Judgment :- N.V. Balasubramanian, J. The writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents, relating to the order of the first respondent dated 26.7.2004 confirming the order of the second respondent in No.61710/Edn.Sectt./E3/2003 dated 26.2.2004 fixing the management quota of seats as 50% and quash the same and directing the respondents to fix 70% of seats for admission in management quota for the courses namely Bachelor of Education Integrated - 4 years course, Master of Education - 1 year course, Bachelor of Education - 1 year course and M.C.A in the petitioner college. 2. The petitioner is Pope John Paul II College of Education. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner college is run by the Roman Catholic Arch Diocese of Pondicherry and it is a minority institution approved by the orders of this Court dated 24.9.1976 in W.P.No.593/1975. It is stated that the Roman Catholic Arch Diocese of Pondicherry and Cuddalore runs as many as 2 colleges, 86 Primary Schools, 21 Middle Schools, 17 High Schools and 14 Higher Secondary Schools educating about 25,000 students every year and there is only one Teacher Training College for the entire Arch Diocese of Pondicherry and Cuddalore catering to a catholic population of about three lakhs. It is stated that the petitioner institution offers the following courses namely, Bachelor of Education-Integrated-4 years course, Master of Education - 1 year course, Bachelor of Education - 1 year course and M.C.A. course catering to the Christian population belonging not only in Pondicherry State but also students of Villupuram and Cuddalore Districts. It is further stated that since there are very few catholic unaided minority colleges in Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu, the petitioner institution was obliged to give admission to the students of whole of Tamil Nadu. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted a proposal to the Government of Pondicherry that the Management of the petitioner institution, which is a minority institution, may be allowed to admit 80% of students belonging to the minority community and the Government of Pondicherry, by its order in No.61710/Edn.Sectt/E3/2003 dated 26.2.2004 declined the request of the petitioner and directed that the minority institution could admit only 50% students. The petitioner institution referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Islamic Academy of Education And Another V. State of Karnataka reported in 2003 6 Scale Pg.697 made a representation to the Chairman of the First Respondent Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Admission Committee) for increase of seats from 50% to 80%. The petitioner has referred to the order of the Admission Committee dated 26.7.2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner for increase of seat from 50% to 80%. According to the petitioner, the order of the Admission Committee dated 26.7.2004 is against the ruling of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education's case (cited supra) and the fixation of management quota treating the petitioner institution on par with the other unaided non-minority institutions is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner states that the management quota has to be fixed taking into consideration the nature of the institution and its requirement and not the requirements of the state and the Admission Committee has not taken into consideration the fixation of seat matrix for management quota in other States namely, State of Tamil Nadu, State of Maharashtra and State of Andhra Pradesh. It is also stated that the Admission Committee was not correct in holding that the petitioner institution is not a minority institution and the decision has been arrived at without taking into consideration the relevant materials on record. Hence, the writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Admission Committee. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit and according to the second respondent, the petitioner institution has not been recognized by the Union Territory of Pondicherry as a minority institution. The Government of Union Territory of Pondicherry has not conferred on the petitioner the minority status. It is stated that after taking note of the local needs and taking the Union Territory of Pondicherry as a unit for determining the local needs, 50% of the seats in every professional college was earmarked to be filled by the management of the college itself and the remaining 50% based on counselling by the Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC) subject to guidelines issued by the administration. The order dated 24.9.1976 in W.P. No. 593/1975 of this Court, on which the petitioner has relied upon, has no application to the case of the petitioner college since the college itself was established in the year 1986. It is also stated that the total Christian population in Union Territory of Pondicherry as per 1991 census was only 58,000 and the Government of Pondicherry has not made any distinction between minority and non-minority institutions based on the local conditions and as per G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 31.12.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.41, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 29.3.2004, every college is entitled to 50% seats as management quota. In the judgment in Islamic Academy of Education's case (cited supra) relied upon by the petitioner, in paragraph 19, the word "need' would mean only the need of the entire Christian population within the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the "respective State Governments" means the Union Territory of Pondicherry and it is empowered to fix the ratio based on the Christian population in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and according to the second respondent, it is not necessary to take into consideration the entire Christian population throughout India. It is stated that the Admission Committee has considered the claim of the petitioner for enhancing the management quota and the conditions prevailing in other States cannot be pressed into service to claim 70% of the management quota by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has made an application to the Government of Pondicherry for conferment of minority status and the said application is pending. The second respondent has referred to W.P. No. 19766 of 2002 filed by the petitioner challenging the G.O. passed by the Government of Pondicherry making allocation of seats for admission at the rate of 50:50 where after the counter affidavit was filed to the effect