Judgment :- All these five writ petitions are filed questioning the legality or reasonableness of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.NO.47 Higher Education (J2) Department dated 21.2.2004 issued by the first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu nominating the Anna University as the Agency of the State Government to conduct common entrance examination for admission in respect of MCA and MBA Courses and filling up Government quota sets by single window system entrusting to the Committee constituted for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance examination to fix the application fee, etc., for the common entrance test and utilisation of the fees and certain other directions with effect from the year 2004-2005, pursuant to the guidelines issued by the All India Council for Technical Education for common entrance test for admission to MCA/MBA programmes. 2. Mr.Haridoss, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.8921 of 2004, which is an Association of Management of Private Arts and Science Colleges assailed the Government Order by contending that the G.O.Ms.NO.47 in so far as it relates to Arts and Science Colleges is unsustainable in law. The G.O. issued by means of executive instructions based on guidelines issued by the All India council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE" for brevity) cannot be legally sustained as the field of administration of education so far as Arts and Science Colleges are concerned is governed by Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. The learned counsel by referring the question Nos.3 and 4 formulated by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 contended that all the directions given by the Supreme Court are only in respect to the professional colleges and not in respect of Arts and Science colleges and further contended that any guidelines issued by the AICTE misconstruing the Islamic Academy case are not only illegal, but not applicable to the petitioner Colleges, which are all non-professional colleges. To sustain the argument, Mr.Haridoss, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions: (1) P.KASILINGAM VS. P.S.G.COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY reported in AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1395 (2)THE ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF PRIVATE COLLEGES VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 1997(3) CTC 76 (3) T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. To sustain the argument, Mr.Haridoss, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions: (1) P.KASILINGAM VS. P.S.G.COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY reported in AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1395 (2)THE ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF PRIVATE COLLEGES VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 1997(3) CTC 76 (3) T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2002)8 SCC 481 and (4) ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 3. Mr.R.Krisnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.9635 of 2004 submitted that the petitioner College is a stand alone College, imparting only MCA and MBA Courses after obtaining due permission from the AICTE and has been adopting method of the selection of students through All India Entrance Test. When the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.108, Higher Education Department dated 9.4.2002 similar to the present one introducing single window system for admission of MBA and MCA courses during the academic year 2002-2003, this Court quashed the same in the case of KONGU ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS reported in 2002(3) LAW WEEKLY 151. The petitioner opted and selected students for 2004-2005 through Management Aptitude Test (MAT) conducted by All India Management Associations (AIMA), which is in accordance with the guidelines and Government Order. He contended that the guidelines issued by the AICTE does not confer any right upon the State Government to share admission of students in respect of MBA/MCA courses. Hence, the demarcation of fifty percent of admission of students through the entrance examination to be conducted by the State Government under single window system cannot be sustainable. He further contended that the State Government having failed to constitute a Committee as directed in the Islamic Academy case, by means of an executive instruction, cannot take away the right of the institution to admit meritorious students. The requirement of the impugned G.O. admission to the extent of fifty percent of the seats by single window system would be against the decision of this Court in Kongu Engineering College Case reported in 2002(2) MLJ 777 . The requirement of the impugned G.O. admission to the extent of fifty percent of the seats by single window system would be against the decision of this Court in Kongu Engineering College Case reported in 2002(2) MLJ 777 . He lastly contended that as the petitioner institution has completed the process of admission of students by adopting the All India Entrance examination, as early as February, 2004, if any order is passed disturbing the admissions already made, it would cause untold hardship to the students as well as the petitioner and atleast, for this academic year, the admissions made by the petitioner need not be disturbed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11319, 11687 and 15090 of 2004 adopted the argument of the learned counsel Mr.R.Krishnamurthy by contending that they are also stand alone Colleges and completed the process of admission by opting All India Entrance test. 5. The learned Advocate General Mr.N.R.Chandran appearing on behalf of the State Government submitted that the G.O. is issued as per the direction of the AICTE. The AICTE in its turn issued the guidelines pursuant to the