P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE controversy in the present writ petition is between an educational institution claiming the benefits as minority institution and the University. Incidentally, the Government of Andhra Pradesh also is concerned with the dispute since it is the competent authority to issue the minority status certificate relating to an educational institution. ( 2 ) THE short factual matrix, which may be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition can be narrated as hereunder. ( 3 ) THE 1st petitioner in the writ petition is a Society and the 2nd petitioner is Haindavi post Graduate College, Bowenpally, secunderabad represented \by its correspondent and the 3rd petitioner is the correspondent in his personal capacity. 1st respondent herein is the Osmania university, represented by its Registrar, hereinafter referred to as "university" in short and 2nd respondent is the government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher education Department, represented by its secretary, hereinafter in short referred to as "state Government" for the purpose of convenience. Though there are three writ petitioners, the 2nd writ petitioner is the concerned institution claiming the linguistic minority status, hereinafter referred to as "institution" in short. ( 4 ) TNE relief prayed for in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent-University in not recognizing the 2nd petitioner institution as a minority educational institution and seeking to allot students to the 2nd petitioner institution by ignoring the admissions made by the 2nd petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to treat the 2nd petitioner institution as a minority educational institution for the Academic year 2001-02 for all purposes and pass such other suitable orders. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that the relief prayed for is not happily worded. It is also not in dispute that the University is not the competent authority in deciding the aspect of minority status of an educational institution. But however, as revealed from the facts it is clear that the institution had approached this court only in view of the objection raised by the University and hence most probably the relief was framed in such a fashion. But however, as revealed from the facts it is clear that the institution had approached this court only in view of the objection raised by the University and hence most probably the relief was framed in such a fashion. It is needless to mention that it is the substance of the relief prayed for that has to be looked into and not the mere words used by the petitioner while praying for a particular relief. ( 6 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 1st petitioner is a Society registered under A. P. (TA) PSR Act, 1350 Fasli which had been formed for promotion of education particularly amongst the members of the linguistic Minority community of the marathi speaking people in the State of andhra Pradesh and in pursuance of the said object, the 1st petitioner Society had promoted and established the 2nd petitioner educational institution. It was also averred that the 2nd petitioner was granted approval by A. I. C. T. E. for running the M. C. A. programme with an annual intake capacity of 30 students from academic year 1998-99 onwards and accordingly the institution has been running the M. C. A. course. It was further stated that the institution was also recognized by the 2nd respondent-State Government, as a minority educational institution right from 1998-99 onwards and similarly for the current academic year 2001-2002 also 2nd petitioner has been given the approval by a. I. C. T. E. vide its approval dated 27-6-2001 and also permission had been granted in g. O. Rt. No. 559, dated 30-7-2001 and the institution also is affiliated to the 1st respondent-University. The institution, inasmuch as it was being given recognition as a minority educational institution by the state Government on year to year basis, sought extension of its recognition as minority educational institution for the current academic year by its letter dated 7-9-2001. However, on account of several newly established colleges seeking recognition as minority educational institutions for the academic year 2001-2002, the State Government could not immediately pass orders for renewal of recognition of the institution as a minority educational institution and in such circumstances the application for renewal was kept pending. It was also further specifically pleaded that the institution was also granted renewal of its recognition as a minority educational institution by G. O. Rt. It was also further specifically pleaded that the institution was also granted renewal of its recognition as a minority educational institution by G. O. Rt. No. 35, dated 20-1-2002 for the academic year 2001-2002 and the institution was directed to follow the Rules under G. O. Ms. No. 526 for filling up the seats by those other than those allotted to Minority community and accordingly the institution filled up the seats and had communicated the list of selected candidates to the competent authorities. However, the University purporting to make admissions sought to make allotments to the institution and when the students allotted by the University reported to the institution in the latter half of January 2002, the institution had addressed a letter to the University on 6-2-2002 specifying that the institution was recognized as a minority educational institution for the current academic year 2001-2002 also and the admissions had been made by the institution in such capacity. It was also informed to the University that in order to obviate any complication and hardship that may be caused to the students that may be allotted by the University, the institution and taken necessary steps for taking classes for the batch of students allotted by the University and requested the university to withdraw the said students and allot them to other colleges where there were vacancies. It was further stated that the University had addressed a letter to the institution on 12-2-2002 purporting to enclose the fee collected from the students who were allotted to the Institution by the university and the University by the said letter is continuing to treat the students allotted by it to the institution as the students of the institution ignoring the admissions made by the institution as such as a minority educational institution. It is stated that the said fee had been returned by the institution to the University. In such circumstances, especially in the light of the stand taken by the University, the institution aggrieved by the same, had filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs specified supra. ( 7 ) THE University had filed a counter affidavit in detail and the State Government also had filed a counter-affidavit narrating all the particulars relating to the present dispute. ( 7 ) THE University had filed a counter affidavit in detail and the State Government also had filed a counter-affidavit narrating all the particulars relating to the present dispute. The stand taken by the University is that the University had strictly implemented the instructions in toto received from the Principal Secretary to government, Minority Welfare Department, government of Andhra Pradesh, vide DO letter No. 3893/mr/a2/2002, dated 12-9-2001 wherein it was categorically stated to verify the facts and stop admission process, cancel the admissions if any made without minority status certificate for the current academic year 2001-2002. The memo issued by the Principal Secretary, dated 23-7-2001 and also the instructions in this regard had been referred to in the counter-affidavit. It was also pleaded that in view of the said directions of the State government, the institution was treated as a non-minority institution for the purpose of admissions in the absence of a minority status certificate when the admission process started for M. C. A. course i. e. , 6-10-2001. It was also further stated that the institution failed to obtain the minority status certificate from the competent authority for the academic year 2001-2002 in time. It was also stated that the institution submitted an undertaking to the University stating that it would submit the minority status certificate from the competent authority before the closing date of admissions i. e. , 29-12-2001, failing which it had also mentioned categorically that the institution was ready to face the consequences. