Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. A brief background of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the writ petitions is required to be narrated. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. PAI & FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 , as interpreted by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 , Respondent No.2, issued G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 29.3.2004 prescribing the Regulations known as “Pondicherry Unaided Professional Colleges and Teachers Training Institutions (Admission of Students and Fixation of Fees) Regulations, 2004, hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations” indicating the extent of management quota and Government quota in self-financing professional colleges in Pondicherry. So far as the seats in medical colleges were concerned, such Regulations prescribed quota of 50% to be filled by the management of the college and remaining 50% based on the counselling by the Centralised Admission Committee (in brief CENTAC). 2. It is not in dispute that as per the said Regulations, a Committee headed by a Retired Judge of the Madras High Court has been established. The Association of Colleges had sought permission to hold common entrance test for filling up the management quota and the Committee had granted such permission and fixed the time schedule. Apparently the time schedule has been fixed keeping in view the observation of the Supreme Court in MRIDUL DHAR (MINOR) AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2005)2 SCC 65 . As per the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by the Committee, the Association was supposed to issue advertisement by 9.5.2005 indicating the schedule for holding the entrance test for filling up the management quota in the unaided medical colleges. The Association did not issue such advertisement on or before 9.5.2005 and thereafter by order dated 10.5.2005, the Permanent Admission Committee headed by a retired Judge cancelled the permission granted to the Association to hold examination to fill up the management quota. By a subsequent order dated 19.5.2005, the Committee refused the request of the petitioner to extend the time schedule. Such orders have been challenged by the Pondicherry Linguistic & Religious Minority Medical and Dental College Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”) in W.P.No.18308 of 2005. By a subsequent order dated 19.5.2005, the Committee refused the request of the petitioner to extend the time schedule. Such orders have been challenged by the Pondicherry Linguistic & Religious Minority Medical and Dental College Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”) in W.P.No.18308 of 2005. Such writ petition, initially admitted by a learned single Judge, was subsequently listed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 20.7.2005 observed: “In our opinion, the Committee should not have been in such a haste to cancel the permission granted to the Petitioner to conduct the common Entrance Test for filling up the seats under Management Quota.” However, while considering the request of the Senior Counsel for the petitioner regarding issuance of direction to permission to the Association to held the common entrance test, it was further observed :- “8. ... In our opinion, that may not be proper for us to do since by its order dated 12-1-2005 the Supreme Court had directed that the Common Entrance Test must be held in the month of May, 2005 and the results should be declared before 15th June. Today is 20th July and hence, we cannot issue any direction contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court. It would, therefore, be proper for the Petitioner to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and seek modification/clarification of the time schedule fixed by its order dated 12-1-2005 so that the seats under the Management Quota may not remain vacant.” Similarly, considering the submission made by the Government Pleader of Pondicherry, the Division Bench further observed :- “ 9. Learned Government Pleader of Union Territory of Pondicherry pleaded that a direction may be issued by this Court for filling up of the seats under Government Quota in the Petitioner’s colleges. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner opposed grant of such a direction and submitted that this would lead to practical difficulties in the sense that in one academic year two different sessions will have to be conducted- one for students admitted under Government Quota and another for students admitted under management Quota- and that would be impracticable. We are of the view, the Union Territory of Pondicherry may also approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for suitable clarification/modification of its order dated 12-1-2005.” 3. We are of the view, the Union Territory of Pondicherry may also approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for suitable clarification/modification of its order dated 12-1-2005.” 3. After the aforesaid observations were made, the Pondicherry Government issued direction regarding admission of students to each of the Colleges as against the Government Quota, which has been challenged in W.P.Nos.24122 & 24123 of 2005, filed on 26.7.2005 by Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences and Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust respectively. The prayer in such writ petition is to quash the order dated 22.7.2005 and to direct the respondents not to sponsor more than 40 students to each of the colleges. Two sets of miscellaneous petitions were filed, one for injunction restraining the Government from sponsoring more than 40 students for the colleges in question and another for stay of the order dated 22.7.2005, sponsoring the students for admission against the Government Quota. By the time such writ petitions were listed for admission on 28.7.2005, the Association and the Government of Pondicherry had filed SLP(C)No. 15167 of 2005 and SLP(C) No.15293 of 2005 respectively in the Supreme Court. 