R. P. SETHI, C. J. ( 1 ). A. I filed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1160 to 1188 of 1997 seeking permission to file and prosecute the appeal is allowed.. A. II filed in the same appeals praying for dispensing of production of documents is also allowed. ( 2 ) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties all the appeals have been heard on merits and are being disposed of finally at this stage by common judgment. ( 3 ) NON-KARNATAKA students, who had appeared in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the appellant-Cell for the academic year 1996 97 for admission to Medical/dental and Engineering courses approached the Court with prayer to issue a direction to the appellant to allot them the payment seats available for non-Karnataka students, keeping in view the preference of subjects and the colleges as indicated by them in their applications for selection of admission submitted before appearing in the entrance test. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed that out of 624 unfilled payment seats which were admittedly available 571 or more karnataka payment seats be transferred to the non-Karnataka payment category and offered to the candidates in the said category in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble supreme Court and that 53 seats be set apart and added to NRI quota of the private managements. It was further directed that the process of counselling and consequent allotment of the aforesaid unutilised seats be completed by the appellants expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the order. Closing date for admission as fixed by the state Government be suitably extended to enable the CET Cell to complete process of counselling and admission as per direction of the Court. Not being satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the CET Cell, the State of Karnataka, the Director of Technical Education and Karnataka Unaided Private Educational College Association have filed these appeals submitting therein that the order of the learned Single Judge being contrary to facts and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued from time to time was liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) IN their petitions, the respondent-students had submitted that being bona fide students and eligible in all respects for selection and admission to Engineering Degree Courses in the State of karnataka, they had appeared in the common entrance test conducted by the appellant-Cell. The test was to be held and the admissions were to be made in accordance with the Medical/dental and Engineering Courses, Rules 1993 framed under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) 1984 Act. It was alleged that despite judicial mandate in J. P. Unnikrishnan and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the appellants had not earmarked 15% of the total number of seats in the payment category for non-Karnataka students to which all the petitioners belonged. It was contended that the admission of the non-Karnataka students against the payment seats was reduced to less than 8. 5%. It was submitted that the State government had allowed allotment of 15% NRI quota allegedly by bartering away of the same in favour of private Managements. The seats which ought to have been forfeited or surrendered for various reasons were being allotted to the Karnataka students calling them again for reallotment in the guise of recounselling for "no Show" students. It was further submitted that 42,605 students had appeared in the Common Entrance Test and were declared eligible for various professional courses in the State of Karnataka during the academic year. Out of 18,205 non-Karnataka students, 7,899 candidates were held eligible for admission to engineering courses during the said academic year. Writ petitioners alleged to have been discriminated without any reasonable ground. They also alleged the violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the writ petitioners was resisted mainly on the ground that no Supreme Court directions had been violated and that there did not exist any provision for conversion of seats which could have enabled the non-Karnataka students to seek selection and admission. It was submitted that the left-over seats were to be filled-up by the management in their discretion. It was submitted that the left-over seats were to be filled-up by the management in their discretion. In the memo of appeal, it is submitted that the Appropriate authority has fixed the number of seats available in all the Engineering Colleges of Karnataka notification dated 20-8-1996 to be 20,181, out of which the free seats in respect of all colleges were 11,498, Karnataka payment seats being 4,461, non-Karnataka payment seats being 1,730 and NRI seats being 2,492. It is contended that payment seats could not be allotted in the government/university/regional Engineering Colleges and the Government aided colleges (except the NRI quota ). It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had not taken into account the allotment of seats made by the Government vide order dated 20-8-1996 which had fixed the intake in respect of each of the colleges and the courses. The directions of the learned Single judge are stated to be inconsistent with the Scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in unnikrishnan's case, supra. The Supreme Court is stated to have treated medical and engineering colleges separately insofar as the intake and the mode of admission was concerned. Calculations made by the learned Single Judge are also stated to be without reference to the total number of seats in all the colleges in Karnataka. ( 5 ) IN the appeals filed by the Managements of