that the petitioner institution is not a minority institution, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. The second respondent also states that the reference to the letter said to have been written by the Officer of the Department admitting minority status is absolutely irrelevant and that it is only a mistake and such a letter would not confer any status of minority on the petitioner institution. The second respondent also states that the reference to the letter said to have been written by the Officer of the Department admitting minority status is absolutely irrelevant and that it is only a mistake and such a letter would not confer any status of minority on the petitioner institution. It is also stated that the claim for 70% for management quota was not made in the earlier two writ petitions filed by the petitioner and the present claim of the petitioner is in violation of the order of this Court. The second respondent has also enclosed a letter of the petitioner to the Convenor, CENTAC dated 9.8.2004 and it is stated that the admission of the students @ 50:50 in the first year course is completed on the basis of 50:50 ratio between the Government and the petitioner institution. 4. Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Pages 77 to 86 of the consolidated typed set and also referred to the list of institutions run by Arch Diocese of Pondicherry and Cuddalore. The learned senior counsel also referred to the list of Institutions run by dioceses declared as minority institutions by orders of this Court dated 24.9.1976 and the communication of the Director of School Education dated 20.11.1976. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, the unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 24711 of 2002 batch wherein this Court has held that as far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, G.O.Ms.No.858, Education dated 15.7.89 is not applicable. The learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education's case (cited supra) and T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others V. State of Karnataka ( 2002 8 SCC 481 ) and submitted that minority professional institutions have rights to admit students of their own community. The learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education's case (cited supra) and T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others V. State of Karnataka ( 2002 8 SCC 481 ) and submitted that minority professional institutions have rights to admit students of their own community. The learned senior counsel also referred to question No.2 in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education's case and submitted that the Apex Court has categorically laid down to the effect that the percentage of seats for management quota in unaided minority professional colleges in the State must be on the basis of the local needs, the necessity and the need of the community in the State and the need of the community in the State is paramount vis-Ã -vis the local needs. The learned senior counsel submitted that the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case was not kept in mind by the Union Territory of Pondicherry when it framed G.O.Ms.No.41, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 29.3.2004 as allocation of seats have not been done taking into account the need of the community and all the institutions, whether they are minority or non-minority are treated alike and 50% of the seats in every college are earmarked to be filled up by the management of the college by the order of the Government of Pondicherry dated 29.3.2004. The learned senior counsel also referred to the letter dated 30.6.2000 wherein regulations regarding admission in institutions under the management of minority have been enumerated and it is therefore submitted that since the petitioner college is a minority institution, there is no need to get further approval from the Union Territory of Pondicherry and approval can only be with reference to the fact already existing namely, the petitioner is a minority educational institution. The learned senior counsel therefore submitted that the Government of Pondicherry has already recognized the petitioner as a minority institution and that fact has also been recognized by the Admission Committee in its order dated 15.7.2004 where the committee has held that the petitioner institution was started by the catholic religious minority to serve the catholic community. The learned senior counsel therefore submitted that the Government of Pondicherry has already recognized the petitioner as a minority institution and that fact has also been recognized by the Admission Committee in its order dated 15.7.2004 where the committee has held that the petitioner institution was started by the catholic religious minority to serve the catholic community. The learned senior counsel submitted that since the Admission Committee has already recognized the petitioner institution as a minority institution, the order passed by the Admission Committee, which is impugned in this writ petition is not sustainable. The learned senior counsel also referred to the letter dated 26.2.2004 of the Government of Pondicherry and stated that the stand taken by the Union Territory of Pondicherry that the petitioner institution has not been accorded minority status is wrong. The learned senior counsel would also submit that since the petitioner college is a minority institution, the Government has no power to allot single seat to the Government quota and that the petitioner institution has challenged the ratio fixed and it is submitted that the orders challenged in the writ petition are liable to be quashed and the respondents should be directed to fix 70% of seats for admission in management quota for the courses namely Bachelor of Education Integrated - 4 years course, Master of Education - 1 year course and M.C.A in the petitioner college. 5. Mr.T.Murugesan, learned senior counsel and Government Pleader (Pondicherry) submitted that the notification dated 29.3.2004 fixing 50% of seats for the management quota by the Union Territory of Pondicherry was not challenged by the petitioner and other non-minority institutions have also not challenged the same. He also submitted that the petitioner has not been accorded status of minority. The learned counsel further submitted that the Admission Committee has considered the proposal and the petitioner was informed that there is no need to increase beyond 50% of seats for the management quota and no case has been made out by the petitioner for interfering with the impugned orders. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Pushpagiri Medical Society V. State of Kerala and Others (2004 (6) Scale 481) and submitted that when the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, there is no need for interference in this matter now. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Pushpagiri Medical Society V. State of Kerala and Others (2004 (6) Scale 481) and submitted that when the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, there is no need for interference in this matter now. He also submitted that as regards the 1 year course, the petitioner accepted 50% reservation of seats for the management quota and there cannot be any distinction between 1 year course and integrated course and therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the order passed by the Government of Pondicherry and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent also supported the arguments of learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for the Government of Pondicherry. We are inclined to consider the preliminary objection raised by the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not challenged G.O.Ms.No.41, Chief Secretariat (Education) dated 29.3.2004 wherein the Government of Pondicherry has framed the regulations, fixing 50% of the seats in every college to be filled up by the management of the college and the remaining 50% on the basis of the counselling by the respective CENTACs. However, we are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) that since the petitioner has not challenged the notification, the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education's case has held that it is open to the institution to appeal to the Admission Committee for variation in the percentage of quota fixed by the State and on the basis of the said decision, the petitioner has made a representation to the Admission Committee and the Committee, by order dated 26.7.2004, rejected the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has not only challenged the order of the Admission Committee, but also the letter issued by the Government of Pondicherry dated 26.2.2004 wherein the Government of Pondicherry has taken a stand that the petitioner institution has not been accorded minority status till date as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not only challenged the order of the Admission Committee, but also the letter issued by the Government of Pondicherry dated 26.2.2004 wherein the Government of Pondicherry has taken a stand that the petitioner institution has not been accorded minority status till date as claimed by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has not challenged the Government Order dated 29.3.2004 is not a ground to hold that the petitioner should be debarred from challenging the order of the Admission Committee dated 26.7.2004 as well as the letter of the Government of Pondicherry dated 26.2.2004. The petitioner has followed the procedure as indicated in Islamic Academy of Education's case by making a request to the Admission Committee and when the Admission Committee has rejected the same, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the Admission Committee. We are, therefore, of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Admission Committee dated 26.7.2004 is perfectly in order and is also maintainable in law. 7. We are, however, unable to accept the submission of Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a minority institution. The Government of Pondicherry, by letter dated 26.2.2004, has stated that the petitioner institution has not been accorded minority status by it. The Admission Committee, in its order dated 26.7.2004, has held that the petitioner has not been recognized as a minority institution by the Government of Pondicherry. We have gone through the copies of the materials produced before us by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and we find that there is no order of the Government of Pondicherry according the status of minority to the petitioner institution. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 593 of 1975 and the order of the Director of School Education, Chennai granting approval of minority status to the petitioner institution are concerned, we are of the view that it would not help the petitioner in any manner as the Government of Pondicherry was not a party to that writ petition and the order of the Director of School Education, Chennai, granting approval of minority status to the petitioner institution does not ipso facto have the effect of according minority status in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. It is no doubt true that if the petitioner is a minority institution and if it is recognized and accorded the status of minority institution by the Government of Pondicherry, the Government would be recognising an already existing fact, and accord of minority status merely reaffirms the status that the petitioner has been enjoying and which the petitioner was. However, unless there is an order by the Government of Pondicherry recognizing the petitioner as a minority institution, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot be regarded as a minority institution. Mr.K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the letter of the Under Secretary to Government dated 30.6.2000 wherein there is a reference to the effect that the petitioner institution is a minority educational institution. That letter has been described by the second respondent in the counter affidavit as a mistake and it is also stated that the Under Secretary to the Government has no power to hold that the petitioner institution is a minority institution. We are also of the view that unless there is an order of the Government of Pondicherry recognizing the petitioner institution as a minority institution, the letter dated 26.2.2004 of the Government of Pondicherry with a reference that the petitioner institution is a minority institution would not help the petitioner in any way and we are of the view that no rights would flow from the said letter according status of minority to the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also referred to the order of the Admission Committee dated 15.7.2004 for admission to 1 year courses and he pointed out that the Admission Committee has recognized the petitioner institution as a minority institution in the above order dated 15.7.2004. It is relevant to point out that the petitioner in the proceedings before the Committee insofar as admission to 1 year B.Ed course is concerned, has not challenged the ratio fixed in the Government Order dated 29.3.2004 and no objection has