4. The learned single Judge passed an order to the following effect :- “There shall be an order of interim injunction as well as interim stay as prayed for subject to the orders to be passed by the Apex Court in the pending SLP.Nos.15167 of 2005 and 15293 of 2005. The statement of Mr.T. Murugesan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the Govt. of Pondicherry that the Government of Pondicherry will not take any further decision in the matter, pending decision by the Apex Court in the said SLP and the statement of Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner-Management also will not proceed further in the matter pending decision in the SLP, are recorded.” 5. Both the Special Leave Petitions were taken up together on 5.8.2005. The SLP. filed by the petitioner was rejected. In the connected SLP(C).No.15293 of 2005, filed by the Government, the following order was passed :- "By a separate order, we have dismissed S.L.P.(C) No.15167/2005. The effect of dismissal of the said petition is that the Pondicherry Linguistic and Religious Minority Medical and Dental College Welfare Association is not permitted to conduct a separate entrance examination at this stage. In the connected SLP(C).No.15293 of 2005, filed by the Government, the following order was passed :- "By a separate order, we have dismissed S.L.P.(C) No.15167/2005. The effect of dismissal of the said petition is that the Pondicherry Linguistic and Religious Minority Medical and Dental College Welfare Association is not permitted to conduct a separate entrance examination at this stage. Therefore, the admissions shall have to be made on the basis of the test conducted by the Government of Pondicherry. In that view, the aspect of two different tests does not arise and thus no further clarification, as noticed in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, is required. Our attention has been drawn by learned Solicitor General to a letter dated 28th July, 2005 sent by Government Pleader to the Secretary (Health), Pondicherry, reproducing therein the order of the High Court, inter alia, to the effect that there shall be an order of interim injunction as well as interim stay as prayed for subject to the orders to be passed by this Court in the pending S.L.P.(C) No.15167/05. Since we have already disposed of S.L.P.(C) No.15167/2005, it would be for the parties to approach the High Court for necessary relief. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly." 6. After the above orders were passed in the SLPs, the two colleges in question have filed W.P.Nos.25983 and 25984 of 2005 on 11.8.2005 seeking for writ of declaration to the effect that the concerned college is entitled to directly admit all students who apply for admission in the college under Management Quota on merit basis determined in a fair and transparent manner. Such Writ Petitions were admitted on 12.8.2005 by the learned single Judge and directed to be placed along with the connected writ petitions. The learned single Judge has also passed an order on 12.8.2005 directing both the petitioner and the respondents to maintain status quo as on date in the matter of filling up of the impugned seats in the first year MBBS course. 7. Thereafter, all the writ petitions were placed before a Division Bench of this Court, which passed the following order on 20.8.2005 :- “ 2. 7. Thereafter, all the writ petitions were placed before a Division Bench of this Court, which passed the following order on 20.8.2005 :- “ 2. In the light of the order of the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil)No.15167 of 2005 dated 5.8.2005, it would be appropriate to direct the Management to admit the students in the Government quota of 50%, since the Supreme Court in its order has observed as under: "... Therefore, the admissions shall have to be made on the basis of the test conducted by the Government of Pondicherry. In that view, the aspect of two different tests does not arise ... " Accordingly, the management is directed to admit the students in the Government quota and commence the classes. 3. With reference to the admission of students in the management quota, post this matter before the first Bench on 23.8.2005.” Subsequently, all the writ petitions have been placed before this Bench as Specially Ordered Matter as per the instruction of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. It is stated at the Bar that in the meantime, the petitioner Association had also filed a separate application for recalling/modifying the order of the Supreme Court dated 5.8.2005 and such application has been rejected on 24.8.2005. 8. The upshot of all these developments is that the Association is not in a position to hold common entrance test for selection of students for filling up the Management Quota and in view of the orders passed in the Special Leave Petitions, the prayer for quashing the orders dated 10.5.2005 and 19.5.2005 in W.P.No.18308 of 2005 is bound to be rejected. 9. The allied prayer for permitting the petitioner to permit the colleges to admit 60% has also practically become infructuous in view of the specific direction of the Division Bench dated 20.8.2005 directing the colleges to admit 50% of the students as against the Government quota. In course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also not pressed such aspect and has submitted that the only surviving question relates to the basis of selection for filling up the management quota of 50%. 