various directions issued by the Apex Court while considering the right of the minority and non-minority in establishing and administering the educational institutions. As such, the G.O., which is the outcome of the law declared by the Supreme Court cannot be put in issue by the petitioners in any forum. The contention that Arts and Science Colleges have not been considered by the Apex Court and what was considered and decision rendered in Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy case by the Apex Court are only in respect of professional courses, is nothing but fallacious. Every institution, be it is a professional institution or Arts and Science, institution obtaining of approval from AICTE for conducting technical course is mandatory as it comes within the purview of AICTE Act. The AICTE notified the State Government as a competent authority for conducting common entrance examination for admitting students in MBA/MCA courses in institutions imparting such courses. As far as Universities created under the State enactment are concerned, the University Grants Commission notified the State Government as a competent authority by guidelines. The AICTE notified the State Government as a competent authority for conducting common entrance examination for admitting students in MBA/MCA courses in institutions imparting such courses. As far as Universities created under the State enactment are concerned, the University Grants Commission notified the State Government as a competent authority by guidelines. In pursuance of the above said guidelines issued by the AICTE and UGC and in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy case, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.47. What ever procedure adopted by the self financing Arts and Science Colleges and upheld by the various decisions, has no relevance after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy case. The above said two judgments of the Supreme Court in uncertain terms, issued directions for regulation of admission in private educational institutions including Arts and Science Colleges and the impugned G.O. has been issued in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. 6. The AICTE filed an application in W.P.M.P.No.12773 of 2004 to implead itself as a party to the above proceedings, which has not been seriously disputed, rather cannot be disputed by the petitioners and as such, the application was allowed. 7. Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the AICTE contended that the AICTE Act is the Central Act enacted inhering the legislative power under Entry 66 of List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India for co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions and as such empowered to issue directions for the purpose as stated above. The word "technical institution" encompass with it all institutions, be it a professional college or an Arts and Science College, which impart MBA and MCA courses as these Courses are regarded as technical courses. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that Arts and Science Colleges will not come within the purview of the AICTE Act cannot be accepted. The AICTE in exercise of the power under Sections 10(b) and 10(o) of the Act issued guidelines, which formed the basis for issuance of the impugned G.O. Admittedly, the guidelines have not been questioned by any of the writ petitioners and as such, the G.O. cannot be legally questioned. The AICTE in exercise of the power under Sections 10(b) and 10(o) of the Act issued guidelines, which formed the basis for issuance of the impugned G.O. Admittedly, the guidelines have not been questioned by any of the writ petitioners and as such, the G.O. cannot be legally questioned. The Apex Court by the judgment in Islamic Academy case issued directions to all the authorities including the AICTE to bring the regulations in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy Case and in these circumstances, the guidelines are framed for the academic year 2004-2005. 8. From the above submissions, the one and only question that arises for consideration is, whether the guidelines issued by the AICTE are in conformity with the judgments of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy case. If the answer is in affirmative, then the G.O. issued by the State Government on the basis of the guidelines of the AICTE has to be affirmed. 9. In order to determine the issue, it would be better to refer the relevant portions of the judgment in Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy case. In respect of admission in professional institutions, the ratio of Pai Foundation case was stated at paragraphs 58 and 59 of the judgment, which goes as follows: "58. For admission into professional institution, merit must play an important role. While it may not be normally possible to judge the merit of the applicant who seeks admission into a school, while seeking admission to a professional institution and to become a competent professional, it is necessary that meritorious candidates are not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage by preferences shown to less meritorious but more influential applicants. Excellence in professional education would require that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission. Appropriate regulations for this purpose may be made keeping in view the other observations made in this judgment in the context of admissions to unaided institutions. (emphasis by bold) 59. Excellence in professional education would require that greater emphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission. Appropriate regulations for this purpose may be made keeping in view the other observations made in this judgment in the context of admissions to unaided institutions. (emphasis by bold) 59. Merit is usually determined, for admission to professional