Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to make admission to the Institution, namely, Ramakrishna Mission Technical Institute (Residential) as before, i.e., by admitting orphan destitute boys who have passed out from the Ramakrishna Mission Residential High school and also by the orphan destitute boys from outside, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner-Mission is a branch of the Ramakrishna Mission having its Headquarters at Belur Math, District Howrah, West Bengal, started by Swami Vivekananda, to help the individuals to work out their salvation and to serve the society in the spirit of serving the God in man as stated by Bhagawan Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the Prophet of the age. Ramakrishna Mission was started in the year 1905 under the guidance and inspection of Swami Ramakrishnanda, one of the direct disciples of Bhagawan Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, with the object of educating the orphan/destitute boys. In the beginning, the object of the petitioner Home was to provide free boarding and lodging for orphan/destitute boys. Later in the year 1922, a Residential High School was started for giving Gurukula System of education to the orphan/destitute boys where the teaching section and the home are parts of the organic life and where teachers and public live together and work in close harmony and relationship. The pupils are made to lead the life of a Brahmachari and the education given is such as to inspire them with high ideals of sacrifice and service. Taking into consideration the monastic life, the Government also exempted this Institute from admitting girls. In the year 1925, a vocational training centre was also started which later developed into a Residential Technical Institute, The Ramakrishna Mission Technical Institute is attached to the Ramakrishna Mission Students’ Home and is intended solely for the inmates of the home. Merit and poverty are the guiding principles in selecting the students for admission to Residential High School and Residential Technical Institute attached to the Home. The Residential Technical Institute with an annual intake of 40 boys offer three years Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering. Merit and poverty are the guiding principles in selecting the students for admission to Residential High School and Residential Technical Institute attached to the Home. The Residential Technical Institute with an annual intake of 40 boys offer three years Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering. Besides the Technical Education, the inmates of the Residential Technical Education are provided with free boarding and lodging and other educational facilities. Petitioner Mission is admitting only orphan/ destitutes in the Residential Technical Institute. In 1984, petitioners had made an application in 1984 to the State Government to permit them to admit candidates to Ramakrishna Mission Technical Institute (Residential) only from among deserving destitute boys with preferential selection more among the boys who have studied in the Ramakrishna Mission Residential High School who are otherwise eligible for admission to the Technical Institute (Residential). The Government, issued G.O.Ms.No.1829, Education, dated 9.10.1984, permitting the Ramakrishna Mission Technical Institute (Residential) to give preference to eligible and deserving orphans/ destitutes/handicapped students who had studied in the Ramakrishna Mission Students Home while admitting students to the Technical Institute subject to the condition that the qualifications, age and merit should be followed as per the Government Orders in force from time to time. The list of candidates selected for admission will be provided to the Director of Technical Education every year. The said order further directed that if there are any unfilled seats, it could be filled from outsides (orphans/destitutes) following the procedure stipulated by the Government from time to time. The Rules of Reservation also should be followed by petitioner in the matter of admission. The petitioner is an aided Institution which receives aid from Government. Only the tuition fees prescribed by the Government (presently Rs.1,200 per annum) is to be paid by the students of the Ramakrishna Mission Technical Institute. However, the petitioner has been arranging funds for the boys who are admitted in the said institution to meet the aforesaid tuition fees. All the students studying in the Home including the Ramakrishna Mission Technical Institute (Residential) are provided with free boarding and lodging. The reason for filing this writ petition is, that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.221, Education, dated 3.6.1998, introducing Single Window System for admission of students in polytechnics. All admissions will have to be made only by the Director of Technical Education. The said Government Order has now been made applicable to the petitioner-institute also. The reason for filing this writ petition is, that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.221, Education, dated 3.6.1998, introducing Single Window System for admission of students in polytechnics. All admissions will have to be made only by the Director of Technical Education. The said Government Order has now been made applicable to the petitioner-institute also. The Government have introduced the Single Window System only on the basis of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in S.P.Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh S.P.Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh S.P.Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 and the same has been followed by the Regulations framed by the All India Council for Technical Education. Both the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the Regulations framed by AICTE have been rendered with a view to prevent the collection of capitation fee by the private managements and to regulate admissions in such institutions to see that meritorious students get selected without being required to pay any amount other than the fees payable to the Institution. There is no scope for application of the decision of the Supreme Court or the Regulations of the AICTE, except to maintain standard. On the basis of the said direction, petitioner was also informed by the Director of Technical Education, not to make admissions. Therefore, petitioner moved a representation before the Government to review its decision in so far as the petitioner Institution is concerned. It also explained the peculiarity of the Institution. It is said that this Institute has been in existence for the last nearly a century, and if the Single Window System is made applicable, and the Director of Technical Education is asked to fill up the seats, the tradition maintained by the petitioner Mission will change. Over the last nine decades, the benevolent public have been enormously contributing to the Institution, mainly because the Institution has always known to be and is in fact taking orphans/destitute boys and is training them to become useful citizens of the country, with certain basic qualification and moral values. If students from higher economic sections of the society are admitted, this very basis will disappear and it will impair the image of the Institution built over the past decades due to the dedicated and selfless work of several persons. If students from higher economic sections of the society are admitted, this very basis will disappear and it will impair the image of the Institution built over the past decades due to the dedicated and selfless work of several persons. The Institution is also not interested in taking students who may be willing to pay charges for boarding and lodging if they are able to secure admission purely based on marks, since there is likely to be psychological problems between the two categories of students. The eligibility for admitting a boy to the petitioner/Mission as such is determined first, and then only his admission to the Institute, which is one of the educational institutions run by Ramakrishna Mission Students’ Home, is decided. This Home is not interested in the case of relatively well-to do students who do require or deserve free boarding and lodging. Therefore, the petitioner is not required to select such well-to-do candidate for admission into the Home and hence to the Institution merely on the basis of their marks in the S.S.L.C. examination which is a qualifying examination for the Diploma course. According to petitioner, their Institution should not be treated on a similar footing along with other technical institutes offering similar course of study and applying the same conditions for selection. It is under these circumstances, petitioner has come to this Court for the aforesaid relief. 3. On the date when the writ petition was filed, representation was made by petitioners counsel that a request letter dated 8.6.1998 was not answered by the Government, but subsequently on 21.9.1998 the Government has rejected the request, learned counsel for petitioner also placed before copy of that letter. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, justifying the rejection of the petitioners request, only for the reason that the Institute is an Aided Institute, and they have to follow the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Unnikrishnas case, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 and also the regulations of the AICTE. It is also sad that this Court has upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.221, Higher Education, dated 3.6.1998, and a Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondents to complete the formalities within a stipulated time. It is said that the petitioner-Institute has also been taken into consideration for allotting students. It is also sad that this Court has upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.221, Higher Education, dated 3.6.1998, and a Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondents to complete the formalities within a stipulated time. It is said that the petitioner-Institute has also been taken into consideration for allotting students. If at this stage, the same is changed, that will affect the admission scheme, The prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader, in detail. 