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, the University had referred to certain other writ petitions which had been filed seeking minority status certificates. It was also stated that the institution was not permitted by the university to make admissions for the academic year 2001-2002 as the institution failed to obtain and submit the renewal of minority status certificate for this academic year and instead the University through its letters dated 22-9-2001, 25-9-2001, 5-10-2001 and 29-11-2001 informed the institution to submit the minority status certificate for the academic year 2001-2002 with instructions not to make any admissions into M. C. A. course in the absence of minority status certificate. It was also stated that the institution was granted renewal of minority status for the academic year 2001-2002 vide g. O. Rt. It was also stated that the institution was granted renewal of minority status for the academic year 2001-2002 vide g. O. Rt. No. 35, dated 20-1-2002 by the State government, but it was done only after the university dosed admissions on 29-12-2001 and hence the students who were allotted by the University alone are eligible to sit for the examinations and the students admitted by the institution are not the University students in the eye of law. In paragraph-8 of the counter-affidavit, the representation of the institution dated 6-2-2002 and the decision taken by the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate also had been referred to and it was stated that the said decision was communicated to the institution by office letter No. 836/h/1226/ 98-99/acad IV-I, dated 5-3-2002. As can be seen from the record, the writ petition was presented on 4-3-2002 and hence the fact remains that the subsequent proceeding was not questioned in the present writ petition inasmuch as it is a subsequent event. No doubt, the University had referred to the correspondence and also several other proceedings so as to justify its stand taken in this regard. ( 8 ) THE State Government had filed acounter-affidavit in detail narrating all the facts in paragraphs 3 to 8. At paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, the chronological events relating to examination of the proposal of the institution for according minority status had been furnished. At paragraph-8 of the counter-affidavit, the state Government had explained its stand in detail. But however, it was stated that a decision was taken to renew the minority status certificate with a warning to the management that in future admissions will be made in accordance with Rule 11 (3) (e) of the Rules contained in G. O. Ms. No. 526, dated 21-12-1988. But however, it was stated that a decision was taken to renew the minority status certificate with a warning to the management that in future admissions will be made in accordance with Rule 11 (3) (e) of the Rules contained in G. O. Ms. No. 526, dated 21-12-1988. ( 9 ) SRI Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri Niranjan Reddy on behalf of the institution with all vehemence had submitted that this is a case where a linguistic minority institution in fact had obtained renewal and despite the existence of the minority status certificate, the university is not inclined to recognize the admissions made by this institution as the admissions made by a minority institution and also taking a stand that such admissions made by the institution are not valid and only the allotments made by the university in this regard should be taken as valid and the students who had been admitted by the institution cannot be treated as students validly admitted in the eye of law. The learned counsel also had taken me through Article 30 of the constitution of India and the renewal certificate granted in this regard by the State government. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to G. O. Ms. Nos. 616,44, 362 and also the letter from A. I. C. T. E. dated 22-6-2001 and the representations made and the letters which had been addressed and also G. O. Rt. No. 35, dated 20-1-2002. The learned counsel while taking me through the contents of G. O. Rt. No. 35, would maintain that when the State Government had issued renewal of the minority status certificate in favour of this linguistic minority institution, it should be taken that the certificate had been granted for a particular academic year and hence the benefit of the said certificate should be applied to the whole of the academic year and the mere fact that the renewal was granted at a particular point of time with some delay, by itself cannot be taken advantage of by the University in taking a stand to the effect that since there was delay in obtaining the minority status certificate from the competent authority, the institution should be treated as a non-minority institution for the purpose of allotment of students. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to Section 99 of A. P. Education Act, 1982 and also the rules framed thereunder in general and the a. P. Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and regulation) Rules, 1988, in particular. The learned counsel while continuing his elaborate submissions had drawn my attention to Rule 2 (e), Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 7 and also Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules. It was also further submitted that the meaning of the word "renewal" also is to spme extent relevant and inasmuch as the minority status certificate had been renewed, it will relate back to the commencement of the academic year. The learned counsel also would submit that in fact, similar view had been expressed in Qmmul Qura Educational society and others v. Government of Andhra pradesh and others and also Biman Krishna base v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. . The learned counsel narrating all the facts and circumstances had made a serious attempt to convince the court that absolutely thereis no blameworthy conduct on the part of the institution and in such a case in the light of the stand taken by the University, the unfortunate students should not be put to any loss. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the light of the fact that there are two sets of students and especially in the light of the fact that the renewal of minority status certificate had been in fact issued by the State Government - the competent authority, the students admitted by the institution cannot be deprived of their right to further prosecute the said course and complete the same. The learned counsel also had referred to certain Rules in the A. P. Rules for Conduct of Common entrance Test for Post Graduate professional M. B. A. and M. C. A. Courses rules under G. O. Ms. No. 119, Education (EC-2), dated 28-4-1996. The learned counsel while dealing with the meaning of the word or expression "renewal" or "renew", referred to the definitions under the Living webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the english Language. No. 119, Education (EC-2), dated 28-4-1996. The learned counsel while dealing with the meaning of the word or expression "renewal" or "renew", referred to the definitions under the Living webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the english Language. While concluding his elaborate submissions, the learned counsel would maintain that it is a matter of infringement of a Constitutional right conferred on the institution and hence such a right cannot be defeated so lightly by the university under the guise of exercising certain powers either under the Rules or under the directions of the State government. It was further stated that at any rate, even on the ground of equity, the students already admitted by the institution also should be given an opportunity to further prosecute the courses without any disturbance whatsoever on the ground of certain technicalities. ( 10 ) SRI E. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Osmania university had heavily commented on the nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition. The learned counsel had contended that Rule 7 of the A. P. Minority Educational institution (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988 under G. O. Ms. No. 526, Education (Rules), dated 21-12-1988, in short hereinafter referred to as "rules" is not applicable to the facts on hand. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to Rule 7 (5) (a) and had contended that it is concerned with establishment of an educational institution and the learned counsel also had contended that the institution was not permitted the status of a minority educational institution and the procedure for grant of recognition of educational institution as minority institution is governed by Rule 6 of the rules. The learned counsel also had contended that the institution is not a fresh institution and it is conscious of all the aspects including the consequences of non-obtaining the minority status certificate within a particular point of time before starting of the counselling and hence the institution cannot be permitted to take a stand that merely because at a particular point of time at a very belated stage, the renewal was obtained, it will enure to the benefit of the whole of the academic year. The learned counsel also had pointed out that it is pertinent to note that at the relevant appropriate time, the institution was not having the said certificate and the action of the University in making allotment of students in a phased manner treating it as a non-minority institution cannot be faulted at all. The learned counsel also had brought to the notice of the court that the correspondence between the institution and the University clearly goes to show that it is only an after thought and in fact no admissions had been made by the institution and the learned counsel had pointed out to the contents of the letters which had been addressed by the institution in this regard. The learned Senior Counsel with all vehemence had contended that in a case of this nature, the question of equity or sympathy cannot have any place at all and when regulatory measures had been violated by the institution, the consequences automatically would follow. It was further maintained that unless the institution was possessed of the minority status certificate at the relevant point of time, the University will be empowered to make admissions treating such institution as a non-minority institution even though such institution might have possessed such a certificate in the prior years or could have obtained certificate at a later point of time. The learned counsel also no doubt had made an attempt to explain what is the meaning of the word "renew" or "renewal" and where it can be said that such renewal certificate at a particular point of time will enure to the whole of the academic year. The learned counsel further contended that by the mere fact that at a subsequent point of time the minority status certificate was obtained by the institution, the allotments lawfully made by the University cannot be annulled and if such view is permissible then it will amount to perpetrating the illegal admissions made by the non-minority institution claiming to be a minority institution even without the relevant certificate at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the resolution of the university and also had pointed out that the proceedings dated 5-3-2002 had not been challenged. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the resolution of the university and also had pointed out that the proceedings dated 5-3-2002 had not been challenged. The learned Senior Counsel also had explained under what circumstances the decision referred (1) supra had been delivered and had submitted that the said decision has no relevance at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on Tarlupadu College of Education v. Nagarjuna University. It was also further contended that the renewal at any rate should be treated only as a fresh grant and hence it cannot be given any retrospective operation as such. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to a decision of the apex Court in Mallikarjuna Mudhagal nagappa and others v. State of Kamataka. ( 11 ) SRI Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Government Pleader for Higher education, with all vehemence had contended that the minority status certificate is only a declaration recognizing the status and it cannot have the effect of setting at naught the earlier events and the same cannot be stretched too long in this regard. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to several paragraphs in the decision referred (1) supra and had explained how the said decision may not be relevant to the present case. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to rule 6 (1) and also Rule 6 (3) (a) (ii) of the rules and had referred to several proceedings including the letters and contended that at no point of time in the prior correspondence any whisper had been made by the Institution about the admissions made by it. Even otherwise, these parallel admissions in the facts and circumstances of the case are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by the writ Court. The learned counsel would also further maintain that while deciding the legality of the admissions, the relevant date may be looked into and the status of the Institution on that particular date alone shall be taken into consideration. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to Rule 7 (2), Rule 7 (5) and also rule 11 (1) and Rule 11 (13) (e) of the Rules and had contended that this institution had not complied with the procedural formalities also. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to Rule 7 (2), Rule 7 (5) and also rule 11 (1) and Rule 11 (13) (e) of the Rules and had contended that this institution had not complied with the procedural formalities also. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the clear stand taken by the State Government in the counter-affidavit filed by it and had referred to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 in particular. The learned counsel also had further contended that unless there is a statutory infraction or violation or there is an infringement of legal right, a Writ of mandamus does not lie and a direction of this nature which will virtually amount to regularizing the illegal admissions, cannot be granted since the admissions made by the institution, if any, definitely will be contrary to the Rules and the regulatory measures and hence the learned counsel also had contended that the university is justified in taking such a stand. Strong reliance was placed on Dr. Rai shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar and others, Santosh Kumar varma and others v. State of Bihar, Hope textiles Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others , Vice-Chancellor, University of allahabad and others v. Dr. Anand Prakash mishra and others and State of U. P. and others v. Harishi Chandra and others. While making further submissions relating to the aspect of equity, the learned counsel also had submitted that if in equity, any direction is granted it will