and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school-leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies." The ratio regarding admission in private unaided professional colleges was stated in paragraph No.68 of the judgment which runs as follows: "68. It would be unfair to apply the same rules and regulations regulating admission to both aided and unaided professional institutions. It must be borne in mind that unaided professional institutions are entitled to autonomy in their administration while, at the same time, they do not forego or discard the principle of merit. It would, therefore, be permissible for the university or the Government, at the time of granting recognition, to require a private unaided institution to provide for merit-based selection while, at the same time, giving the management sufficient discretion in admitting students. This can be done through various methods. For instance, a certain percentage of the seats can be reserved for admission by the management out of those students who have passed the common entrance test held by itself or by the State/university and have applied to the college concerned for admission, while the rest of the seats may be filled up on the basis of counselling by the State agency. This will incidentally take care of poorer and backward sections of the society. The prescription of percentage for this purpose has to be done by the Government according to the local needs and different percentages can be fixed for minority unaided and non-minority unaided and professional colleges. This will incidentally take care of poorer and backward sections of the society. The prescription of percentage for this purpose has to be done by the Government according to the local needs and different percentages can be fixed for minority unaided and non-minority unaided and professional colleges. The same principles may be applied to other non-professional but unaided educational institutions viz., graduation and postgraduation non-professional colleges or institutes." (emphasis by bold) The above paragraph No.68 of Pai Foundation case was clarified in Islamic Academy case at paragraph No.16 as follows at two lines below clasitum d at page 728 of 2003(6) SCC 4: "Paragraph 68 provides that admission by the management can be by a common entrance test held by "itself or by the State/University". The words "common entrance test" clearly indicate that each institute cannot hold a separate test. We thus hold that the management could select students, or (sic. of) their quota, either on the basis of the common entrance test conducted by the State or on the basis of a common entrance test to be conducted by an association of all colleges of a particular type in that State e.g. Medical, engineering or technical etc. The common entrance test, held by the association, must be for admission to all colleges of that type in the State. The option of choosing, between either of these tests, must be exercised before issuing of prospectus and after intimation to the concerned authority and the Committee set up hereinafter. If any professional college choses not to admit from the common entrance test conducted by the association then that college must necessarily admit from the common entrance test conducted by the State. After holding the common entrance test and declaration of the results the merit list will immediately be placed on the notice-board of all colleges which have chosen to admit as per this test. A copy of the merit list will also be forthwith sent to the concerned authority and the Committee. Selection of students must then be strictly on the basis of merit as per that merit list. Of course, as indicated earlier, minority colleges will be entitled to fill up their quota with their own students on the basis of inter se merit amongst those students. Selection of students must then be strictly on the basis of merit as per that merit list. Of course, as indicated earlier, minority colleges will be entitled to fill up their quota with their own students on the basis of inter se merit amongst those students. The list of students admitted, along with the rank number obtained by the student, the fees collected and all such particulars and details as may be required by the concerned authority or the Committee must be submitted to them forthwith. The question paper and the answer papers must be preserved for such period as the concerned authority or Committee may indicate. If it is found that any student has been admitted dehors merit, penalty can be imposed on that institute and in appropriate cases recognition/affiliation may also be withdrawn." In paragraph 16 of the same rule, the Apex Court issued directions to the respective State Governments under Article 142 of the Constitution for appointment of permanent Committee to ensure that the test conducted by the Association of Colleges is fair and transparent. 10. On a careful reading of T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case and the clarificatory judgment in Islamic Academy case of the Supreme Court with particular reference to the extracts made above, the principle enunciated by the judgments could be deduced as follows: (a) Different percentages can be prescribed for minority institutions and non-minority institutions for admission by the Management. (b) In fixing the percentage for unaided minority professional colleges, the State must keep in mind the interest/need of that community in the State apart from local needs. The need of that community in the State would be paramount consideration as opposed to the local needs. (c) A minority professional college can admit students of their community/language in preference to a student of other community/language even though the other student is more meritorious, but while selecting the students of their community/language for admission, their inter se merit cannot be ignored and has to