribed by the petitioner-college and as such the impugned order cannot stand. Learned senior counsel also points out that no candidate, who has been denied seal, challenges the admission, when there were about 100 applicants for the courses. Learned senior counsel contends that it shows that the non-selected candidates have not been aggrieved, that they have not questioned the norms prescribed by the petitioner-college and as such the impugned order cannot stand. It is also pointed out that the students, who have been admitted into the petitioner-college, were not given any notice in the sense the effect of the impugned order is lo cancel all the seals and fill up by fresh candidates and as such a right which had been accrued to the students/impleading respondents, had been taken away without issuing notice to them. It is also points out by the learned senior counsel that the students who were selected, were not aware of the norms prescribed by the respon-dent-University. and as such they should not be penalised for the mistake committed by the petitioner management and relies upon the judgment of this Court in Srinivas (Minor )and three others v. The University of Madras, 1003 wirt L.R.1. 9. I have considered the arguments of Mr.R.Gandhi. the learned senior counsel appearing lor the peti-tioner-college, Mr.K.Chandru, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University and of Mr.G.Subramaniam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the students-impleading respondents and of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the State. I have also gone through the materials produced before this Court. .10. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the admission for 50% of seats filled up by the petitioner-college i.e., six seats in 1 M.Sc., Physics and 6 seats in 1 M.Sc., Chemistry is correct and is according to law. There cannot be any dispute that Sri-La-Sri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswami Thambiran Swamigal Avargal, Head of Sri Kasi Mutt, Tiruppanandal had filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1985, on the file of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam, praying for a declaration and that it had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff, i.e., Sri Kasi Mutt, declaring that Sri Kasi Mutt is a religious denomination and the colleges viz., (1) Sri K.V.S.S.Kallorri at Tiruppanandal and (2) Sri Kumaragurubara Swamigal Arts college at Srivaikundam being denominational institutions, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private College’s Act, will not be applicable. On appeal in A.S.No.62 of 1986, it was confirmed by the first appellate court by judgment dated 22. 1990. So, it cannot be disputed by the first respondent-University that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 arc not applicable to the petitioner-college, in so far as the judgment of the first appellate court in A.S.No.62 of 1986 is concerned it had become final. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Stale also informs this Court that no appeal had been preferred against the judgment and decree of the District Court, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur in A.S.No.62 of 1986, mentioned above. 11. The next question to be considered is whether the petitioner-college can be said to be a minority college. A reading of the judgment of the first appellate court, in A.S.No.62 of 1986, mentioned above, clearly shows that a right has been claimed by the Head of the Sri Kasi Mutt both under Art.26 and under Art.30 of the Constitution of India and it has been considered by both the learned District Munsif, Kumbakonam, and also by the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur, as mentioned above. Whether ‘Saiva Siddantha’ can be said to be a ‘religion’ or not, is a quest ion, which in my view, need not be decided in this case. 12.. I think that it will be opt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P.Mina v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1: (1983)1 S.C.C. 51 : (1983)1 S.C.J. 45: (1983)1 S.C.R. 729 , in which it has been held as follows: "...The words "religious denomination" on Art.26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word ‘religion’and if this be so, the expression "religious denomination" must also satisfy three conditions: .(1) It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that is a common faith; .(2) Common organisation; and .(3) designation by a distinctive name..." The question whether Art.26 will apply to an educational institution though there is a specific provision under Art.30 of the Constitution was raised in Azeez Basha v Union of India, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 662: (1068)1 S.C.A. 357: (1968)2 S.C.J. 299, wherein the Supreme Court has observed at page 674 as follows: "... The next argument is based on Art.26 of the Constitution. The next argument is based on Art.26 of the Constitution. That Article provides that every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.... (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such properly in accordance with law. A quest ion was raised whether Art.26 would take in its sweep educational institutions on the ground that such institutions are institutions for charitable purposes. It was urged that Art.26 will not apply to educational institutions for there is specific provision in Art.30(1) with respect to educational institutions and therefore institutions for charitable purposes in Cl.(e)of Arl.26 refer to institutions other than educational ones. There is much to be said in favour of this contention. But we do not propose to decide this question for present purposes. We shall assume that educational institutions would also come with in Art.26 (a) as institutions for charitable purposes. Even so we fail to sec how Art.26 helps the petitioners. Clause (a) of that Article gives the right to every religious denomination and the Muslim minority may for present purposes be assumed to be a religious denomination within the meaning of Art.26 to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. What we have said with respect to Art.30(l) which gives right to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice applies equally 10 Cl.(e) of Art.26 and therefore we are of opinion that the words “establish and maintain” must be read conjunctively and it is only institutions which a religious denomination establishes which it can claim to maintain. It is not necessary to go into all the implications of the word “maintain”; it is enough for the present purposes to say that the right to maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes would include the right to administer them. But the right under CI.