6. The special characteristics of the petitioner Institute were all along recognised by the Government. From 1925 onwards, this Institute was admitting only orphans or destitutes, and they have given free boarding and lodging, and this also not disputed by the Government that even in regard to tuition fees, though the students are bound to pay the same, the same is also collected by the Mission from various sources and paid for the students. It, therefore, follows that this Mission is giving this facilities or the orphan and destitute students as a charity, and it is also not denied that this Mission has not deviated from that principle. The Government has also not disputed that 40 students are being admitted, and all of them are inmates of the Mission. Because of the atmosphere of the Mission, girl students are not allowed to be admitted, and the Government, for this purpose, has issued a separate Government order. So, petitioner-Mission has got special characteristics, and this is not disputed even by the Government. It is in this background, we have to consider whether, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 could be applied to such an Institution, and even if it could be applied, whether the Government has got power to treat this Institute as a class by itself and exempt the same from the purview of Unnikrishnans case. In this connection, it may also be noted that even though the Mission is admitting students of its own notice, there had not been even a single instance of any complaint, whatsoever in their admission, and, aid is also being given by Government taking into consideration the meritorious service rendered by the petitioner-Mission. The petitioner is also following admission only by merit. The petitioner is also following admission only by merit. and it is also not disputed by Government that the principle of reservation has also been followed, even though admission is restricted to orphans or destitutes. 7. Now, let us consider the circumstances under which, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 came for consideration by the Honourable Supreme Court. Various private educational institutions, especially Engineering Colleges and Medical Colleges were established and they began to extract money from students as capitation fees. Many State Governments, taking into consideration the business venture of these private educational agencies, passed a legislation prohibiting collection of capitation fees. The same was challenged before the High Court and later before the Honourable Supreme Court. It was in such circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court, in Unnikrishnans case, held that for professional courses, it is only proper that admission be regulated by Single Window System. Their Lordships prepared a draft scheme whereby 50% of the seats must be treated as free seats and the remaining 50% seats were treated as payment seats. AICTE was also directed to frame Regulations. Side by side, the Honourable Supreme Court also said that apart from the regulation of admission by Single Window System, there must also be regulation regarding collection of fees. Their Lordships gave certain directions regarding collection of fees for free seats and payment seats. All these were intended to those Institutes which were extracting money from students, and education was taken as a commercial activity, or as a business venture. It was in such circumstances, their Lordships said that education is a Mission, and it should not be sold. It is to curtail the activities of such Institutions, law was declared in Unnikrishnans case. At the same time, the Honourable Supreme Court recognised the right of the private educational agencies to establish educational institutions. It was also found that the Government by itself cannot provide these facilities without the full assistance of private educational Institutions, to provide education, is the duty of the Government, and when private educational institution has now become a reality, it is only extending its activities through them. Their Lordships further went on and said that even though private educational institutions are necessary, commercialisation of education cannot and should not be permitted. The question posed before the Honourable Supreme Court was, how to encourage private educational institutions without allowing them to commercialise education. Their Lordships further went on and said that even though private educational institutions are necessary, commercialisation of education cannot and should not be permitted. The question posed before the Honourable Supreme Court was, how to encourage private educational institutions without allowing them to commercialise education. It is under these circumstances, the scheme was prepared by the Honourable Supreme Court. 8. Whether the scheme has to be applied irrespective of the nature of the Institution, and whether there can be circumstances which could be considered to exempt those institutes from the scheme framed in, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 is a matter to be considered in this case. 9. In this connection, it may also be stated that the AICTE has framed Regulations following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178. There is no much of difference in the scheme prepared by the AICTE from the scheme prepared by the Honourable Supreme Court, and in fact, it is also stated in the scheme framed by the AICTE. that the scheme was prepared following the decision in Unnikrishnans case. 10. In Larson & Toubro Institute of Technology and another v. All India Council for Technical Education and others Larson & Toubro Institute of Technology and another v. All India Council for Technical Education and others Larson & Toubro Institute of Technology and another v. All India Council for Technical Education and others , (1995)3 S.C.C. 287 a similar question came for consideration. 