be followed. (d) If the seats of the Management quota cannot be filled up from among the students of their community/ language, the seats have to be surrendered to the Governmental agencies to fill up the same on the basis of common entrance test. (e) Unless it is ensured that the admission is on the basis of the merit, it is impossible to control profiteering or charging of capitation fees. (e) Unless it is ensured that the admission is on the basis of the merit, it is impossible to control profiteering or charging of capitation fees. (f) The students need not require to appear for more than one common entrance test as it would lead to great hardship and the application fees charged by each of the institution would impose a heavy burden on the student besides transport, stay, if they are required to appear for tests conducted by each college. (g) The Management would select students of their quota either on the basis of the common entrance test conducted by the State or on the basis of a common entrance test conducted by an Association of all colleges of particular type in that State. (h) The option of choosing between either of these tests must be exercised before the issue of prospectus and after due intimation to the concerned authority and the Committee constituted in accordance with the judgment. (i) If the institution chooses not to admit the students from the common entrance test conducted by the Association, it must necessarily admit from the common entrance test conducted by the State. (j) No college can admit any student by other method than the common entrance tests conducted by the Association or by the State Agencies. (k) Each State Government should appoint a permanent Committee headed by a retired judge of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the State, which will ensure that the tests conducted by the Association of Colleges are fair and transparent. Such Committee have the power to oversee the tests, to call for proposed question papers, to know the names of the paper setters and examiners and to check the methods adopted to ensure that the papers are not leaked. (l) The Committee so constituted is vested with the power to permit an institution, which has been established and has been permitted to adopt its own admission procedure for the last 25 years to choose a different admission procedure of its own. (m) The percentage of quota to be admitted by the Management shall be fixed by the respective State Governments and in case of any dispute, it shall be open to the Institution to approach the Committee. (n) The above principles would be applied to non-professional unaided educational institutions viz., graduation and post-graduation, non-professional colleges or institutions." 11. (m) The percentage of quota to be admitted by the Management shall be fixed by the respective State Governments and in case of any dispute, it shall be open to the Institution to approach the Committee. (n) The above principles would be applied to non-professional unaided educational institutions viz., graduation and post-graduation, non-professional colleges or institutions." 11. From the above, it is evident that the percentage of Management quota has to be fixed by the State Government. In respect of the percentage of seats allotted to the Management quota, the institutions are permitted to admit students either from the merit list prepared on the basis of the test conducted by the Association as approved by the Committee constituted or from the merit list prepared by the State Government on the basis of the common entrance test conducted by the State Agency. 12. In consonance with the above directions of the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, the AICTE issued guidelines on 28.10.2003 for admission to MBA. The guidelines so issued are reproduced in the G.O. impugned which reads as follows: "Higher Education (J2) Department G.O.(Ms) No.47 Dated 21-02-2004 Read:- 1. All India Council for Technical Eduvation's Public Notice dated 27-10-2003. 2. All India Council for Technical Education's Guidelines for Common Entrance Tests for admission to MCA Programmes in the Country, dated 28-10-2003. 3. All India Council for Technical Education's Guidelines for Common Entrance Tests for admission to MBA/PGDBM or equivalent Programmes in the Country during the academic year 2004-2005, dated 28-10-2003. ::: ::: Order: The State Government has not conducted any Common Entrance Examination for admission of students to MBA/MCA Programmes till date. The seats in the Self-financing Engineering Colleges have been filled up by the respective management themselves by conducting their own entrance tests. 2. Based on the judgment of the eleven Judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No.317/1993, dated 31-10-2002 in T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. and the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated: 14-8-2003 in the matter of Islamic Academy case reported in 2003 Vol.6 SCC 697, the All India Council for Technical Education has notified the following guidelines for common entrance tests for admission to MCA/MBA Programmes in the country:- I. IN RESPECT OF MCA PROGRAMMES: i) These guidelines are applicable to all the Institutions/Universities conducting MCA and equivalent Programmes in the country. ii) Admissions to the Master of Computer Applications (MCA or equivalent) programmes shall be made either through All India MCA Common Test (AIMCET) or through State Level tests from the academic year 2004-05 onwards. iii) AIMCET shall be for those institutions that were holding their own entrance tests earlier and admitting all their students or certain percentage of them on All India basis. iv) States may conduct their own common entrance test(s) for admission to institutions having MCA programmes within their States or join the AIMCET. State level tests shall however be