the Institutions, it is submitted that the learned judge failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court treated Engineering Colleges separately insofar as fixation of fee and mode of admission as NRI quota for medical and dental courses was concerned. It is submitted that the Supreme Court, in its interim orders during the academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97, had specifically directed that the seats left unfilled on the date of counselling shall be filled-up by the colleges themselves. The order impugned in the appeals is said to be against second proviso to Rule 12-A of the Kar-nataka Selection of candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental Courses Rules, 1993. It is further contended that as the respondent-students had no fundamental or legal right, their petitions deserved dismissal. ( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge vide his order dated 28th January, 1997 directed appellant/state to file affidavit with respect to the position regarding the number of seats along with the dates extended for various categories as also showing the number of unfilled seats. ( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge vide his order dated 28th January, 1997 directed appellant/state to file affidavit with respect to the position regarding the number of seats along with the dates extended for various categories as also showing the number of unfilled seats. In compliance with the directions of the Court, Sri K. V. Prasad, the Under Secretary to Government, Education department, had filed his affidavit submitting therein the following information: ". The total No. of Engineering seats available in all the Engineering colleges in the State of Karnataka are 20,181 comprising of: (a) seats available in colleges run government/university/aided/regional Engineering college 16,165 (b) seats available in minority colleges 3,475 (c) seats available in Engineering (Evening Colleges) meant only for employed Diploma Holders 541 total 20,181. The total number of seats available in Government and Aided colleges: (a) 5,111 (These seats are inclusive of University/regional and evening Colleges in addition to Govern-ment and Aided Colleges ). Total number of seats available in private colleges: (b) 15,070 (The figures of 15,070 comprises of private colleges of non-minority 11,595 and minority 3,475) iv. Number of candidates admitted against free seats 13,305 v. Number of candidates admitted till date against karnataka payment seats 3,345 v. Number of candidates admitted till date against non-Karnataka payment seats 1,971 v. Total number of NRI seats for Managements: (a) Non-minority Institution 755 (b) Minority Institutions 181 v. Total number of unfilled seats as on date 624 all these seats fall under the category of payment karnataka". ( 7 ) ACCEPTING the contents of the affidavit to be correct, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there existed 624 unfilled seats which he directed to be filled-up as per directions contained in the order impugned, as noted hereinabove. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the availability of the seats was not correctly noted by the learned Judge. He has referred to the details of the availability of the Engineering seats during 1996-97 as specified in the memo of appeal. It is contended that in all, only 11,498 seats were available as Karnataka free seats, 4,461 as Karnataka payment seats and 1,730 as non-Karnataka payment seats. In Unnikrishnan's case, supra, the Supreme Court evolved a scheme which was made applicable to the professional colleges in all the States. It is contended that in all, only 11,498 seats were available as Karnataka free seats, 4,461 as Karnataka payment seats and 1,730 as non-Karnataka payment seats. In Unnikrishnan's case, supra, the Supreme Court evolved a scheme which was made applicable to the professional colleges in all the States. It was directed that at least 50% of the seats in every professional college shall be filled by the nominees of the Government or the University as the case may be, which shall be called free seats. The remaining 50% seats were to be treated as payment seats and required to be filled-up from amongst those candidates who were prepared to pay the fee prescribed therefor and who had complied with the instructions regarding deposit and furnishing of cash security/guarantee for the balance of the amount. The number of seats available in the professional colleges to which the scheme was made applicable was to be fixed by the Appropriate Authority. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant/state that the aforesaid scheme was not applicable so far as the colleges run by the Government or by the University were concerned. It is further contended that if the number of seats of the colleges run by the government or by the University are excluded, the number of seats directed by the learned single Judge to be filled-up would be much more than the requisite 50% of the payment seats. The number of such seats are only 1,280. Such a plea cannot be accepted because even if these seats are excluded, the same would not make any difference so far as payment seats for non-Karnataka students are concerned. Otherwise also, in view of the affidavit of K. V. Prasad, under Secretary to Government, Education Department, such a plea cannot be accepted at this stage. Acceptance or rejection of such a plea will not make any difference so far as the directions of the learned Single Judge are concerned. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that the Unnikrishnan's case, supra, was the first in the series in which the policy was framed and the directions were issued for filling-up of the seats in the professional colleges. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that the Unnikrishnan's case, supra, was the first in the series in which the policy was framed and the directions were issued for filling-up of the seats in the professional colleges. The Supreme Court thereafter dealt with the case again in T. M. A. Pai Founda- tion and others v State of Karnataka and Others, T. M. A. Pai Founda tion and Others v State of Karnataka and Another and T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Others v State of Karnataka and Others. In the case of Second T. M. A. Pai Foundation, supra, it was directed that so far as the Engineering Colleges in the State of Karnataka are concerned, the Appropriate Authorities shall make allotment with respect to free seats and payment seats on or before the dates specified therein, in accordance with the orders of the Apex Court and the rules framed by the Government of Karnataka in that behalf. Any seat remaining vacant after the dates specified, whether in the category of free seats or in the category of payment seats was directed to be filled-up by the Management. The directions were issued in continuation of the Courts' earlier order dated 17-11-1993 passed with regard to medical colleges. ( 9 ) IN first T. M. A. Pai Foundation and Others v State of Karnataka and Another, supra, the Apex court passed interim orders keeping in view the judgment in Unnikrishnan's case, supra and issued the following directions so far as the State of Karnataka is concerned: " (a) The restriction placed by the 1995 amendment to the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993, viz. , that only Karnataka students (as defined by the said rules) shall be admitted against the payment seats shall not operate for the current academic year. Among the fifty per cent payment seats, we have allocated fifteen per cent to NRI/foreign students (direction (1 ). Out of the balance thirty-five per cent seats, twenty per cent shall be reserved for Karnataka students and remaining fifteen per cent for non-Karnataka students - as was done during the previous academic year. The admission of Karnataka students against the payment seats shall be made in accordance with the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan's case, supra, out of the students, who have appeared in the entrance test already held. The admission of Karnataka students against the payment seats shall be made in accordance with the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan's case, supra, out of the students, who have appeared in the entrance test already held. If any of the seats in this twenty per cent remain vacant, they shall be added to the fifteen per cent quota of non-Karnataka students and shall be filled in accordance with clause (b) below. (c) All free seats, hereinafter to be called "merit seats" shall be reserved for Karnataka students. Allotments against these free/merit seats and the payment seats meant for Karnataka students shall be completed on or before September 16, 1995. The allotment of seats to non-Karnataka students shall be complete on or before 9th day of October, 1995. Any seats remaining unallotted after that date or remaining unfilled as on 30th October, 1995 shall be allowed to be filled by the management on its own" . ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding, it was observed that so far as engineering and other colleges were concerned, the rules, regulations and orders made by the concerned council, the Government and the Supreme Court shall continue to govern for the academic year of 1995-96. It was further observed that allotment of the students to the colleges shall be completed by a specified date and any seats remaining unallotted or any seat remaining unfilled after the specified date shall be allowed to be filled by the Management. In third T. M. A. Pai Foundation's, case, supra, further directions were issued observing that the Court order dated 10-5-1996 shall apply to all States including the State of Maharashtra. It was made clear that the aforesaid order of the Supreme court shall apply to the professional colleges in all the States irrespective of the fact whether such colleges and States were parties to the aforesaid order or not. It was made clear that the aforesaid order of the Supreme court shall apply to the professional colleges in all the States irrespective of the fact whether such colleges and States were parties to the aforesaid order or not. Again dealing with the engineering Colleges in the State of Kar-nataka, it was directed: " (vi) A request is made on behalf of the Engineering Colleges that the Governments, in particular, the Karnataka Government should be directed to specify a last cut-off date for allotment of students, whether in free seats category or in the payment seats category, and that if all the seats are not filled-up, in any of the above categories, by the said last cut-off date, the colleges should be left free to fill up those seats on their own account and in their discretion. Grievance is made that on account of non-specification of such a last cut-off date, a number of seats in many engineering colleges are remaining vacant, particularly in the payment seats category, which is making it impossible for the colleges to function or to continue to function, as the case may be. This plea is rebutted by the learned Counsel appearing for the State of karnataka. The learned Counsel for the State contended that Rule 10 of Karnataka Selection of candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1993, as amended in 1996, fully safeguards the interests of colleges and fully allays the apprehension and grievance aforesaid. By way of the said