(a) of Art.26 will only arise where the institution is established by a religious denomination and it is in that event only that it can claim to maintain it. But the right under CI.(a) of Art.26 will only arise where the institution is established by a religious denomination and it is in that event only that it can claim to maintain it. As we have clearly held, the Aligarh University was not established by the Muslim minority and therefore no question arises of its right to maintain it within the meaning of CI.(a) of Art.26....“ As such, I do not think it is necessary for me to issue this issue at this stage, in this case. 13.. There cannot be any dispute that all the students, who were admitted in the P.G. courses have obtained more than the marks prescribed for such admission. It is also an admitted fact that no other candidate, who applied for admission and denied seat, has challenged the admission made by the petitioner-college. As I have already stated it is only the respondent-University, on the ground that the petitioner-college had ‘violated the norms in admitting the students, denied for approving the said admissions. It is not the case of the University and other regulation or statute is violated. It has been done mainly on the ground that 25 marks had been fixed in the interview on the subject” Saiva Siddantha“. In St. Stephen ‘s College v. University of Delhi, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 16.10: (1992)1 S.C.C. 558 , a question arose as to whether the admission solely based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the marks secured in the interview can be said to be illegal, or in other words,the procedure can be said to be arbitrary. In the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court has held that the impugned directives of the University to select students on the uniform basis of marks secured in the qualifying examinations would deny the college there in to admit students belonging to Christian community. The Supreme Court went into the question as to whether the admissions programme of a college is a device to manipulate the merits and not a scientific test to assess performance of candidates. In that case, the Supreme Court examined the college admission in that case and came to the conclusion that the college admission programme therein is a valid one. In that case, the Supreme Court examined the college admission in that case and came to the conclusion that the college admission programme therein is a valid one. While considering the oral interview, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: (at page 1655) ”...The oral interview as a supplementary test and not as exclusive lest for assessing the suitability of candidates for college admission has been recognized by this Court. But at the same time, to avoid arbitrariness in the selection it has been repeatedly held that there shall not be allocation of high percentage of marks for oral interview test. Where candidate’s personality is yet to develop, it has been emphasised that greater weight has per force to be given to performance in the written examination and the importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. The court has generally indicated that interview marks should not be more than 15 percent of the total marks. (Sec: R.Chitralekha v. Suite of Mysore, A.I.R. 1964 S.C 1X2.1: (1964)6 S.C.R. 368 , A.Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1971 S.C 230.1: (1971)2 SCR. 4.10: (1971 )2 S.C.J. 222: (1971)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 65: (1971)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 65, Miss Nishi Raghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1980)4 S.C.C. 95 ,Ajay Hasra v. Khalid Mujib Sesravaide, (1981)2 S.C.R. 79 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487: (1981)1 Lnb.L.J. 106: (1981)1 S.C.C 722 : (1980)1 Serv.L.R. 467: (1981)2 S.C.R. 79 , Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1982)1 S.C.R. 320 and Koshal Kumar Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1984)3 S.C.R. 407 . There is nothing on record to suggest that the interview conducted by the selection committee was contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. We see neither any arbitrariness nor any vice orlack of scientific basis in the interview or in the selection. The interview confers no wide discretion to the selection committee to pick and choose any candidate of their choice. They have to select the best among those who are called for interview and the discretion is narrowly limited to select one out of every 4 or 5. The interview confers no wide discretion to the selection committee to pick and choose any candidate of their choice. They have to select the best among those who are called for interview and the discretion is narrowly limited to select one out of every 4 or 5. In these premises, we would refer to the choice and discretion of the selection committee so long as they act properly and not arbitrarily and act within the recognised principles..." If this test, propounded by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision is applied to the facts of this case, though it cannot be disputed that the candidates who have got admission had secured more marks than the marks prescribed for such selection, yet, fixing 25 marks for the performance of interview to assess the know ledge of the candidates in " Saiva Siddantha" seems to be irregular and not according to law. In the above-mentioned decision, the Supreme Court has held that the interview marks should not be more than 15 marks. On the facts of this case, it has not been done so. It is true that the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court has been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in T. M.A.Pai Foundation and others (1) v. State of Karnataka, (1993)4 S.C.C. 286 , in which it has been held as follows: "....With regard to the third question, we think, we must briefly indicate the reasons lor reference to the larger Bench. In St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, A.I.R. 1992 S.C 1630: (1992)1 S.C.C. 55cV, it is held that it is not permissible for the Slate or the affiliating University to provide that admissions to Mi-nority Educational Institutions should also be on the basis of merit as determined in a joint/ common entrance test and that the minority Educational Institution too must draw its students from the common pool on the basis of merit. We entertain serious reservations with respect to the said holding. We entertain serious reservations with respect to the said holding. So long as the Minority Educational Institution is permitted to draw students belonging to that minority to the extent of 5% seats even by going down the merit list, we see no reason why the State/ affiliating University cannot stipulate that the general students as well as minority students must all be drawn only from the common merit pool and that even the minority community students must also be admitted on the basis of inter se merit determined on the basis of common/joint entrance test. Art.30 in our opinion, does not clothe a Minority Educational Institution with the power to adopt its own method of selection of students. It is not a part of the minority character of the institution. The said requirement is but a piece of regulation which the Stale/affiliating University can prescribe in the interest of fairness and maintenance of standards..." 