restricted to fill up seats from the students of their own states only. v) Management quota/seats in private unaided self financing institutions shall be filled up based on either of the common entrance tests as above or through a common entrance test conducted through an approved Agency (including Association of all colleges of a particular type in the State). This option for filling up management seats shall be exercised by the institutions before issue of prospectus and intimated to the concerned Authority. II. FOR MBA PROGRAMMES: i) These guidelines are applicable to all the Institutions/Universities conducting MBA/PGDBM (or equivalent) Programmes in the country. ii) Admissions to MBA/PGDBM (or equivalent) programmes shall be made either through All India Entrance Test(s) or through State Level tests. iii) All India Test(s) shall be for those institutions that were holding their own entrance tests earlier and admitting all their students or certain percentage of them on All India basis. iv) For the year 2004-2005, admissions shall be through one of the five (5) All India Entrance Tests, namely - CAT (conducted by IIMs), JMET(conducted by IITs), MAT (conducted by AIMA), ATMA (conducted by AIMS) and XAT (conducted by XLRI). All institutions admitting students on all India basis will have to opt for one of these All India Entrance Tests. v) Institutions that have already announced the Entrance Test or initiated action in this regard, for the academic year 2004-05, are advised to take cognizance of these Guidelines and declare their option of choosing any of five All India Common Entrance Test as indicated at Clause (iv) of these Guidelines. They shall co-ordinate with the concerned agency conducting the Test to ensure that no candidates are deprived of the opportunity to sit for the Test opted by them. They shall co-ordinate with the concerned agency conducting the Test to ensure that no candidates are deprived of the opportunity to sit for the Test opted by them. vi) States may conduct their their own common entrance test(s) for admission to institutions conducting MBA/PGDBM (or equivalent) programmes within their States or join the All India Test. State level tests shall however be restricted to fill up seats from the students of their own states only. vii) Management quota/seats in private unaided self financing institutions shall be filled up either of the common entrance tests as above or through a common entrance test conducted through an approved Agency (including Association of all colleges of a particular type in the State). This option for filling up management seats shall be exercised by the institutions before issue of prospectus and intimated to the concerned Authority. viii) All admissions in different approved quotas shall be made strictly on the basis of inter-se merit based on common entrance tests as above. Seat allocation shall be coordinated by the State Authority in case of State level admissions and by the Central Authority in case of admissions made on All India basis. ix) From the year 2005-2006 onwards, there shall be only one Common Admission Test at the All India level for admission to MBA programme. 3. With reference to the guidelines of the All India Council for Technical Education, the Government examined the matter of conducting common Entrance Examination for MCA/MBA Programmes for admission of students in the Universities of Tamil Nadu, Government Engineering and Government Arts & Science Colleges, Government Aided Engineering and Government Aided Arts & Science Colleges and Self-financing Engineering Colleges including stand-alone institutions from the year 2004-2005 and has decided to issue necessary orders in this regard. 4. They accordingly, direct that, i) Common entrance Tests be conducted by the State Government for admission of students to MCA/MBA Programmes in Government Engineering, Government Arts and Science Colleges, Government Aided Engineering, Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and Self financing Engineering, self financing Arts and Science Colleges including stand alone institutions. 4. They accordingly, direct that, i) Common entrance Tests be conducted by the State Government for admission of students to MCA/MBA Programmes in Government Engineering, Government Arts and Science Colleges, Government Aided Engineering, Government Aided Arts and Science Colleges and Self financing Engineering, self financing Arts and Science Colleges including stand alone institutions. ii) Apportionment of seats between Government and Government Aided and between Government and Self-financing colleges be made in respect of MCA/MBA Programmes as below:- (a) 100% of the seats in Government engineering and Government Arts and Science Colleges be filled through common entrance test, conducted by the State Government applying rule of reservation of the State Government. (b) 90% of the seats in aided courses in the Government aided non minority engineering and Government aided non minority Arts and Science Colleges be filled through common entrance test conducted by the State Government applying rule of reservation of the State Government and the remaining 10% be earmarked as management quota. (c) 50% of the seats in the Government aided minority engineering and Government aided minority Arts & Science Colleges be filled through state common entrance test applying rule of reservation of the State Government and the remaining 50% be earmarked as management quota. (d) 50% of the seats in unaided non-minority engineering and unaided non-minority Arts and Science colleges be filled through State common entrance test applying rule of reservation of the State Government and the remaining 50% be earmarked as management quota. (e) 30% of the seats in the unaided minority engineering and unaided minority Arts and science colleges be filled through state common entrance test applying rule of