amendment, it is pointed out, clause (g) is added in sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 10 which reads: " (g) After the closing date for admission, as fixed by the Government is over, a reconciliation meeting regarding the number of unfilled and un-allotted seats shall be held between the CET Cell, the Directorate of Technical Education, Directorate of Medical education and the respective colleges and after identifying the vacant seats, issue notification regarding such seats by the concerned Directors. Such seats shall be filled by the colleges". In our opinion, the said clause is a salutary one. All that we need to add to the said clause is that the action contemplated therein shall be taken within fifteen days of the closing date of admission. Any seats remaining unfilled thereafter can be filled by the Management of the private engineering colleges on their own and in their discretion. All that we need to add to the said clause is that the action contemplated therein shall be taken within fifteen days of the closing date of admission. Any seats remaining unfilled thereafter can be filled by the Management of the private engineering colleges on their own and in their discretion. This direction shall not apply to medical/dental colleges". ( 11 ) RELYING upon the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the requisite information furnished by the State Government, the learned Single Judge rightly held: "the position as regards the extent of reservations made for each one of the above categories that emerges from the orders of the Supreme Court and the view taken by the authorities while implementing the same is as under: free seats available only to Karnataka students 50% payment seats available only to Karnataka 30% (students2) payment seats reserved for non-Kamataka 15% (students3) seats reserved for NRI and other candidates. 5%" (4) ( 12 ) HE found that there existed 624 unfilled seats which were required to be filled-up in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court, Appropriate directions, as noticed hereinabove were issued by the learned Judge vide the order impugned in these appeals. A combined reading of the orders of the Apex Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation's case dated 10-5-1996 and 9-8-1996 makes it clear that out of the 35% payment seats, 20% were to be reserved for Karnataka students and remaining 15% for non-Karnataka students. The admission of the Karnataka students was to be made in accordance with the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan's case, supra, out of the students who had appeared in the entrance test. The admission of the Karnataka students was to be made in accordance with the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan's case, supra, out of the students who had appeared in the entrance test. If any of the seats in the 20% allocated for Karnataka students is left vacant, those are required to be added to the 15% quota of the non-Karnataka students and be filled in accordance with the directions contained in clause (b) which provided: " (b) Since there is no sufficient time left for conducting a fresh common entrance test for non-Karnataka students for admission to the aforesaid fifteen per cent seats specified in clause (a) above, the following direction is made: a press note shall be issued by the Government of karnataka on or before August 15, 1995, to be published in all the national dailies, calling for applications from non-Karnataka students for admission to payment seats in private medical and dental colleges in Karnataka, to be submitted on or before fifth day of September, 1995. The applications shall be accompanied by the Memorandum of marks in the qualifying examination, apart from other relevant documents. All the applications so received shall be tabulated and admissions made on the basis of merit determined on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination. The students admitted shall remit the requisite fee, as specified hereinbelow, within ten days of the order of allotment. The remitting of amount by the students into the Government account in the specified Bank or the Government treasury, as the case may be, shall be treated as acceptance of allotment of seat by the student and the same shall be binding upon all concerned". ( 13 ) KEEPING in view various directions of the Supreme Court and the facts as emerged out of the pleadings the learned Judge on facts held: "transfer of the seats from unutilised Karnataka Payment category shall have to be understood as a transfer from 30% seats reserved for the said category. Besides the transfer of the unutilised karnataka Payment Seats to non-Karnataka category, there is a shortfall of 453 seats in the 15% quota set apart from non-Karnataka students thereby entitling the non-Karnataka students to a total of 453+1,774 seats to be transferred from unutilised Karnataka quota=2,227 seats. Besides the transfer of the unutilised karnataka Payment Seats to non-Karnataka category, there is a shortfall of 453 seats in the 15% quota set apart from non-Karnataka students thereby entitling the non-Karnataka students to a total of 453+1,774 seats to be transferred from unutilised Karnataka quota=2,227 seats. All these seats are not obviously available because as against 50% in the free seats category which work out to 8,083 seats out of a total of 16,165, the respondents have allotted 9,289 seats thereby utilising an excess of 1,206 seats. As against this, excess utilised, in free seats category, the respondents have reserved only 755 seats in the NRI quota for the private colleges. This reservation does not bear the prescribed proportion of 5% to either the total number of seats in