G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks that a writ of mandamus be issued to Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini to admit him in B. Tech. Agricultural Engineering Course in the 1993-94 session and also that the admission granted to respondents 4, 5 and 6 be cancelled. ( 2 ) ALLAHABAD Agricultural Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) was founded in 1911 by Churches under the leadership of Dr. Sam Bigginbottom. It is a professional college which offers several courses of study in Agricultural Sciences and is an Institution established and administered by the Christian Religious Minority. It is recognised as a Christian Minority Institute by the Government of U. P. It is not in dispute that the Institute is receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and salary to its teachers and other employees is paid in accordance with Chapter XI-A of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under Section 60-E of the Act, the State Government is liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of the College. ( 3 ) IN the Academic Session 1993-94, there were 40 seats in B. Tech. Agricultural Engineering part I out of which fifty per cent were reserved for Christian candidates and thus 20 seats were available for the General Candidates. The petitioner stood at Sl. No. 55 in the Merit List of the General Candidates. Thus the petitioner is not entitled for admission and the relief claimed by him in that regard cannot be granted. ( 4 ) DURING the course of the hearing of the writ petition, it was revealed that Manoj Kumar Bajpai, Shashank Chaturvedi and Deepak Misra respondents 4 to 6 who neither appeared in the Entrance Test nor belonged to Christian Community had been admitted in B. Tech. Agricultural Engineering Part I. Accordingly by the order dated 20/01/1995 notice was issued to the aforesaid three respondents to show cause why their admissions be not cancelled and the Principal of the Institute was also directed to explain and justify the grant of admission to the aforesaid three students. Agricultural Engineering Part I. Accordingly by the order dated 20/01/1995 notice was issued to the aforesaid three respondents to show cause why their admissions be not cancelled and the Principal of the Institute was also directed to explain and justify the grant of admission to the aforesaid three students. ( 5 ) THE Prospectus of the Institute for the Academic Session 1993-94 gives in detail the ADMISSION POLICY of the Institute, the relevant portion whereof is quoted below:- (A) The Allahabad Agricultural Institute is a Christian Minority Educational Institute within rights guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India to establish and administer Educational Institution of their choice. Under this provision and as per Supreme Court, Judgment dated 7th December 91, up to 50% seats shall be made available to Candidates of Christian Community in the Institute, (B ). . . . . . . . . . (C) Accordingly for admission to First Year of each course of study in the Institute the following rules shall apply. GENERAL RULES:1. There will be an Entrance Test for selecting candidates for admission in the following courses: (a ). . . . . . . . . . (b) B. Tech. Agricultural Engineering. (c) to (e ). . . . . . . . . 2. The applicants will be placed in either of the two category. (a) General Candidates. (b) Christian Candidates. 6. Merit lists will be prepared for each category based on the total marks scored by the candidates in the Entrance Test for the purpose of admission. 5 to 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. UP, to 50% seats in each course are available to candidates of Christian Community. Such candidates are required to send the following with their Application Form: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the affidavit filed by Dr. H. Shephered, Principal of the Institute it is stated that respondents 4 to 6 were admitted in the Management Quota. It is further stated that this was done by the Management on the ground that the Institute being a Christian Minority Institution has a right to administer and to admit students of its choice in accordance with the rights guaranteed to the Minority Community under Article 30 of the Constitution. It is further stated that this was done by the Management on the ground that the Institute being a Christian Minority Institution has a right to administer and to admit students of its choice in accordance with the rights guaranteed to the Minority Community under Article 30 of the Constitution. Reliance is also placed upon a resolution of the Management of the Institute which is reproduce below:"resolved that the number of seats published in the Prospectus will be filled strictly in accordance with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of St. Stephens College, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1630 . Further, the management reserves its right to increase or decrease the number of seats in each course according to need. In view of the need for assisting ward of staff, employees and benefactors of the Institute, it was resolved to allot 10% seats in addition to the seats published in the prospectus as promotional quota under the discretion of the A. A. I. Administration. This policy of admission shall be implemented with effect from the session 1993-94. The students applying in promotional quota will have to secure at least 50% marks in the qualifying examination and will also have to appear before an interview Board for Selection. The candidates selected under promotional quota should not appear in Entrance Test and the candidates who will simultaneously appear in Entrance Test will not be considered in this category. " ( 6 ) WE have heard S/sri J. Nagar and Ravi Kant on behalf of the Institute and its Principal at considerable length. The admission Policy of the Institute does not provide for admission on the basis of "promotional Quota under the discretion of A. A. I. Administration". The Admission Policy of Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini regarding reservation in favour of Christian Candidates was also considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630 and in para 102 it was held as follows:". . . . . . . . . The Minority Institutions shall make available at least fifty per cent of the annual admission to the members of communities other than Minority Community. The admission of other community candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit. . . . . . . . . The Minority Institutions shall make available at least fifty per cent of the annual admission to the members of communities other than Minority Community. The admission of other community candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit. "it is, therefore, clear that at least fifty per cent of the seats have to be filled in by general candidates and this has to be done strictly on the basis of merit. The admission of respondents 4 to 6, who do not belong to Christian community but are general candidates, is therefore wholly illegal as the same has not been done on the basis of merit. It may also be noticed that for the Academic Sessions 1990-91 and 1991-92, the Admission Policy of the Institute provided for giving of weightage to wards of old students, staff ward, Government sponsored candidates and alumni ward. This was challenged in this Court and a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 546/ 1992 (Allahabad Agricultural Institute v. Ammer Hussain) held that the Admission Policy except in so far it provided for reservation to the extent of fifty per cent of available seats in favour of Christian Candidates was illegal. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that 2nd and 3rd paras of resolution of the Management in so far as it provides for allocation of 10% of seats as "promotional Quota" under the discretion of administration of the institute is wholly illegal and is liable to be struck down as it gives a right to the Management to have reservation of seats exceeding fifty per cent. ( 7 ) IT is recited in the resolution that in view of the need for assisting ward of staff employees and benefactors of the Institute, it was resolved to allot 10% seats under promotion quota under the discretion of the Administration and that the candidates selected under the aforesaid quota shall not appear in the Entrance Test. In our opinion any reservations in favour of wards of staff, employees and benefactors of the Institute is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Gurumit Singh v. Ram Singh, 1982 (45) Indian Factory and Labour Courts 139 the reservation of seats for the children of the staff of Medical College was struck down by the Supreme Court. In Gurumit Singh v. Ram Singh, 1982 (45) Indian Factory and Labour Courts 139 the reservation of seats for the children of the staff of Medical College was struck down by the Supreme Court. In Miss P. S. Geeta v. Central Bank, 1978 Lab IC 1271 reservation of 25% seats for the children of the employees of the Bank was struck down by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In Atri Kumar Shaha v. Central Bank 1982 (45) Indian Factory and Labour Reports 123 : (1982 Lab IC 1571) a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court upheld the withdrawal of the circular which provided for reservation of seats for the children of the staff on the ground that it was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. In Umesh Chandra Sinha v. V. N. Singh, AIR 1968 Pat 3 the Ordinance which provides for reservation of seats for children of University employees on the grounds of their extreme pecuniary difficulties and for rendering meritorious service to the University was struck down by the Full Bench on the ground that it was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. In Yogendra Pal Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1015 : (1987 Lab IC 707) it was held that Rules 12, 14 (3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which authorises the granting of preference in favour of sons and near relatives of persons serving in the Police Service in the matter of recruitment was unconstitutional. It is, therefore, well settled that any reservation on the ground of descent is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The 2nd para of the resolution of the Management which provides for reservation in favour of wards of staff, employees and benefactors of the institute is wholly illegal and is liable to be struck down. ( 8 ) MANOJ Kumar Bajpai, Shashank Chaturvedi and Deepak Misra, respondents 4 to 6, do not belong to Christian Community and they did not even appear in the Entrance Test but they have been admitted Under the "promotional Quota". Their admission in the Institute is wholly illegal and the same is hereby cancelled. Hence forth they shall not be allowed to continue their studies in the institute. Their admission in the Institute is wholly illegal and the same is hereby cancelled. Hence forth they shall not be allowed to continue their studies in the institute. Despite the orders passed on 20/01/1995 directing them to show cause why their admissions be not cancelled, they have not chosen to appear before the Court. However, if they desire to appear even now, their case would be reconsidered and the order cancelling their admissions would be recalled provided they are able to justify their admission in law. ( 9 ) WE hope and trust that the Management as well as the Principal of the Institute would act in accordance with law and would not admit students in the garb of "promotional Quota" or under any other kind of reservation policy, contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court in the St. Stephens College case (supra) and of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amir Hussain (supra ). If they do so, it will be at their own peril as the Court may initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against them. ( 10 ) IN the result, the writ petition in so far as it seeks the relief for giving admission to the petitioner in B. Tech. Agricultural Engineering Part I, course is concerned, is dismissed. The writ petition is allowed with regard to the Second relief and the admission granted to the respondents 4 to 6 is cancelled. Order accordingly .