reservation of the State government and the remaining 70% be earmarked as management quota. iii) In respect of Government Engineering Colleges and in respect of Government quota in Government Aided Engineering Colleges and Government quota in self financing engineering colleges both minority and non minority, the Director of Technical Education shall admit the students who have written the State level Common Entrance Test and who have applied for admission in the Government and Government quota in Government Aided and self financing engineering colleges. In respect of Government Arts and Science Colleges and government quota in Government Aided and self financing Arts and Science colleges, the Director of Collegiate Education shall admit the students who have written the State level common Entrance Test and who have applied for admission in Government, Government aided Arts and Science Colleges and self financing Arts, and Science Colleges against Government quota. In respect of Government quota in engineering Colleges application has to be sent to the Director of Technical Education and in respect of Government quota in Arts and Science colleges application has to be sent to the Director of Collegiate Education. The Director of Technical Education/Director of Collegiate Education has to make admissions, only based on the marks obtained by the students in the State level Common Entrance test and by following the rule of reservation of the State Government. iv) The Universities situated in Tamil Nadu, Government aided Colleges in respect of management quota and self financing colleges, in respect of management quota of seats may admit the students who have applied to them for admission based on the state level Common Entrance Test. It is only optional. The Universities of Tamil Nadu may also choose any of the options indicated in Clause I-(ii) in para 2 above in respect of MCA or Clause II - (ii) in para 2 above in respect of MBA/PGDBM. The self financing institutions and the aided institutions in respect of management quota of seats may choose any of the options as indicated in Clause I -(v) in para 2 above in respect of MCA and Clause II - (vii) in para 2 above in respect of MBA/PGDBM. 5. The Government further direct that, i) Anna University be nominated as the agency of the State Government to conduct the common entrance tests; ii) The various committees constituted for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examinations (TNPCEE) be entrusted with the matters relating to the conduct of Common Entrance Tests for MCA and MBA. iii) The agency mentioned in clause i) above be permitted to fix the application fee etc. for the Common Entrance Tests. The agency be permitted to utilise the receipts by way of entrance examination fee towards the conduct of the Common Entrance Test and remit the balance to the government account. iii) The agency mentioned in clause i) above be permitted to fix the application fee etc. for the Common Entrance Tests. The agency be permitted to utilise the receipts by way of entrance examination fee towards the conduct of the Common Entrance Test and remit the balance to the government account. The facilities/equipments already created for Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Examinations (TNPCEE)/Tamil Nadu Engineering Admission (TNEA) be utilised for MBA/MCA common entrance test also. 6. The above orders will come into effect from the year 2004-2005. The Director of Technical Education, Director of Collegiate Education and Registrar, Anna University are requested to take necessary further action in the matter immediately. (By Order of the Governor) K.Gnanadesikan Secretary to Government" 13. From the above, it is clear that the guidelines issued by the AICTE are only in accordance and in conformity with the directions given by the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy case and is applicable to non-professional unaided educational institutions viz, graduation and post-graduation, non-professional colleges or institutions. Hence, the question raised in this case at paragraph No.8 is answered in affirmative and consequently the G.O. is affirmed. 14. The other argument of Mr.Haridoss, Senior Counsel to the effect that the MBA and MCA are not technical courses, rather postgraduate courses and as such, the AICTE has no jurisdiction to issue guidelines is also raised only for rejection for the following reasons. Whether MCA is a technical course and whether the Arts and Science Colleges, which impart the the MCA course would come under the purview of "technical education and technical institution" as defined in the AICTE Act, 1987 has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SADAKATHULLAH APPA COLLEGE VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION reported in 2004 (1) CTC 2, wherein after extracting the definitions of 2(g) "Technical Education" and 2(h) "Technical institution", in paragraphs No.5 and 6, it was held as follows: "5. In the definition of technical education", after the word "engineering" though a comma which should have been there is missing, AICTE has consistently understood that definition as enabling it to regulate the course in engineering as also in technology and "technology" has been regarded as a separate field for regulation, and is not confined only to engineering technology. 6. In the definition of technical education", after the word "engineering" though a comma which should have been there is missing, AICTE has consistently understood that definition as enabling it to regulate the course in engineering as also in technology and "technology" has been regarded as a separate field for regulation, and is not confined only to engineering technology. 