also been made before the Committee regarding the ratio fixed by the Government in the order of the Government. In other words, there was no dispute regarding the percentage of quota before the Committee and hence, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the petitioner institution is a minority institution and has not decided the question of minority status of the petitioner institution. In other words, there was no dispute regarding the percentage of quota before the Committee and hence, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the petitioner institution is a minority institution and has not decided the question of minority status of the petitioner institution. We are of the firm opinion that the Admission Committee has no authority or competency to decide whether the petitioner institution is a minority institution or not and it is for the Government of Pondicherry to decide the said question. Hence, any observation made by the Committee in its order dated 15.7.2004, which proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner institution is a minority institution would not, in any way, help the petitioner. 8. Even assuming that the petitioner institution is a minority institution, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Government of Pondicherry dated 29.3.2004 fixing the percentage of the seats at 50% as a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in P.A.INAMDAR & ORS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (2004(6) SCALE 245) has referred the matter to a larger bench and one of the issues is whether the word "need" found in the judgment in Islamic Academy of Education's case referred to the need of the minority and non-minority unaided professional colleges or it meant the local need or the need of the State Government and not of the institution. The Supreme Court held that the issue will be ultimately decided by a larger Bench. Moreover, the Supreme Court in its judgment in M/s. Pushpagiri Medical Society's case (cited supra) has referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court as well as the review judgment of the Kerala High Court wherein it was held that reservation of 50% seats by the Government is not valid reservation and it should be restricted to 25% seats. They have also referred to the Kerala Self Financing Professional College (Prohibition of Capitation Fees and Procedure for Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2004 and held that the question of fixation of quota and fee structure, having regard to the nature of controversy and interpretation sought to be placed on the aforesaid decisions, deserves to be referred for decision to a larger Bench for final determination. We are of the view that when the same issue is pending before the Supreme Court, before a larger Bench, we should refrain from going into the question. The Supreme Court in both the cases, as an interim measure, directed that the ratio 50:50 should be continued for the academic year, admittedly as a temporary measure and without prejudice to the contention of both the parties. The Supreme Court has also not stayed the operation of Section 3 of the above referred to Act and as an interim measure for the academic year 2004-2005, the management quota for admission to professional colleges was restricted to 50:50. In this matter also, we are of the view that as a temporary measure, the same ratio of 50:50 as allotted by the Government of Pondicherry by order dated 29.3.2004 should be applied for the present academic year reserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the same if the same ratio is maintained for the next academic year. Though, Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter extensively, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to decide the issue as the Supreme Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench in the two orders referred to earlier. There is also an additional reason for not accepting the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner institution has accepted the quota of 50% fixed by the Government for admission to one year course in B.Ed. But the challenge is confined only to the four year integrated course and M.C.A. We are of the view that there cannot be two different yardsticks for the same institution with reference to two different courses. The other submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner institution must be exempted from the operation of the Government Order of Pondicherry dated 29.3.2004 is not acceptable as per the decision of this court in Ramakrishna Mission Students Home, Etc. The other submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner institution must be exempted from the operation of the Government Order of Pondicherry dated 29.3.2004 is not acceptable as per the decision of this court in Ramakrishna Mission Students Home, Etc. V. State of Tamil Nadu (1991 1 L.W. 193) wherein this Court has held, taking note of the special circumstances of the case and also the long existence of the institution and the manner in which the institution was performing, which was started purely as a charitable measure and which has not deviated from that principle for a long period, that the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan's case did not apply as the institution was a class by itself and exempted the same from the purview of Unnikrishnan's case. This decision of this Court was rendered based on the special facts of the case and does not apply to the petitioner institution. The other decision, which has been referred to is the decision of the Apex Court in Larsen Toubro Institute of Technology V. A.I.C.T.E ( 1995 3 SCC 285 ). The decision in the above case has been rendered considering the special facts and circumstances of the case as the said institution was run by a public charitable trust and the institution, which was a polytechnic, was catering only to the needs of the children of the employees of the company with several conditions inbuilt therein and therefore, the said institution was exempted from the purview of the scheme enunciated in Unnikrishnan's case. These two decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not applicable as admittedly, the petitioner institution is meant for the public and part of the seats are to be filled by the Government. Hence, we do not find any reason to disturb the quota allotted to the petitioner institution by the State Government for the present academic year. We do not find any reason at all also to interfere with the orders challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, WP.M.P.No.26307 of 2004 is closed.