11. Larson & Toubro, a public limited company and a leading engineering concern of the country, had a large work force required for its various projects. It set up Larson and Toubro Institute of Technology. For establishing and running the Institute, a trust called “Larson and Toubro Staff and Welfare Trust” was constituted. Even though a Trust was formed, due to some complication, the same was not functioning, and the company itself began to run the Institute directly. The Institute was imparting instruction in a four-years diploma course, and the admission of students was strictly confined to the children of the staff of the company who had completed five years of service. Admission was made purely on the basis of merits based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. No fees was also taken from the students or from their parents for admission. Admission was made purely on the basis of merits based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. No fees was also taken from the students or from their parents for admission. The Government of Maharashtra also granted permission for starting the Institute subject to certain conditions, i.e., no fee shall be charged from the students, parents of the students must be Indian nationals, and they must be in service for a period of at least, five years, and the Governments policy of reservation also should be followed. The judgment in that case was pronounced after, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178. A question arose for consideration as to whether it has to follow AICTE Regulations. An application for exemption was filed by the company both to the Government as well as AICTE. A request was made to permit it to continue according to the procedure that was followed by the Company. The AICTE refused permission, which was the subject-matter of the writ petition and also before the Honourable Supreme Court. Their Lordships held that the companys case has to be accepted and it must be allowed to admit its own student without the intervention of AICTE or without following Single Window System admission. Reasons for granting such permission, was, that it is not an Engineering College and it is only a polytechnic and primarily it will cater to the children of comparatively lower echelons of the employees of the company, and admission was confined to the children of employees alone. No fee was charged, though charges for hostel were received. Admission was based only on merits and also on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, and no outside student was permitted. The idea was to train the students keeping the requirements of the common in mind and to absorb them ultimately in company service to the extent feasible. Their Lordships said that ‘it is thus obvious that the purpose for which this Institute has been started and is being maintained and run are in no way inconsistent with the underlying purpose and object sought to be achieved by the scheme enunciated in , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 and the regulations framed by the AICTE. Their Lordships said that ‘it is thus obvious that the purpose for which this Institute has been started and is being maintained and run are in no way inconsistent with the underlying purpose and object sought to be achieved by the scheme enunciated in , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 and the regulations framed by the AICTE. Their Lordships further said that they were, therefore, inclined to allow the Institute to function as at present, i.e., subject to the several conditions imposed by the Maharashtra Government at the time when the Institute was allowed to be established. Certain conditions were also imposed by the Honourable Supreme Court that the Institute shall send a copy of the list to AICTE and also to the Government, etc. In fact, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, their Lordships have further recommended that the trust created must be given exemption from the Income Tax Act. From that decision, it is clear that if the Institute is formed and started not as a commercial venture, and no fee is collected, and is maintaining the required a standard, the same will not offend the scheme prepared by the Honourable Supreme Court in Unnikrishnans case. 12. Similarly, there is also another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Institute of Urban Resources Development and others, etc., etc. v. P.R.Rameshkumar and others Institute of Urban Resources Development and others, etc., etc. v. P.R.Rameshkumar and others Institute of Urban Resources Development and others, etc., etc. v. P.R.Rameshkumar and others , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1987. There, the Government of Kerala started two societies, and these societies started two Engineering Colleges. The society in that case was formed because of lack of educational facilities in Kerala, specially in professional colleges. In these cases, fee was also realised from the students, though it was fixed by the Government. A separate provision was made recording admission of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, and fee was fixed by the Government in respect of admission of NBI students. Admission to the courses was made by the societies themselves and the Regulations framed by the AICTE were not followed. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, their Lordships justified the establishment of the Societies and the action of the Government in starting the self-financing institutions. Admission to the courses was made by the societies themselves and the Regulations framed by the AICTE were not followed. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, their Lordships justified the establishment of the Societies and the action of the Government in starting the self-financing institutions. It was also found by the Honourable Supreme Court that when the State is controlling the societies, there cannot be any question of commercialisation. In that case, the societies were to receive Rs.1 lakh as deposit from each and every student, agreeing to repay the same with interest, Even in such cases, the Honourable Supreme Court held that , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 need not be applied to them. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, their Lordships have declared that even the Honourable Supreme Court has not considered the scheme prepared in Unnikrishnans case as sacrosanct. In paragraph 14, their Lordships have held thus: “It has been strangely urged before us by the respondents that such a departure from the scheme in , 1993 A.I.R. S.C.W 863 cannot and should not be permitted. In the first case, the scheme in Unnikrishnan does not strictly apply to the case which is before us. Nevertheless, we have applied the underlying principles of the scheme in Unnikrishnan to the scheme which is before us and have found that this scheme broadly meets the aims and objectives was propounded in Unnikrishnan. This Court has itself not considered the scheme in Unnikrishnan as sacrosanct. It was required to be modified in a number of a case. Thus, for example, in T.M.A. Bai Foundation v. State of Karnataka T.M.A. Bai Foundation v. State of Karnataka T.M.A. Bai Foundation v. State of Karnataka , (1994)2 Ker. 734:A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2372 and T.M.A.Pai Foundation II v. State of Karnataka T.M.A.Pai Foundation II v. State of Karnataka T.M.A.Pai Foundation II v. State of Karnataka (1993)4 S.C.C. 286 :1993 A.I.R. S.C.W. 3601 the minority educational institution applied for and obtained a substantial modification of the scene in view of their right to reserved 50% of the seats for the minority community. In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993)4 S.C.C. 11 and T.M.A.Pai foundation (I) v. State of Karnataka T.M.A.Pai foundation (I) v. State of Karnataka T.M.A.Pai foundation (I) v. State of Karnataka, (1993)4 S.C.C. 276 :1993 A.I.R. S.C.W. 3601 the NRI quota was varied looking to the exigencies of the situation. A special quota for NRIs was permitted during the period of transaction, looking to the very different background and the financial constraints of the state which has impelled the state to formulate the present scheme of the self-financing Engineering Colleges under the control of the Government, we do not see any reason to withheld sanction to the scheme subject to the modifications set out earlier.” 13. In a very recent Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Nachene Ashwini Shivram v. State of Maharashtra Nachene Ashwini Shivram v. State of Maharashtra Nachene Ashwini Shivram v. State of Maharashtra , (1978)2 Mah.L.J. 234 similar question came for consideration. One of the Medical colleges by name Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Sewagram was following its own Rules of Admission. The State Government also framed Rules of Admission. The question that arose for consideration in that case was, whether the Medical College was bound to follow the Rules framed by the State Government. The said college was conducted by a private trust known as Kasturba Health Society. There were 64 seats in the said college. 58 seats were liable to be filled in by nomination. 2 to be made by the State Government and 4 by the Government of India. Seats to be filled in by nomination are also filled in on the basis of merits. The said college was funded by the Government of India to the extent of 50%, by the State Government to the extent of 25% and by Kasturba Health Society 25%, Fifty per cent of the seats were reserved for student. From the State of Maharashtra and fifty per cent student were drawn from outside Maharashtra. The seats were filled in on All India Competitive Entrance Test. There was one subject on Gandian thought which was prescribed for the entrance test. After admissions, students were required to undergo on orientation training course for a fortnight on the subject of Gandian thought and way of life. The seats were filled in on All India Competitive Entrance Test. There was one subject on Gandian thought which was prescribed for the entrance test. After admissions, students were required to undergo on orientation training course for a fortnight on the subject of Gandian thought and way of life. If any student was unable to adjust to the orientation training course, his admission was liable to be cancelled. Students were required to lead simple life, wear Khadi clothes and consume vegetarian meals. Eschew making and other intoxicant. They were required to participate in common prayer and shramdan. Residence in hostels was made compulsory. After completing the medical course, they were required to serve in rural areas for three years and a security deposit of Rs.15,000 was required to be given to ensure rural service. The same was made returnable only after satisfactorily completing rural service. No capitation fee was charged. The Board of Directors included nominee of Government of India, State Government and Zilla Parishad. The college was commenced in 1969, and no complaints were received in regard to any irregularities, After, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 278, when the State Government framed Rules for admission, the College claimed that it can have its own norms for admission. While