amount to perpetrating the illegality and the same is impermissible in law and strong reliance was placed on punjab Engineering College Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gandhi. ( 12 ) HEARD all the counsel on record and also perused the material available on record. ( 13 ) THOUGH the question involved in the present writ petition is short and simple, the respective pleadings of the parties are a bit lengthy and several contentions and rival contentions as referred to supra also had been advanced with all vehemence and also with sufficient elaboration. The institution in the present case is claiming the status of linguistic Minority Institution. The institution in the present case is claiming the status of linguistic Minority Institution. Article 30 of the Constitution of India dealing with right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, reads as follows," (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. (1-A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the state shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause. (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. "it is true that the scope, ambit and interference under Article 30 of the constitution of India fell for consideration on several occasions and the decisions are numerous on the point. The tests to be satisfied for invoking Article 30 of the constitution of India also had been well laid down and explained in a catena of decisions. But however, though Article 30 of the Constitution of India by itself does not lay down any limitations upon the right of the minority institutions as such to administer its educational institutions, such right is not absolute but it is subject to reasonable regulations in this regard. This is exactly the sphere where the interference and also the intervention of the State government or the University will come into play. As far as the State of Andhra pradesh is concerned, the A. P. Education act, 1982 (Act 1 of 1982), is an Act enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the educational system in the State of andhra Pradesh for reforming, organizing and developing the said educational system and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The A. P. Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and regulation) Rules, 1988, referred to as "rules" under G. O. Ms. No. 526, Education (Rules), dated 21-12-1988, had been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 99 of the A. P. Education Act, 1982. The A. P. Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and regulation) Rules, 1988, referred to as "rules" under G. O. Ms. No. 526, Education (Rules), dated 21-12-1988, had been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 99 of the A. P. Education Act, 1982. Rule 2 (b) of the Rules deals with Competent Authority and the same reads as follows, "competent Authority" means, the respective authority empowered to accord permission/recognition/ affiliation to institutions, as the case may be, and cause the inspection and prescribe rules and regulations on all matters pertaining to education etc. , as the case may be, for all educational institutions including minority institutions. " likewise, Rule 2 (d) deals with Educational agency, Rule 2 (e) with Educational institution, Rule 2 (h) with Recognition and Rule 2 (i) deals with Recognition authority. Likewise, Rule 3 of the said rules deals with Competent Authority for according recognition as minority educational institutions. Rule 4 specifies criteria for recognition of educational institutions as Minority Educational institutions. Rule 5 deals with Application for grant of recognition as minority educational institution. The relevant Rules on which strong reliance was placed by the respective counsel representing the parties are Rules 6, 7 and also 11. Rule 6 (1) of the rules, reads as follows,-"education agencies desirous of obtaining recognition as minority educational institutions to their institutions (both religious and linguistic minority communities) shall make an application in the prescribed form (Form 1) in triplicate to the director concerned,"rule 6 (3) (a) (ii) of the Rules says,"the certificate so issued is valid for a period of five academic years and shall be renewed prior to its expiry period by making application about three months in advance. "likewise, Rule 7 (2) of the Rules reads as follows,"no educational agency including the one claiming as of belonging to minority community (religious or linguistic) shall be established without prior permission of the competent authority. "rule 7 (5) of the Rules specifies as hereunder," (A) Any educational institution which has been permitted to be established with the status of minority educational institution shall be deemed to have been accorded minority status for one academic year only for the purposes of making admission of students and appointment of staff, and is subject to obtaining of certificate of recognition as minority institution from the competent Authority before the beginning of the next academic year. (b) Any minority educational institution which fails to obtain certificate of recognition as minority institution from the Competent authority and/or the institution which has been recognized as minority institution but has lost the recognition as minority institution for failure to comply with the criteria laid down under Rule 4, the Competent authority is empowered- (i) to cancel the permission accorded for the establishment of institution, and/or (ii) to withdraw the concessions enjoyed by the minority institutions allowing it to function as non-minority institution, and/or (iii) to take over the control and administration of the institution. "rule 11 of the Rules deals with General instructions and Rule 11 (1) reads as follows,"no educational institution shall be entitled for the privileges which are allowed for the recognized minority educational institutions unless it is recognized as minority educational institution and is issued a certificate of recognition to that effect, by the recognition Authority. "rule 11 (13) (e) of the Rules reads as follows,"where common entrance examination has been prescribed for admission to various educational institutions, the minority educational institutions,- (i) shall admit students belonging to the concerned community from among the merit list of students prepared by the competent authority conducting the Common entrance Examination, on the basis of the ranking assigned in the entrance Examination. (ii) May admit students belonging to other than the concerned community on the basis of the ranking assigned in the common entrance examination, as allotted by the competent authority, in cases there are no eligible candidates belonging to the concerned community for making admission. In such a case the rule of reservation as prescribed by the government from time to time shall be followed. "incidentally, Rule 6 dealing with preparation of Merit List and assigning ranking under the A. P. Rules for Conduct of Common Entrance test for Post Graduate professional M. B. A. and M. C. A. Courses rules issued under G. O. Ms. "incidentally, Rule 6 dealing with preparation of Merit List and assigning ranking under the A. P. Rules for Conduct of Common Entrance test for Post Graduate professional M. B. A. and M. C. A. Courses rules issued under G. O. Ms. No. 119, education (EC-2), dated 28-4-1996, also had been referred to and the said Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 r/w. Section 12 of A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of admission and Prohibition of Capitation fee) Act, 1983 (Act No. 5 of 1983) and the said Rule 6 reads as follows,"the candidates who have secured qualifying marks in the Entrance Test and the candidates belonging to the scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes community to whom qualifying marks have not been