6. In the definition of "technical institution" though the word "institution" is used, it in fact, refers to the "courses" which are technical in nature and are offered by institutions which otherwise may or may not be regarded as "technical institutions". It is the course which is covered by or is subject to the regulations under the Act, the offering of which in an institution that renders the institution in which it is offered a "technical education". 15. While rejecting the contention that the word "technical" would not take within its ambit "computer application", the Division Bench in the above decision held thus: "The definition of the word "technology" found in the dictionaries refer to "systematic application of knowledge to practical tasks in industry". The word "technical" is defined in the dictionaries as something which is connected with the execution of a work." and further held that the computer application is clearly a course which falls within the ambit of the term "technology" as the Course involve the imparting of knowledge in relation to practical applications of computers in industry and management. After referring the composition of the Board under Section 13(2) of the Act, with the persons of eminence such as Deputy Managing Director, Infosys Technologies Limited, Bangalore, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Semi Conductor Complex Limited, Chandigarh, Chairman Sigmon Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad, Professor in the Department of Automation and Computer Science, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Professor of Department of Computer science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, the Division Bench has held that the course computer education would come within the purview of technology. 16. 16. In paragraph No.15 of the said judgment, the Division Bench further held that even if it were possible to entertain any doubt with regard to the scope of the term "technical", one must accept the view of an expert body like the AICTE with regard to what is technical, and falls within the purview of it's jurisdiction, the Council having been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the co-ordinated development of technical education system and promoting the qualitative improvement therein. The Division Bench finally held that the field of computer applications is clearly covered by the term "technology" used in the definition of "technical education" in section 2(g) of the Act. The Division Bench rejected the further contention that the term "degree" in the Regulations would indicate that it would apply to under-graduate courses and not to post graduate courses like MBA and MCA by holding as follows: "A minor argument advanced on behalf of some of the appellants is that the reference to "degree" in the Regulations would indicate that it would apply only to under graduate courses and not to post graduate degree like MBA and MCA. It cannot be disputed that what is awarded by the University is a degree - whether it is the first degree or the second degree, professional degree or a research degree. All these are degrees - whether it be B.A., M.Sc., M.Phil. Or PH.D. A post graduate degree is as much a degree as the first degree. The Regulations clearly apply to MBA and MCA as well, and cannot be regarded as inapplicable solely on the ground that MBA and MCA are postgraduate degrees." (emphasis by bold) 17. Though so much discussion was not made in respect of MBA in the Division Bench judgment above referred to, the Division Bench ultimately concluded that the regulations clearly apply to MBA and MCA as well and cannot be regarded as inapplicable solely on the ground that MBA and MCA are postgraduate degrees. Apart from that, the unqualified term, "Management" employed in the definition of "technical education" in section 2(g) of the Act would definitely encompass the business management also within the ambit of AICTE Act. 18. Apart from that, the unqualified term, "Management" employed in the definition of "technical education" in section 2(g) of the Act would definitely encompass the business management also within the ambit of AICTE Act. 18. From the above, it is clear that the AICTE has power to issue guidelines in respect of MCA and MBA for the purpose of achieving its object of proper planning, co-ordinated development of technical education system throughout the country and for promoting the qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and for regulating proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. 19. The judgment relied on by Mr.Haridoss, the learned Senior Counsel in the case of P.KASILINGAM VS. P.S.G.COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY reported in AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1395, in my view, is not applicable to the present case as the point resolved in that case was, whether professional private college would come within the purview of the Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. On examination of the provisions of the Act and the Rules as well as the Grant-in-aid Code, the High Court has held that professional private colleges are outside the ambit of the Act, 1976 by interpreting the inclusive definition of the word "college" contained in Rule 2(b) of the Rules and applying the "contemporanea expositio" principle. That is not the issue in the case on hand. It is also well accepted that not to read a sentence or two in isolation and out of context to bring home a particular contention. 20. Likewise, the other decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel in the case of THE ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF PRIVATE COLLEGES VS. That is not the issue in the case on hand. It is also well accepted that not to read a sentence or two in isolation and out of context to bring home a particular contention. 