considering the same, the Full Bench held thus: “In the case of Miss Nidhikumar v. State of Maharashtra Miss Nidhikumar v. State of Maharashtra Miss Nidhikumar v. State of Maharashtra, (1990)2 Mah.L.J. 785:A.I.R. 1990 Bom. 390 decided by a learned single Judge of this Court Smt.Sujata Manohar, J. (as she then was) a question arose, whether the present college can frame a rule prohibiting migration to some other college after a student was admitted. Admission rule provided that no application for migration to another medical college will be entertained from student admitted to the said institute. This rule was challenged as being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution on the ground that migration or transfer of students was permitted in other medical college under their respective rules. The challenges was negatived and it was held that having regard to the unique character of the Institute the petitioner was entitled to frame a rule prohibiting migration in the middle of the course to any other medical college as the same had nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The challenges was negatived and it was held that having regard to the unique character of the Institute the petitioner was entitled to frame a rule prohibiting migration in the middle of the course to any other medical college as the same had nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This was done on the ground that the petitioner was considered as a class by itself. In Shabal H,Mudaliar v. State of Kerala Shabal H,Mudaliar v. State of Kerala Shabal H,Mudaliar v. State of Kerala , (1993)4 S.C.C. 113 the question involved was relating to admissions in certain minority educational institutions and whether they were liable to follow the scheme for admission framed by the State Government. In para 14, the Apex Court considered that the colleges run by the petitioner institution did not charge any anticipation fee from any student, that the fees charged by it in its colleges was not more than the fee charged in the Government colleges and that admissions are granted on the basis of all India common entrance test separately conducted by the colleges strictly on merit. In para 15, the Apex Court considered the case of Medical College at Vellore in the State of Tamil Nadu. It was a well reputed institution. The admissions were given on the basis of All India Entrance Test conducted by the institution. The admissions were on the basis of merit. No capitation fee was charged. The fee charged was not more than the fee chargeable in similar Governmental Institutions. There was no complaint about the working of the said college at any time. Considering these factors, the Apex Court held that the institutions under consideration were having unique features or characteristics and permitted them to admit the students to their colleges on the basis of entrance test conducted by them. This was done by imposing a certain condition namely that those institutions shall furnish full particulars of the students admitted, categories, if any, where under they are admitted and all other particulars relating to their admission. Information was to be submitted to the competent authority, to the University to which such colleges were affiliated and to the Secretary, Education Department, as the authorities were to verify the correctness of the information supplied. Information was to be submitted to the competent authority, to the University to which such colleges were affiliated and to the Secretary, Education Department, as the authorities were to verify the correctness of the information supplied. In Larson & Turbo Institute of Technology v. All India Council for Technical Education Larson & Turbo Institute of Technology v. All India Council for Technical Education Larson & Turbo Institute of Technology v. All India Council for Technical Education , (1995)3 S.C.C. 287 the petitioner was running a technical institution, a polytechnic having diploma courses. It was meant for the children of employees of the company who had put in minimum five years’ confirmed service. The object was to train the students keeping the requirements of the company in view so as to absorb them in company service to the extent feasible. No fees were charged for admission for imparting instructions. Admissions were made exclusively on merit with reference to marks in qualifying examinations. Government rule regarding reservation of 34% of seats for backward class was followed. The Apex Court considered these unique features of the petitioner and held that the petitioner was exempt from its judgment in , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 and the regulations framed under All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 i.e., AICTE (Applicants and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admissions in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994 and AICTE (grant of approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programme). Regulations, 1994. The petitioner was allowed to grant admissions through its own Rules. If one applies the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the petitioner at hand, it would follow that the petitioner will be also entitled to control its admissions in accordance, with rules framed by it. Petitioner, we find, is a unique institution, Fifty per cent of the admissions are granted to students from the State of Maharashtra, where as fifty per cent to students from outside Maharashtra, Admissions are granted purely on