prescribed, shall be assigned the ranking in the order of merit on the basis of the marks obtained in the Common Entrance Test concerned. (1) For convenience at the time of making admissions the respective entrance Test Committee shall prepare the following categories of merit lists. (a) State-wide Common Merit List,- the list shall include candidates irrespective of whether one belongs to any category of reservation quota or not, basing on the marks obtained in the concerned common Entrance Test. (b) Region-wise Common Merit List,- the list includes candidates belonging to the particular local area irrespective of whether one belongs to any category of reservation quota or not basing on the marks obtained in the concerned Common Entrance Test. (c) Concerned Minority Community merit List,- They includes merit lists, containing the candidates belonging to the concerned minority Community arranged in the Merit ranking assigned in the common Entrance Test concerned both State-wide and Region-wise. (d) Community-wise Merit List,- there shall be separate community-wise merit lists for the scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes communities, both as State-wide and Region-wise; and (e) Merit list for other categories of reservations,- There shall be separate merit lists for other categories of reservations as per the orders in force for Physically handicapped, N. C. C. , Games and sports and for Women both Statewide and Region-wise. (2) While preparing the merit lists, the following shall be the criteria, (a) in case of tie in the marks obtained in the concerned Entrance Tests, marks obtained in the qualifying examination shall be taken into account to decide relative ranking, and (b) in case of the candidates getting equal marks in the qualifying examination causing further tie, they shall be bracketed for the purpose of awarding rank. Age should be taken into consideration for relative ranking among the bracketed candidates and the older candidate shall be given priority. (3) Every candidate who has been assigned ranking in the Merit List shall be issued "rank Card". The Rank card among other things shall include the marks obtained in the CET and the rank assigned in the State-wide, region-wise, community and minority community lists. " ( 14 ) BEFORE dealing with the respective contentions of the parties on record, it may be appropriate to look into G. O. Rt. No. 35, higher Education (B. C. 1) Department, dated 20-1-2002, which reads as follows,"in the reference 1st read above orders have been issued renewing Marathi linguistic Minority status to Haindavi p. G. College, Secunderabad for conducting MCA (FT) programme for the academic year 2000-2001. 2. The Secretary and Correspondent haindavi P. G. College, has stated that after exhausting all the available marathi lingufstic candidates they have filled the remaining vacancies with the available candidates by following rules of reservation and the same was approved by the Convenor after verifying the records. They have started the college three years back and during last three academic years they have admitted more than 50% marathi candidates. They could not get the list of Marathi Minority students from the Convenor MCA- cet in view of the fact that no column about the linguistic minority was incorporated in the application form. Therefore he has requested to renew linguistic minority status to their institution to enable them to submit the list to Convenor MCA admissions. 3. The CTE after conducting inspection of the above institution has stated that the college has made admissions with 17 Marathi students out of the intake of 30 during 2000-01. For the year 1999-2000 also 17 Marathi students were admitted as against the intake of 30. 3. The CTE after conducting inspection of the above institution has stated that the college has made admissions with 17 Marathi students out of the intake of 30 during 2000-01. For the year 1999-2000 also 17 Marathi students were admitted as against the intake of 30. The CTE has also stated that out of 6 members of the Governing Body 5 members belonging to Marathi - hindu religion and Society has clearly mentioned in the bye-laws that the main object is to run the institution particularly for the benefit of Marathi Hindu students. 4. Government after careful examination of the matter have considered that during the last three academic years the institution has admitted more than 50% Marathi minority candidates and the admissions were approved by the convenor. Government therefore decided to renew Marathi Linguistic minority Status to the above institution. Accordingly, Government hereby renew Marathi Linguistic minority Status to Hainuavi P. G. College, Secunderabad established by ravi Rishi Educational Society for conducting MCA programme for the academic year 2001-2002. The management of the Institution is however warned to follow the rules of procedure envisaged under rule 11 (13) (e) rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 526, Edn. dated 21-12-1988 while filling up the left over seats. (By order and in the name of the governor of Andhra Pradesh) g. Sudhir, secretary to Government. "in paragraph-4 of the said G. O. Rt. No. 35, it was specified as follows,"accordingly, Government hereby renew Marathi Linguistic Minority status to Haindavi P. G. College, secunderabad established by Ravi rushi Educational Society for conducting MCA programme for the academic year 2001-2002. "it is pertinent to note that on the strength of the said proceeding, the institution is contending that though the minority status certificate was not available at the relevant time, the admissions made by the institution should be taken as lawfully made in the facts and circumstances of the case since the renewal under G. O. Rt. No. 35 will enure to the benefit of the institution from the commencement of the academic year. No. 35 will enure to the benefit of the institution from the commencement of the academic year. The expressions "renew" and "renewal" had been defined in the Living Webster encyclopedic Dictionary of the English language, as follows, re new To make new again; to restore to former soundness, completeness, or perfection; to revive; to restore to a former state, or to a good state, after decay or impairment; to make again; as to renew a treaty; to resume; to recommence; to continue by repeating; as, to renew a subscription; to begin again; to grant or furnish again, as a new loan; to replenish, as supplies.- v. i. to become new; to grow afresh; to begin again.- re-new. a. bil. i. ty, n.-re. new. a. ble, a.- renew. a. bly, adv.- re. new. er,n. re. new. al n. An act or instance of renewing; the state of being renewed. On the aspect of the meaning of "renew" and "renewal", no doubt a contention was advanced on behalf of the University that the renewal is only a fresh grant and will not have the effect of annulling the allotments already made by the University to the institution. However, a careful reading of G. O. Rt. No. 35 makes it clear that the State Government had accorded the renewal for the academic year 2001-2002. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education also had taken a stand that this minority status certificate is only a declaration recognizing the status and it has no effect of setting at naught the earlier events or earlier allotments made by the university. It is needless to say that under the Rules, the competent authority to issue such a certificate is the State Government and not the University. But however, as referred to supra, the language in the relief portion of the writ petition was couched in such a form for the reason that it is the university which had taken the objection and hence most probably the institution might have thought of praying for such a relief, and as already stated by me, the writ court, while exercising the powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India, may have to look into the substance of the relief prayed for as such while issuing appropriate directions. No doubt, elaborate submissions had been made to show that in fact the institution had not complied with the Rules which had been referred to supra and at any rate even the obtaining of the minority status certificate was not within time. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel representing the University had pointed out that it would have been appropriate on the part of the institution to approach the State government at the earliest point of time to get the necessary certificate instead of resorting to all these methods. In the present set of facts and circumstances, I also accept the said contention that it would have been more advisable on the part of the Institution and could have approached the State government at the earliest point of time and could have been more cautious, since in matters of this nature, the students who intend to prosecute the studies will be the ultimate sufferers and in several of the cases all these problems may not be within the knowledge of such students seeking admission into a particular educational institution. However, it is unfortunate that the subject institution which claims to be a linguistic minority institution had not been diligent in getting the minority status certificate within the time. ( 15 ) NOW, the crucial question that has to be decided in the present writ petition is, can the relief prayed for by the institution be denied on such a ground in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case? It is no doubt true that in G. O. Rt. No. 616, dated 2-9-2000, at paragraph-4, it was stated,"government after careful examination of the matter hereby accord permission to Ravi Rishi educational Society, Hyderabad for conducting M. C. A. (full time) programme at Haindevi P. G. College, secunderabad under Marathi linguistic Minority status for the academic year 2000-2001, pending finalisation of the guidelines. "it is also true that in the letter addressed to the Registrar of the University by the institution dated 23-11-2001 at paragraph-2, it is stated,"sir, the management has submitted the application to the Government for the renewal of minority status to this college, which is in process. Any time a favourable communication is expected from the Government in this regard. Therefore, I hereby request you to give us some more time so that the minority community students would get their benefit. Any time a favourable communication is expected from the Government in this regard. Therefore, I hereby request you to give us some more time so that the minority community students would get their benefit. This time the response is much higher from the marathi community students as compared last two years. "in the letter dated 29-11-2001 addressed by the Deputy Registrar (Academic), it was stated as follows,"i am to inform that the University had communicated about the decision of the University to include the name of your college in the first phase of the counseling for MCA admission during the academic year 2001-2002, based on the directions of the Government of a. P. , as the College does not have the minority Status Certificate for this academic year. Now through the reference cited, you have requested the University to give some more time for the submission of minority Status Certificate for this academic year 2001-2002, while submitting the list of the names of the candidates registered at your college for admission. As per the direction of the government of A. P. , the University is compelled to include the name of your college in the second counseling also for MCA admissions, commencing from 27th November 2001, in the absence of Minority Status Certificate from the competent authority for this academic year. Further, you are also advised not to make any admissions into MCA course in absence of the Minority status Certificate and the permission of the University, during the academic year 2001-2002. This is for your information. "the institution also had addressed a letter to the Registrar of the University dated 6-2-2002 and the communication from the directorate of Admissions dated 12-2-2002 also had been referred to. The University, on the strength of the correspondence, had made an attempt to demonstrate that in fact no admissions had been made by the institution since this was not referred to in the prior correspondence at all and hence this stand by the institution is only an after thought. The University, on the strength of the correspondence, had made an attempt to demonstrate that in fact no admissions had been made by the institution since this was not referred to in the prior correspondence at all and hence this stand by the institution is only an after thought. I am unable to accept the said contention for the reason that the institution might have not stated so for the reason that the minority status certificate for the relevant academic year in fact was not granted by the State Government and it was pending consideration by the State government at the relevant time, and by that itself it cannot be said that the stand taken by the institution relating to admissions cannot be believed at all. Further it cannot be accepted that this is a disputed question of fact for the reason that in the light of the minority status certificate issued in the prior orders, the institution might have been under the legitimate expectation of getting the renewal of its recognition as minority educational institution for making admissions during the current academic year also i. e. , 2001-2002. The University also had placed reliance on instruction at Sl. No. 4, which had been referred to at paragraph-3 of the counter-affidavit and the said instruction reads as follows,-"no institution shall be permitted to make admissions without minority status and in the absence of minority status certificate, the institute shall be treated as non-minority institution for the purpose of admissions. "in substance, the stand of the University is that as on the relevant date since such status was not enjoyed by the subject institution, it can be treated as non-minority institution for making allotments by the University as such. The University at paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit had stated as follows,". . . . It is submitted that the petitioner-institution submitted only the list of the Marati Linguistics candidates, registered for admission into MCA course for the academic year 2001-2002. The petitioner institution was granted renewal of minority status for the academic year 2001-2002 vide G. O. Rt. No. 35, dated 20-1-2002 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is only after the University closed the admissions i. e. , 29-12-2001. The students who were allotted by the university are alone eligible to sit for the examinations and students admitted by the college are not university students in the eye of law. No. 35, dated 20-1-2002 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is only after the University closed the admissions i. e. , 29-12-2001. The students who were allotted by the university are alone eligible to sit for the examinations and students admitted by the college are not university students in the eye of law. The University, in view of the directions of the Government of andhra Pradesh through its DO letter dated 12-9-2001 treated the petitioner institution as a non-minority institution in the absence of minority status certificate and allotted candidates into MCA for the academic year 2001-2002 from among the entrance qualified candidates. Further, the management has never submitted any list of candidates admitted to the university, thus perpetuating illegality. Hence, the admissions made by the petitioner-institution is illegal and not valid. "however, at paragraph-8 it was also stated by the