all the Engineering Colleges of the State or even the total number of seats available in the private colleges. If the total number of Engineering seats in the State are taken into consideration 5% quota reserved for NRI would work out to 808 seats thereby leaving a shortage of 53 seats in the seats reserved for the said category. This shortfall has therefore to be made up out of the available unfilled payment seats which would reduce the number of such unfilled seats to 571 only. That is so because it is not at this stage feasible to disturb those admitted in the free seats category in excess of the quota reserved for them. In the circumstances, therefore, out of the available 624 seats, 53 shall have to be added to the NRI quota reserved for the private college thereby raising their entitlement to 808 seats in all which represents 5% of the total intake capacity of the colleges in the State. The balance 571 which represent the seats that have remained unutilised out of Karnataka Payment Category and the shortfall in the 15% quota for non-Karnataka payment category shall have to be utilised for admission of non-Karnataka payment candidates". ( 14 ) AN impression was sought to be created that payment Karnataka seats were being converted to non-Karnataka students to the prejudice of the Karnataka students. It was further submitted that conversion of seats was against the mandate of law which was likely to affect the State government. Such a hoax created has no legs to stand as it is bereft of any substance. It was further submitted that conversion of seats was against the mandate of law which was likely to affect the State government. Such a hoax created has no legs to stand as it is bereft of any substance. To our specific query, the learned Counsel appearing for appellants unambiguously stated that in fact, no Karnataka students were available for being admitted against the Karnataka payment seats. The dispute in fact appears to be between the Management of the private institutions and the non-Karnataka students who had appeared in the common entrance test and had qualified for being selected in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and the rules framed by the State Government. In the name of Karnataka students, all efforts have been made to confer the unfilled seats upon the Management to the prejudice of non-Karnataka students who had appeared in the entrance test and were otherwise eligible to be selected on the basis of their merit determined in accordance with the test held by the appellant-Cell. We cannot put such seats in the pockets of the Management who want to fill those seats according to their convenience and obviously with the object of extracting huge amounts from the students of their choice presumably held not qualified for admission in their Institutions. The Institution of the Education cannot be permitted to be commercialised as is the effort of Management of the Private institutions. In our society, education all along has been recognised as the pious obligation of mankind. Imparting of education was considered a religious and charitable obligation and not a saleable commodity. It was never used as a means of amassing wealth. Some people have however been indulging in malpractices and exploiting the situation in the society only for the purposes of inflating their money coffers, particularly, on account of the failure of the State to provide adequate facilities in the field of education. The activities connected with education cannot and should not be permitted to be carried on with the only motive of earning money. The supreme Court in Miss Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka and Others and J. P. Unnikrishnan's case, supra, highlighted the means of education and observed that Indian Civilisation recognised education as a pious obligation of the human society. Making education as commerce, business, is oppose to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of the nation. The supreme Court in Miss Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka and Others and J. P. Unnikrishnan's case, supra, highlighted the means of education and observed that Indian Civilisation recognised education as a pious obligation of the human society. Making education as commerce, business, is oppose to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of the nation. The hard reality is that there are still 624 unfilled payment seats which are required to be filled from amongst non-Karnataka students in the absence of any seeker of such seat from Karnataka. The appellant/state in fact cannot be held to be an aggrieved party as has been tried to be projected on false pleas and imaginary apprehensions. Similarly, the arguments advanced on behalf of the Management of the Private Institutions are without substance and liable to be rejected. ( 15 ) THE Karnataka payment seats have been directed to be converted for non-Karnataka payment seats for the academic year 1996-97 on the basis of the directions of the Apex Court issued for the academic year 1994-95 and 1995-96 which are admittedly in continuation of the scheme formulated in Unnikrishnan's case, supra. The purpose and object of various directions of the apex Court is to rationalise the admissions in the professional colleges and did not permit the management to exploit the situation by depriving the eligible students from getting admission despite having qualified in the entrance test. Conversion of seats has rightly been found by the learned Single Judge to be permissible and existence of unfilled seats not in dispute. ( 16 ) WE do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- to be equally payable by the State and the Association of the private Managements.