14. It cannot also be disputed that the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., (1993)1 S.C.C. 645 , will not apply to the facts of this case, because the Supreme Court in that case has confined the scheme only to the professional colleges as stated in paragraph 207 of the said judgment. It is also seen that in Shahal H. Musalliar v. State of Kerala, (1993)4 S.C.C. 112 , which is an off-shoot of the decision in Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., (1993)1 S.C.C 645 , no orders or no directions, about the minority institutions were made. In the above mentioned case, the Supreme Court has referred to an earlier order made on 15. 1993, under which it is stated that fifty per cent of the total intake may be regulated by minority institutions to admit candidates belonging to the particular religious or linguistic minority, and however, the selection shall be made strictly on the basis of merit among the candidates seeking admission to such institutions. It has been also stated that such merit shall be determined oh the basis of the academic performance at the qualifying examination; or on the basis of any objective test that the institution might itself apply to determine such relative and competing merits, or on the basis of performance of the results of the selecting tests that the State Government may itself hold for selecting candidates for admission into technical colleges in the State. This order has been further modified in Shahal H.Musalliar v. State of Kerala, (1993)4 S.C.C. 112 . Considering the issue as a whole, I am of the view that though the interview system adopted by the petitioner-college cannot be said to be illegal, yet prescribing 25 marks for interview to assess the knowledge of the candidates in ‘Saiva Siddantha’ seems to be against the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned cases. 15. When students are admitted into the petitioner-college and they have almost completed the first semester, what is to be done at this stage, is the next question to be decided. The Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with almost a similar situation in Ashok Chanel Singhvi v. Jodhpur University, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 823: (1989)I. J.T. 177: (1989)1 S.C.C. 299, wherein at page 826 has held as follows: “.....Assuming that the appellant was admitted through mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant...” In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1448, the appellants therein were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the B.E. degree course, although they were not eligible for admission. In that case, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose admissions were subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, the Supreme Court took the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants and that there was no reason why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the man-agementof the engineering colleges. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appellants to con-tinue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. The same principle which weighed with the Supreme Court in that case should also be applied to the instant case. The students who got admission were not at fault and I do not see why they should be penalised for the mistake committed by the petitioner-college. In the case in Sudha v. University of Mysore, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2305, the appellant therein was admitted into M.B.B.S. course, after passing B.Sc, even though she had not secured 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology group which is against the provisions of Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission to 1st M.B.B.S.) Rules, 1985). In the case in Sudha v. University of Mysore, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2305, the appellant therein was admitted into M.B.B.S. course, after passing B.Sc, even though she had not secured 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology group which is against the provisions of Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission to 1st M.B.B.S.) Rules, 1985). Though the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the student, yet, following the decision in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1448, allowed the student/appellant therein to prosecute her studies in M.B.B.S., holding that it was prima facie, the fault of the principal therein and the student was quite innocent. All these decisions, mentioned, above, were considered by this Court in Naiffa v. Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, A.I.R. 1992 Mad, 52 and Srinivas (Minor) and three others v. The University of Madras, 1993 Writ L.R. 1, which the latter one is relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the impleading respondents/students. Following the abovemen-tioned decisions, I am of the view that the students, who were called for interview and admitted into the petitioner-college, should not be penalised for the mistake committed by the petitioner-college in this case, in prescribing a higher percentage of marks for interview, to assess the knowledge of the students in the “Saiva Siddantha”. No other statute or regulation of the University is contravened. That apart, as rightly pointed out by Mr.G.Subramaniam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the impleading respondents-students, all students who were admitted had secured more marks than the marks prescribed by the University in the guidelines. It is also to be seen that no candidate, who has been denied a seat, has challenged the admission made in the petitioner-college. As such, the impugned order of the respondent University is set aside, the writ petition shall stand allowed and the respondent University is directed to approve the admission made by the petitioner-college, i.e., six seats in I M.Sc, Physics and six seats in I M.Sc, Chemistry, totalling 12 seats, which is in question within one month from to-day. However, there will be no order as to costs.