University as follows, ". . . . . . . . It is the University which repeatedly instructed the petitioner- institution not to make any admissions in the absence of the minority status certificate for the academic year 2001-2002 vide Lrs. dated 22-9-2001, 25-9-2001, 5-10-2001 and 29-11-2001. The students allotted by the Director, directorate of Admissions, Osmania university have reported in the college in the month of December itself and not in January as claimed by the management. The University acknowledged the representation of the petitioner- institution dated 6-2-2002 and referred the matter to the Standing Committee of the Academic Senate at its meeting held on 18-2-2002, which considered the representation of the institution and took the following decision. "in view of the details explained in the note, RESOLVED to declare the admissions made by the Haindavi P. G. College, Secunderabad into MCA course as illegal. Therefore, the college be directed to cancel available these admissions immediately. Further RESOLVED that the admissions made by the Director, admissions be considered as proper and valid admissions, and hence, the college be directed to conduct classes for these students only as per the university issued almanac. "the above decision was communicated to the petitioner- institution vide this office Lr. No. 836/ h/1226/98-99/acad IV 1, dated 5-3-2002. Further RESOLVED that the admissions made by the Director, admissions be considered as proper and valid admissions, and hence, the college be directed to conduct classes for these students only as per the university issued almanac. "the above decision was communicated to the petitioner- institution vide this office Lr. No. 836/ h/1226/98-99/acad IV 1, dated 5-3-2002. " at paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter- affidavit of the University also, a specific stand was taken that inasmuch as minority status certificate was issued well after the cut-off date fixed by the University i. e. , 29-12-2001, the admissions given by the institution are invalid and allotments made by the University alone can be taken as valid allotments. ( 16 ) IT may also be relevant to look into the counter-affidavit of the State government-2nd respondent herein. At paragraph-4 of the said counter-affidavit, it was stated that the subject institution was provisionally treated as a linguistic minority institution for the academic year 1998-99 and for the current academic year 2001-02 also the AICTE has accorded extension of approval to the said institution for conducting M. C. A. course and the government have issued orders vide g. O. Rt. No. 619, dated 28-8-2001 according extension, of permission to the said institution and since the institution is claiming linguistic minority status, permission is being granted to the institution on year to year basis from 1999-2000 onwards. In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 other details had been explained and it was also stated that the management of the institution was requested to follow the rules and procedure envisaged under rule 11 (13) (e) of the Rules issued under g. O. MS. No. 526, dated 21-12-1988 while filling up the left over seats. The chronological events had been referred to in paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit and the said events are as follows,"1. The Commissioner of Technical education through his letter dated 7-9-2001 submitted inspection report on Haindavi P. G. College. This was received by the Government on 11-9-2001. 2. The Minorities Welfare Department through their U. O. Note dated 30-10-2001, have forwarded copies of letters etc. , of the Secretary/ correspondent, Haindavi P. G. College stating that Higher Education has to take action on the request for renewal of minority status to Haindavi P. G. College. The U. O. Note was received in Higher Education Department on 31-10-2001. 3. The Minorities Welfare Department through their U. O. Note dated 30-10-2001, have forwarded copies of letters etc. , of the Secretary/ correspondent, Haindavi P. G. College stating that Higher Education has to take action on the request for renewal of minority status to Haindavi P. G. College. The U. O. Note was received in Higher Education Department on 31-10-2001. 3. The above proposal was under examination from 31-10-2001 to 5-12-2001. On 5-12-2001 the CTE has been addressed to send a detailed report as to whether the Haindavi P. G. College, followed rules of admission by admitting Marathi speaking candidates. 4. The Commissioner of Technical education through his letter dated 20-12-2001 furnished the information relating to filling up of seats in haindavi P. G. College. The letter was received by the Government on 21-12-2001. 5. The proposal was under examination from 24-12-2001 to 18-1-2002. After obtaining orders in circulation, orders have been issued in g. O. Rt. No. 35, dated 20-1-2002 renewing linguistic minority status to haindavi P. G. College for the academic year 2001-02. "it was also further stated that initially on 18-10-2001, the Commissioner of Technical education in view of the admissions of 13 non-minority candidates in each of the academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 proposed for a severe action against the college by requesting the AICTE to reduce the intake and the proposal of the commissioner of Technical Education was processed on 17-11-2001 and the commissioner, Technical Education was asked to clarify as to whether the college followed the Rules of admission as contained in G. O. Ms. No. 526, dated 21-12-88 and the College submitted its explanation in December 2001 and pleaded that they had admitted more than 50% of the linguistic minority candidates and that they could not give the list of minorities as there was no column in MCACET for linguistic minorities and the explanation submitted by the college on 4-1-2002 had been examined and considered that it was not a fit case to initiate action against the management and ultimately on 18-1-2002 directions are issued to renew the minority status certificate with a warning to the management that in future it will make admissions in accordance with rule 11 (13) (e) of the Rules contained in g. O. Ms. No. 526, dated 21-12-1988. No. 526, dated 21-12-1988. However, ultimately the stand taken by the 2nd respondent is that there is no delay in disposal of the application for renewal. ( 17 ) AS can be seen from the facts narrated above, the fact remains that in view of G. O. Rt. No. 35, at present the subject institution is enjoying the minority status. But no doubt, the stand of the university is that the institution cannot be given retrospective benefit under the said certificate so as to make the otherwise invalid admissions made by the institution as valid admissions. Whatever the reasons may be, the State Government had taken a decision by issuing G. O. Rt. No. 35 to renew the minority status of the subject institution. The specific stand taken by the institution is that the two sets of students admitted by the institution and also allotted by the university had been imparted instruction so as to avoid inconvenience to the students since the innocent and unfortunate students who sought admissions into the educational institution should not be the ultimate sufferers. In the decision referred (1) supra, it was observed at paragraph-55 that the certificate recognizing the institution as a minority one shall however relate back to the date of its establishment, and no doubt this observation was made slightly in a different context. It is no doubt true that even a minority institution is equally bound by the provisions of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 and also the Rules made thereunder regulating the establishment and administration of the educational institutions and they are also bound by the policy decisions, if any taken by the State government. Reliance also was