20. Likewise, the other decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel in the case of THE ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF PRIVATE COLLEGES VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 1997(III) CTC 76 by which the G.O.Ms.NO.245 Higher Education (E1) Department dated 7.5.1997 which directed that 50% of the seats in all the unaided colleges should be filled from the year 1997-98 as per the procedure contemplated therein was struck down, is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Courses with which we are concerned are considered to be technical courses and come within the purview of AICTE Act and the contention of exercise of the executive power by the Government to issue administrative instructions, which was very much pressed into service in the above case is not available to be argued in this case as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sadakathullah Appa College case referred supra. Even otherwise, I am afraid such a contention can be accepted after the pronouncement of T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy cases by the Apex Court. 21. The same is the position in respect of the case Kongu Engineering college case (2002 (3) Law Weekly 151) with which reliance has been placed by Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel. The first and foremost question that has been raised and considered in the above said case was as to whether the State can act independently of the AICTE Act to hold common entrance test for AICTE approved MBA and MCA seats in the State and proceed to regulate the fees for these courses in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. But the facts in the present case are totally in converse. The G.O. has not been issued independently of the AICTE. On the other hand, it came to be issued following the directions issued by the AICTE. Hence, I am of the considered view that Kongu Engineering College case also would not advance the case of the petitioner to assail the impugned Government order. 22. The G.O. has not been issued independently of the AICTE. On the other hand, it came to be issued following the directions issued by the AICTE. Hence, I am of the considered view that Kongu Engineering College case also would not advance the case of the petitioner to assail the impugned Government order. 22. The last of the contention of the petitioner that as the impugned G.O. came to be issued only on 21.2.2004 when the process of admissions have already been completed, the belated Government Order cannot now be put against the petitioner atleast for this year. This argument, I am of the view is stand to reason and can be accepted for the following reasons. The AICTE has issued the guidelines on 28.10.2003 and issued a public notice as early as 1.11.2003 informing about the guidelines for common entrance test for admission to MBA and MCA courses in the entire country during the academic year 2004-2005. All the writ petitioners except the petitioner in W.P.No.8921 of 2004 conducted the entrance test by following one of the methods of All India test. The necessary materials such as calling for applications, method of test, shortlisting of students for admission, aptitude test conducted, etc., have been annexed in the typed set of papers to prove the facts. Those facts are not disputed either. The guidelines did not provide for the details as to percentage of the seats to be shared between Government and the Managements as provided in the impugned G.O. The delay or the inaction on the part of the State in issuing the details of sharing of seats by the G.O. in February, 2004, much after the process of admissions are over, should not be allowed to work against the interest of the students, who joined the course after appearing for the test conducted by the approved agencies on the hope that their admission to the said Courses are made as required by law. 23. Having regard to the ground reality the admissions made or to be made by the petitioners after complying with the norms and standards stipulated in the AICTE guidelines cannot be faulted as the State has not come out with the Government Order at an appropriate time and came out only after the tests and admissions are over. 23. Having regard to the ground reality the admissions made or to be made by the petitioners after complying with the norms and standards stipulated in the AICTE guidelines cannot be faulted as the State has not come out with the Government Order at an appropriate time and came out only after the tests and admissions are over. It is also admitted fact that this is the first time/year such requirements are made, either by the AICTE or by the State and in early years, no such stipulations were there for admission of students to MBA/MCA Courses. It cannot rather strange to be expected that the petitioner should have foreseen that they have to share a fixed percentage of seats for the Courses with the Government, which is came to be made known by the Government Order only in February, 2004. The petitioners are thus entitled to the legitimate expectation to fill up the seats by following any one of the method of tests in accordance with the AICTE guidelines. Useful reference can be had to the judgment reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 419 (SREEDHARA S. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER) and BITS Pilani case. 24. In view of the above fact, which is peculiar to the academic year 2004-2005, I consider it as just and appropriate that the admissions already made by following the norms and standards fixed by the AICTE for the year 2004-2005 upto 21.2.2004 shall not be interfered with. Such course at this point of time would not only cause great hardship to the students, who joined the course and to the institutions but also create great deal of chaos and confusion. For such situation, the Court should not be a party. 25. With this observation, the writ petitions are disposed of by upholding the G.O. impugned, however, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps are dismissed.