10. In course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also not pressed such aspect and has submitted that the only surviving question relates to the basis of selection for filling up the management quota of 50%. 10. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also fairly conceded that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Inamdar’s case regarding the absence of power of the Government to fix Government quota in minority and unaided institutions is not applicable in view of the specific observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 158 of the said decision, which is to the following effect :- “158. We are also conscious of the fact that admission process in several professional educational institutions has already commenced. Some admissions have been made or are in the process of being made in consonance with the schemes and procedures as approved by Committees and in some cases pursuant to interim directions made by this Court or by the High Courts. This judgment shall not have the effect of disturbing the admissions already made or with regard to which the process has already commenced. The law, as laid down in this judgment, shall be given effect to from the academic year commencing next after the pronouncement of this judgment.” 11. In view of the above, the prayer made in W.P.Nos.24122 and 24123 of 2005 for quashing the selection of candidates as against the Government quota in order dated 22.7.2005 is also bound to be rejected. 12. The only surviving question is, therefore, the prayer made in W.P.Nos.25983 and 25984 of 2005, wherein the colleges have prayed for a declaration that they are entitled to directly admit all the students under Management quota on merit basis determined in a fair and transparent manner. Their contention is that they are free to select candidates and are not obliged to base the selection on the result of the Joint Entrance Test held by the Government so far as admission of 50% of the students against Management quota is concerned. 13. Their contention is that they are free to select candidates and are not obliged to base the selection on the result of the Joint Entrance Test held by the Government so far as admission of 50% of the students against Management quota is concerned. 13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that even though the Association has been denied the opportunity of holding the common entrance test for selecting candidates to fill up the management quota of 50% (As already indicated, the dispute as to whether the management should fill up 60% of the quota does not survive for consideration), the colleges, who are the members of the Association are free to admit students on the basis of merit by adopting their own procedure. The two colleges in question should be permitted to select candidates on the basis of their own procedure and the Government should not insist that such students against the management quota should be selected on the basis of the result of the common entrance test held by the Government. 14. A counter has been filed by the Government resisting such contention. 15. As already indicated, we are now concerned only with the process of selection in respect of 50% quota allotted to the management. So far as such aspect is concerned, paragraph 18 of the Regulations is to the following effect :- “18. The Management can select students, of their quota, either on the basis of the common entrance tests to be conducted by the U.T. Govt. through CENTAC or on the basis of a common entrance test to be conducted by an association of all colleges of a particular type in this U.T. of Pondicherry e.g. medical, engineering or technical etc. The common entrance test, by the association, must be for admission to all colleges of that type in this U.T. The option of choosing, between either of these tests, must be exercised before issuing of prospectus and after intimation to the Director of School Education or to the Director of Collegiate & Technical Education as the case may be and to the Chairman of the Admission Committee set up hereinafter. If any professional college/Institution chooses not to admit from the common entrance test conducted by the association, then that College/Institution must necessarily admit through ‘CENTAC’ of this U.T. Government.” 16. If any professional college/Institution chooses not to admit from the common entrance test conducted by the association, then that College/Institution must necessarily admit through ‘CENTAC’ of this U.T. Government.” 16. It is now necessary to consider in detail the submissions and counter submissions made by the parties. The main plank of the counsel for the petitioner is on the basis of the observation made in T.M.A. Pai’s case, which is to the following effect :- “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.” 17. On the basis of such observation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that holding a common entrance test is only one of the possible methods for finding out the merit of the students seeking admission, but the concerned college also can admit students on the basis of the marks obtained at the qualifying examination followed by an interview or even by following any other method of selection, which is transparent. 18. While considering the question whether the private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by evolving their own method of admission, the Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy’s case observed :- “16. ... We thus hold that the management could 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 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 chooses 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.” 19. If any professional college chooses 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.” 19. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the observation made in Islamic Academy’s case must be taken to have been diluted by the decision in Inamdar’s case. 20. In this connection, it is worthwhile to quote the observation of the Supreme Court in Inamdar’s case. 140. Whether minority or non-minority institutions, there may be more than one similarly situated institutions imparting education in any one discipline, in any State. The same aspirant seeking admission to take education in any one discipline of education shall have to purchase admission forms from several institutions and appear at several admission tests conducted at different places on same or different dates and there may be a clash of dates. If the same candidate is required to appear in several tests, he would be subjected to unnecessary and avoidable expenditure and inconvenience. There is nothing wrong in an entrance test being held for one group of institutions imparting same or similar education. Such institutions situated in one State or in more than one State may join together and hold a common entrance test or the State may itself or through an agency arrange for holding of such test. Out of such common merit list the successful candidates can be identified and chosen for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study offered, the number of seats, the kind of minority to which the institution belongs and other relevant factors. Such an agency conducting Common Entrance Test (CET, for short) must be one enjoying utmost credibility and expertise in the matter. This would better ensure the fulfillment of twin objects of transparency and merit. CET is necessary in the interest of achieving the said objectives and also for saving the student community from harassment and exploitation. Holding of such common entrance test followed by centralized counseling or, in other words, single window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent in the right of minority unaided educational institutions to admit students of their choice. Such choice can be exercised from out of list of successful candidates prepared at the CET without altering the order of merit inter-se of the students so chosen. 141. Such choice can be exercised from out of list of successful candidates prepared at the CET without altering the order of merit inter-se of the students so chosen. 141. Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to chose the students to be allowed admissions and the procedure therefor subject to its being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The same principle applies to non-minority unaided institutions. There may be a single institutions imparting a particular type of education which is not being imparted by any other institution and having its own admission procedure fulfilling the test of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. All institutions imparting same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the above said triple tests. The State can also provide a procedure of holding a common entrance test in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and preventing mal-administration. The admission procedure so adopted by private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated herein above, can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. The second question is answered accordingly. 142. It needs to be specifically stated that having regard to the larger interest and welfare of the student community to promote merit, achieve excellence and curb mal-practices, it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralized and single window procedure. Such a procedure, to a large extent, can secure grant of merit based admissions on a transparent basis. Till regulations are framed, the admission committees can oversee admissions so as to ensure that merit is not the casualty.” (Emphasis added) 21. It is not possible for us to hold in the present case that in spite of categorical observation in Islamic Academy’s case, which does not appear to have been diluted in any manner in Inamdar’s case so far as such aspect is concerned, it is possible for a college to admit students on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination followed by interview or even by adopting any other transparent method of selection because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Firstly, there cannot be any dispute that the method of selection of students is required to be indicated before the issuance of Prospectus. Firstly, there cannot be any dispute that the method of selection of students is required to be indicated before the issuance of Prospectus. In the present case, the Colleges had never indicated that they would follow the method of selection on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and interview. On the other hand, the Colleges through the Association wanted to hold a separate common entrance test for the purpose of selection of students to fill up the management quota. The Regulations framed by the Government clearly indicate that the management can select students either on the basis of the common entrance test to be conducted by the Government through CENTAC or on the basis of the common entrance test to be conducted by the Association of all colleges of a particular type in the Union Territory. The Regulations further provided that the option of choosing between these tests “must be exercised before issuing of prospectus and after intimation to the Director of School Education or to the Director of Collegiate & Technical Education as the case may be and to the Chairman of the Admission Committee.” The Regulations further provided: “ if any professional college/Institution chooses not to admit from the common entrance test conducted by the association, then that College/Institution must necessarily admit through ‘CENTAC’ of this U.T. Government.” (Emphasis