placed on the decision referred (3) supra wherein it was held that a minority educational institution awaiting decision of the competent authority on its application for grant of recognition is not entitled to admit students without obtaining allotment from convenor appointed by the University. In the decision referred (4) supra, where the students admitted in an educational institution in excess of the permitted seats were disallowed by the Department to take up the examination, it was held that the high Court was justified in holding that the admissions are illegal and they are not entitled to any relief. In the decision referred (4) supra, where the students admitted in an educational institution in excess of the permitted seats were disallowed by the Department to take up the examination, it was held that the high Court was justified in holding that the admissions are illegal and they are not entitled to any relief. ( 18 ) NO doubt, much comment had been made on the nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition and also the decisions referred to (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) supra, had been cited for the proposition that a writ of mandamus does not lie unless an infringement of legal right is established and violation or infraction of a statutory provision or a rule had been complained of. There cannot be any quarrel as far as the proposition of law is concerned that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for violation of the law and such a writ or a direction can be issued only when there is infringement of legal right and infraction of any provision of statute or a rule made thereunder, as the case may be. Though some controversy had been raised by the learned Government pleader for Higher Education on the ground that the fact of admissions and allotment relating to two sets of students can be said to be a disputed question of fact and hence even on the ground the relief should be negativea to the subject institution, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, i am not inclined to do so. It is needless to mention that the rights conferred on a linguistic minority institution under article 30 of the Constitution of India are fundamental in nature, no doubt only subject to certain regulatory measures. As already observed by me, it is no doubt true that the subject institution also is bound by the provisions of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 and also the different Rules framed thereunder. As already observed by me, it is no doubt true that the subject institution also is bound by the provisions of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 and also the different Rules framed thereunder. As observed by me above, the fact remains that a minority status certificate for the specific academic year had been granted by the State Government in favour of the subject institution and hence the stand taken by the University and the State government in this regard that though it is a renewal of the minority status certificate for a particular academic year it will not enure to the benefit of the whole academic year and hence the past allotments made by the University cannot be annulled, in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be upheld. As already observed by me, it would have been more desirable if the subject institution had been more cautious in obtaining the minority status certificate within time, but unfortunately that was not done, obviously for certain reasons. But however, the State Government as the competent authority had taken a decision in this regard and when once G. O. Rt. No. 35 had been issued, the subject institution is entitled to exercise its fundamental right under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, no doubt subject to certain regulatory measures. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education while making submissions on the aspect of exercise of power on the ground of equity had placed strong reliance on the observations made in the decision referred (11) supra wherein the apex Court had dealt with the relevant considerations in the case of admissions to the educational institutions where spot admissions were made on extraneous considerations in violation of the Rules visa-vis the duty of the authorities. It is no doubt true that in normal circumstances the equity jurisdiction cannot be invoked so as to defeat the consequences of a specific violation of a statutory provision or a rule. However, here is a case where a set of students had been admitted by the subject institution on the fond hope of it being treated as a linguistic minority institution for the current academic year also and no doubt there was some delay in granting such certificate. However, here is a case where a set of students had been admitted by the subject institution on the fond hope of it being treated as a linguistic minority institution for the current academic year also and no doubt there was some delay in granting such certificate. It is also true that at the relevant point of time, there was no minority status certificate in favour of the subject institution and in this view of the matter even the stand taken by the university and the allotments made by the university cannot be however faulted. But in the interest of the students who had prosecuted their studies, a balance has to be struck in between the two while issuing appropriate directions, especially in the light of the fact that in fact the minority status certificate for the specific academic year had been granted by the competent authority in favour of the subject institution. It may also be relevant to note that such. students who are kept in oscillation may be put into a doubt even while prosecuting the studies or in preparing for the relevant examinations and even in this view of the matter also, the educational institutions should be careful and cautious in getting the appropriate certificates from the competent authority and equally on the same footing the competent authority - State Government also should not make undue delay in considering such cases. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, i am inclined to issue the following directions, the 1st respondent-University is directed to treat the candidates admitted by the petitioners-institution as candidates admitted by the duly recognized minority institution in the light of G. O. Rt. No. 35 and permit such students to further prosecute and complete their course. The 1st respondent-University also is hereby directed to adjust the students allotted to the subject institution by the University so as not to affect their career also and permit them to prosecute and complete their course in this regard. No. 35 and permit such students to further prosecute and complete their course. The 1st respondent-University also is hereby directed to adjust the students allotted to the subject institution by the University so as not to affect their career also and permit them to prosecute and complete their course in this regard. ( 19 ) BEFORE parting with the case, it is also made dear that both the institution claiming the minority status and also the State government should be more diligent, cautious and careful in dealing with matters of this nature and to process the proceedings and finalise the passing of appropriate orders in time so as to avoid unnecessary complications, especially involving the innocent student community who may be the ultimate affected and aggrieved parties. ( 20 ) WITH the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ( 21 ) I do feel that it is my duty to express and record my appreciation for the valuable and impartial assistance rendered by sri Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, Sri E. Manohar and Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned counsel representing the respective parties in the present case.