merit. The institute observes constitutional reservations for backward classes. No capitation fees is charged and fees charged are not in excess of those charged by Government Colleges. The Institute believes in the Gandhian school of thought and way of life. It ensures rural services on completion of the medical course. The institute observes constitutional reservations for backward classes. No capitation fees is charged and fees charged are not in excess of those charged by Government Colleges. The Institute believes in the Gandhian school of thought and way of life. It ensures rural services on completion of the medical course. Petitioner, in the circumstances, can be said to be a class of its own. In the circumstances, we hold that the admissions to the aforesaid institution cannot be put in the common pool. Petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to grant admission. The admissions to the aforesaid institution will, therefore, not be governed by the rules framed by the State Government and, therefore, will not be liable to be controlled by the competent authority constituted by the Government. It will be entitled to control admissions in accordance with the rules framed by it. This will however be on terms.” According to me, the decision of the Bombay High Court, referred to supra fully applies to the facts of this case. So far as the petitioner-Institution is concerned, it is only admitting orphans or destitutes boys. who are inmates of its Home where they are provided with free food and accommodation. Being orphans and destitutes, even though on paper they are asked to pay fees, that amount is collected by the Mission from the public and it is adjusted towards their fees. This fact is not disputed by any one. In fact, this Mission is running the Institution free of fees and accommodation. Only qualified student are admitted, and admissions are also made strictly based an merits. Once it is found that they are not paying any fees or that the fee is collected through donation and adjusted towards their fee, there cannot be any collection of capitation fee from any one of them, nor can there be any question of education being commercialised in this Institution, when education is imparted by the mission as a service and charity. If Single Window System of admission is applied to the petitioner-Missions also, then the Director of Technical Education will admit students to this Institute also, and naturally, students who are inmates of this Home may not be in a position to get admission in this Institute. They may have to get accommodation in some other Institutes where fee concessions will not be available to them. They may have to get accommodation in some other Institutes where fee concessions will not be available to them. Even though they are found to be qualified for admission, only because of their poverty, they may not be in a position to complete their studies. It is only under such circumstances, the Institute comes to their help. Again as rightly stated in paragraph 15 of the affidavit, if students from outside are allowed, there will be psychological imbalance, which is likely to affect the very institution itself. These students who have been leading a monastic life in this Home for years together and are accustomed to a particular way of life, may not be in a position to adopt themselves to a changed situation. Their living is confined within the four walls of that Mission. It is a monastic life, strictly followed by discipline. Character formation is one of the basic principles of this Mission, and it is not a mere Technical Institute. If the Director of Technical Institution is given a free hand in admission, by implementing Single Window System of admission, the Exemption which was granted in the year 1990 by the Government from admitting Girl students also cannot be made applicable. If such a thing is allowed to be done, then the Mission will cease to be a Mission, and the monastic way of living and discipline will also be disturbed. Till date, for the last nearly one century, there was not even a single complaint against the Institute or about the disciplined way of life of the students residing in the Home. In no way, this institute can be compared with other institutes. It is run only for the poor and destitutes, and its administration can never be allowed to be interfered with poor orphans and destitutes who are not taken care of by the society are given a decent living in this home, and I feel that this institute is a class by itself, where there is no chance for any commercialisation of education, and concurrently there is no scope for applying Single Window System of admission, in this case. The Government also need not be worried about giving exemption, for, it is also having control. It is giving aid to the petitioner institute. If in case any irregularity is found, the Government is also entitled to stop it and take other actions. 14. The Government also need not be worried about giving exemption, for, it is also having control. It is giving aid to the petitioner institute. If in case any irregularity is found, the Government is also entitled to stop it and take other actions. 14. Learned Additional Government Pleader brought to my notice two decisions of the Honourable Supreme CourtState of Gujarat, etc. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others State of Gujarat, etc. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others State of Gujarat, etc. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others, J.T. (1994)3 S.C. 96 and Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology v. State of Punjab , A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 793. 15. In the first decision referred to above, one M.P.Shah wrote a letter to the Government of Saurashtra about his intention to donate Rs.15 lakhs to the Government of Saurashtra, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was, that the constitution of the colleges shall provide that he or his successor or his nominees shall be entitled to recommend admission to the extent of 10% of the total number of students to be admitted and this arrangement shall be continued so long as the college continues. On the basis of this arrangement, M.P.Shah was exercising his right to recommend 10% of the total number of students only for the reason that he has advanced Rs.15 lakhs in 1954. Their Lordships, following , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178, held that the trust formed by Shah cannot have a permanent say in the admission. When the matter came to the Honourable Supreme Court. Their Lordships accepted the view taken by the Government and held that what the Trust had done was, by paying Rs.15 lakhs, it has purchased seats for ever, and this being more or less a commercial activity cannot be recognised. It was further found that merit was not being considered. For these reasons, their Lordships said that there cannot be any reservation in an Institute for an individual. All the seats should be filled up as per merits and as per the scheme. 16. It was further found that merit was not being considered. For these reasons, their Lordships said that there cannot be any reservation in an Institute for an individual. All the seats should be filled up as per merits and as per the scheme. 16. In Thamper Institute of Engineering and Technology v. State of Punjab Thamper Institute of Engineering and Technology v. State of Punjab Thamper Institute of Engineering and Technology v. State of Punjab , A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 793 their Lordships said that reservation in colleges for employees is also not permissible, following , A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178, I do not think any of these decisions, has any application to this case. In this case, the petitioner has not reserved any seat for itself. it is a monetary, and it wants admission to its students, which cannot be made available in any other institute. Admission is made strictly on the basis of merits, and also following the principle of reservation. No fee is charged. It is, in fact, a charity. In our society orphans require a separate treatment, and it cannot be confused with those institutions or organisations which came for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178. As was held in , (1998)2 Mah.L.J. 234, petitioner-institution is a class of its own. As was held in , (1995)3 S.C.C. 287 , this institute is not an engineering college but a technical institute run only for orphans and destitute. If out of 40 seats, any seat remains vacant, even such vacant seat is filled up only by orphans or destitutes from outside. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that this is a fit case where it should be declared that the petitioner must be allowed to admit students as was being done before Unnikrishnans case was pronounced, of course following the principle of reservation. The rejection of petitioners request to exempt itself from Single Window System of admission by the Government, by letter dated 21.9.1998 is liable to be quashed and I do so. Petitioner is permitted to admit students on the basis of merits, as was being done hitherto, and they are also permitted to do the admissions as per G.O.Ms.No.1329, Education, dated 9.10.1984 and also G.O.Ms.No.1686, dated 18.12.1990. Petitioner is permitted to admit students on the basis of merits, as was being done hitherto, and they are also permitted to do the admissions as per G.O.Ms.No.1329, Education, dated 9.10.1984 and also G.O.Ms.No.1686, dated 18.12.1990. Petitioner Institute will send the list of candidates who have been selected, to the Director of Technical examination, with full details, including their qualifications, eligibility, marks obtained, etc., and also regarding reservation policy. All the conditions which the petitioner was complying with before 1993 will be followed by it. 17. At the time when the matter came for admission, petitioner moved for a direction that the Government should be prohibited from sending candidates to this Institute under Single Window System of admission. At that time, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that eight students have already been sent. Taking into consideration the said submissions, I said that the status quo as on that date will be maintained, and the Government, is prohibited from alloting any student to this Institute. Now that I have declared that the petitioner can have admission of its own students, and Single Window System of admission cannot be made applicable to petitioner Institute, naturally, students who have already been allotted by the Government to the petitioner-Institute must be reallotted to some other Institutes. I direct the second respondent to make necessary arrangements for re-allotment even in regard to students who have already been allotted to petitioner-Institute, within a period of ten days from to-day. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. W.M.P.No.21803 of 1998 for interim direction is closed.