added) This specific condition in Clause 18 of the Regulations has not been challenged hitherto by the colleges or by the Association. It is of course true that in the present case, the Association wanted to hold its own common entrance test, but due to various circumstances such examination could not be held. It is also true that the Division Bench of this Court on the earlier occasion has categorically observed that the Committee had taken a hyper technical view by refusing the Association to hold the test. However, so far as such aspect is concerned, the door is closed in view of the specific order passed by the Supreme Court in the connected SLP. Therefore, a situation has arisen where it can be said that the admission to the management quota cannot take place on the basis of any common entrance test of the Association. However, so far as such aspect is concerned, the door is closed in view of the specific order passed by the Supreme Court in the connected SLP. Therefore, a situation has arisen where it can be said that the admission to the management quota cannot take place on the basis of any common entrance test of the Association. The only other method envisaged under the Regulations is that admission to management quota can take place only on the basis of the Joint Entrance Test held by the U.T. Government. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to wriggle out of this position by contending that the Regulations being contrary to the observations made in T.M.A. Pai’s case can be ignored as null and void and the colleges in question can adopt any other transparent method of selection, including selection on the basis of qualifying examination followed by interview, as has been observed in paragraph 59 of the said decision. 23. Whatever may be the worth of such submission, it is obvious that in view of the observations made in the Islamic Academy’s case, which at least held the field when the Regulations were issued and which also holds the field for the time being in spite of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Inamdar’s case, such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 24. As already indicated, the Colleges had never indicated that they intended to select students on the basis of the qualifying examination and interview and permitting the colleges to do so at this belated stage is very likely to disturb the admission procedure and the deadlines fixed in Mridul Dhar’s case. The effect of Clause 18 of the Regulations, which has not been specifically challenged in any manner in any of the writ petitions, cannot be merely wished away by contending that such unaided institution or minority institutions have absolute discretion in the manner of filling up their own quota. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted the observations made by the Division Bench on earlier occasion while dealing with the matter that the Committee was not justified in not permitting the Association to hold the common entrance test. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted the observations made by the Division Bench on earlier occasion while dealing with the matter that the Committee was not justified in not permitting the Association to hold the common entrance test. However, the Division Bench in no uncertain terms had expressed its inability to permit the Association to hold the test and had observed that the petitioner was to obtain permission/clarification from the Supreme Court. Since such specific permission sought for by the petitioner has been turned down by the Supreme Court, obviously there is no scope for having any other common entrance test so far as the Association is concerned. In the connected S.L.P., the Supreme Court has clearly observed: “... the effect of dismissal of the said petition is that the Pondicherry Linguistic and Religious Minority Medical and dental College Welfare Association is not permitted to conduct a separate entrance examination at this stage. Therefore, the admissions shall have to be made on the basis of the test conducted by the Government of Pondicherry. In that view, the aspect of two different tests does not arise and thus no further clarification, as noticed in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, is required.” (Emphasis added) 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a vain attempt to overcome such categorical observation by submitting that the aforesaid observation was in the context of the Application filed by the Government of Pondicherry to fill up the quota available to it and was not meant to control the discretion of the colleges to admit students by following any other transparent method of selection. In our opinion, countenancing any such submission would in fact be a direct circumvention of the clear observations made by the Supreme Court. In the context in which such observations were made, there cannot be any doubt that admission of the students should be made on the basis of the common entrance test already held by the Government. This is more so because of the specific provision contained in clause 18 of the Regulations, which has remained unchallenged. 27. In course of hearing certain controversies regarding the admission of students sponsored by the Government in respect of its own quota had been raised. This is more so because of the specific provision contained in clause 18 of the Regulations, which has remained unchallenged. 27. In course of hearing certain controversies regarding the admission of students sponsored by the Government in respect of its own quota had been raised. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted in a veiled manner that if the colleges are not allowed to admit students on a fair procedure to be adopted by them, no student may be admitted either in respect of Government quota or in respect of management quota. We do not think the learned Senior Counsel could have meant such submission to be taken seriously. The answer to any such submission can only be unpalatable. In fact an order has already been passed by a Division Bench to the effect that 50% of the students representing the Government quota should be admitted on the basis of the students sponsored by the Government and it is obvious for us to assume that the colleges in question do not intend to violate such specific direction. The suggestion to the effect that even the management quota can be kept vacant also cannot be appreciated. It is obvious that any such “thinking” (not to speak of any such action) is likely to invite scorn from the general public and more particularly from the minority students for whose benefit the institutions have been purportedly established. Even though theoretically such a situation is possible, such an action can only be described as churlish reaction to an unfortunate situation created to some extent by the petitioners’ own inaction. 28. Apart from anything else, the colleges in question have a social obligation to fulfil. Merely because they are not able to follow their own procedure for admission this year, it is not expected of them to adopt an unreasonable attitude in denying admission to the students either against the Government quota or against the management quota on the specious ground that they have absolute right to select candidates for their quota. 29. Merely because they are not able to follow their own procedure for admission this year, it is not expected of them to adopt an unreasonable attitude in denying admission to the students either against the Government quota or against the management quota on the specious ground that they have absolute right to select candidates for their quota. 29. In course of hearing, a submission was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that if admission is confined to selection on the basis of common entrance test, the two colleges in question could not be able to admit students of Pondicherry as well as other States either belonging to the same minority denomination or even belonging to general category as many of them might not appeared at the common entrance test held by the Government. It is further submitted by him that in fact the advertisement issued by the Government of Pondicherry does not purport to be an advertisement for filling up the seats in the two colleges in question, neither in respect of the Government quota and obviously not in respect of the management quota. He has emphasised upon the fact that in such advertisement five Government sponsored colleges relating to Engineering, Dental Science, Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Agriculture & Research and Health Sciences have been indicated. Similarly, four self-financing Engineering Colleges have been indicated for Government quota seats and nothing has been indicated about any of the two medical colleges. This criticism made by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner is to some extent justified inasmuch as, in such advertisement, it is no where specifically indicated that the examination was for filling up the quota for the Government in respect of two colleges in question. However, in our opinion, this defect cannot be utilised and used as an excuse not to admit students on the basis of the Joint Entrance Test. Such advertisement was also in respect of MBBS Course. However, in our opinion, this defect cannot be utilised and used as an excuse not to admit students on the basis of the Joint Entrance Test. Such advertisement was also in respect of MBBS Course. This is evident from the very heading of the notification which have been highlighted at the top of the notification, which is to the following effect :- “JOINT ENTRANCE TEST – 2005 (JET-2005) AND ADMISSION TO B.Tech., B.D.S., B.V.Sc., & A.H., B.Sc.(Agri), B.Pharm., B.Sc.(Nursing), B.P.T., B.Sc.(MLT) AND M.B.B.S. DEGREE COURSES FOR THE YEAR 2005-06.” In the subsequent portion of the advertisement it was also mentioned as against Column “Admission Qualification” for M.B.B.S.: English, Biology/Botany & Zoology, Physics and Chemistry. Therefore, there is no doubt that the advertisement also envisaged Joint Entrance Test for the candidates seeking admission to M.B.B.S degree courses. 30. It is of course true that such advertisement at that stage was only relatable to the quota available for the Government and such advertisement did not purport to be an examination for the students seeking admission against the management quota in respect of two colleges in question. However, it is not to be forgotten that at the time when the advertisement was issued, the Committee had already permitted the Association of the private colleges to hold its own separate common entrance test. It is only because of the peculiar situation, which has arisen subsequently, the question to be decided is as to whether the management quota is to be filled up on the basis of the very same common entrance test or by any other method. Such a question cannot be decided merely or only on the basis of legal principle. A practical approach has to be made for solving the problem, which is peculiar and applicable to the present year only. 31. As already indicated, the Association is now precluded from holding any common entrance test. Apart from the fact that as per the Government Order on failure of conducting common entrance test by the Association of all colleges of a particular type for the admission of students the management quota is to be filled up on the basis of the common entrance test held by the Government, the other method suggested by the Association is neither preferable nor practicable. The Supreme Court has emphasised in every judgment that selection has to be purely on the basis of merit. The Supreme Court has emphasised in every judgment that selection has to be purely on the basis of merit. Since the colleges never wanted to admit students on any other method except the common entrance test and since they are unable to hold such test, the only other method envisaged as per the Government Regulations is the Joint Entrance Test held by the Government. The Joint Entrance Test can be said to be a reasonable reflection of the relative merit of the candidates as the result is based upon the marks obtained in the qualifying examination as well as the common entrance test. Possibly the colleges in question cannot have any grievance on this aspect, particularly, when they were unable to hold the examination. No student has raised any grievance regarding the method adopted. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the colleges in question should be permitted to follow their own procedure in finding out the relative merit. 32. A question was raised that the colleges want to admit outside students either belonging to the very same minority or from the general category. The colleges in question were established for catering to the needs of the minority either religious or linguistic. While admitting students, the colleges are obviously required to maintain the minority character of the institution. In Inamadar’s case, while answering the first question, the Supreme Court has observed :- “136. ... Minority institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including students of non-minority community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a limited extent only and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational institution status is lost. If they do so, they lose the protection of Article 30(1).” 139. Pai Foundation has already held that the minority status of educational institutions is to be determined by treating the States as units. Students of that community residing in other States where they are not in minority, shall not be considered to be minority in that particular State and hence their admission would be at par with other non-minority students of that State. Such admissions will be only to a limited extent that is like a 'sprinkling' of such admissions, the term we have used earlier borrowing from Kerala Education Bill, 1957. Such admissions will be only to a limited extent that is like a 'sprinkling' of such admissions, the term we have used earlier borrowing from Kerala Education Bill, 1957. In minority educational institutions, aided or unaided, admissions shall be at the State level. Transparency and merit shall have to be assured.” 33. The sprinkling of outsiders is obviously already done as the students are to be admitted as against the Government quota and obviously those students would be of all categories and not necessarily in respect of the minority category for which the institution has been established. The colleges in question are therefore to admit students keeping in view the principles emphasised in such decision. The discretion of the college is required to be exercised by keeping in mind the purpose for which the college has been established. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Government itself has not stuck to the time envisaged in Mridul Dhar’s case, no admission can be made against the Government quota. We are told that an application is still pending before the Supreme Court on this aspect. Therefore, we are not called upon to express any opinion on this aspect and the order already passed on 20.8.2005 is to be given effect to subject to any direction to be issued by the Supreme Court. 35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the two writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.25983 and 25984 of 2005, are disposed of with the following directions :- (1) The colleges in question are required to admit students, whether belonging to minority or otherwise, strictly on the basis of merit as per the Joint Entrance Test already held by the Government. (2) If the selection is in respect of minority students, it has to be on the basis of inter se merit of such minority students, as per such Test. (3) Admission of other students, if any, is also required to be made on the merit found in such Joint Entrance Test. The observation in paragraphs 136 and 139 of the Indamdar’s case is obviously to be kept in mind. (4) So far as the students admitted against the Management Quota is concerned, it is obvious that the Colleges can collect fees on the basis of the principle already determined by the Appropriate Committee appointed by the Government. The observation in paragraphs 136 and 139 of the Indamdar’s case is obviously to be kept in mind. (4) So far as the students admitted against the Management Quota is concerned, it is obvious that the Colleges can collect fees on the basis of the principle already determined by the Appropriate Committee appointed by the Government. (5) The normal time frame as envisaged in Mridul Dhar’s case is impossible to be followed, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we, therefore, venture to direct that such admission process in respect of Government quota as well as Management quota should be completed within two weeks. (6) The declaration that the colleges are entitled to admit students by following their own method of selection cannot be issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. (7) This decision is only applicable to the admission during the present academic year. 36. As a result, W.P.Nos.18308, 24122 and 24123 of 2005 are dismissed. W.P.Nos.25983 and 25984 of 2005 are disposed of subject to the directions contained in paragraph 35 of this judgment. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.