JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioners are all Teacher Training Institutions established and administered by the Christian Minority Community. All the petitioners Institutions were recognized by the State Government for Teachers Training prior to coming into force of National Council of Teacher Education Act. All the petitioners-Institutions are recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education. In 2004 the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Higher Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi issued the impugned letter No. 1382, dated 20.5.2004 laying down criteria for admission of students to all training institutions. 2. Petitioners case is that criteria fixed in the said letter is different from the minimum qualifications and selection criteria laid down under National Council for Teacher Education Act and the rules made thereunder. Similarly by Memo No. 5800, dated 10.10.2002 the Secretary to Government, Employment Administrative Reforms and Official Language Department issued the resolution laying down the scheme of reservation in specified State level educational institutions. On 11.6.2004 by letter No. 1561, dated 11.6.2004 Joint Secretary to the Government Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand directed that all the teacher training institutions shall strictly follow the provision of reservation rules laid down in the aforementioned Memo No. 5800, dated 10.10.2002. It was also directed that the admission has to be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in letter No. 1382, dated 20.5.2004. Petitioners Institutions have aggrieved by all these letters which are annexed as Annexure-3, 4 & 5 to the writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are the minority institutions and, therefore, any direction issued by the respondents is in violation of the rights of minority educational institutions guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel also submitted that petitioners institutions have their own constitutional right to fix the criteria for admission in their institutions. Learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of ST. Stephens College v. University of Delhi, and in the case of TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., . 4. Respondent-State of Jharkhand in their counter-affidavit have stated that petitioners-Institutions have to follow the reservation rules, framed by the State Government, by giving reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC, Handicapped, women etc. and the tuition fees and other fees shall also be charged at the rate as prescribed by the concerned State Government. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., . 4. Respondent-State of Jharkhand in their counter-affidavit have stated that petitioners-Institutions have to follow the reservation rules, framed by the State Government, by giving reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC, Handicapped, women etc. and the tuition fees and other fees shall also be charged at the rate as prescribed by the concerned State Government. It is stated that as per the norms prescribed by the NCTE Regulation, 2002 the State Government issued Resolution dated 20.5.2004 prescribing procedure for the omission to various teachers education programme conducted by NCTE recognized Teachers Training Institutions. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State and counsel appearing for the NCTE submitted that the impugned letters issued by the State Government is in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in TMA Pai Foundation case and in ST Stephens College case. 6. The question raised in this writ petition has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., and in the case of PA Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537 . It has been categorically stated that the petitioners Institutions are the unaided minority Institutions. In that view of the matter, so far the impugned Memo No. 5800, dated 10.10.2002 issued by the respondent- State prescribing the reservation quota for admission is concerned, the said letter cannot be given effect to. In TMA Pai Foundation case (supra) the Apex Court held : "139. Like any other private unaided institutions, similar unaided educational institutions administered by linguistic or religious minorities are assured maximum autonomy in relation thereto; e.g. method of recruitment of teachers, charging of fees and admission of students. They will have to comply with the conditions of recognition, which cannot be such as to whittle down the right under Article 30. 149. Although the right to administer includes within it a right to grant admission to students of their choice under Article 30(1), when such a minority institution is granted the facility of receiving grant-in-aid, Article 29(2) would apply, and necessarily, therefore, one of the rights of administration of the minorities would be eroded to some extent. 149. Although the right to administer includes within it a right to grant admission to students of their choice under Article 30(1), when such a minority institution is granted the facility of receiving grant-in-aid, Article 29(2) would apply, and necessarily, therefore, one of the rights of administration of the minorities would be eroded to some extent. Article 30(2) is an injunction against the State not to discriminate against the minority educational institution and prevent it from receiving aid on the ground that the institution is under the management of a minority. While, therefore, a minority educational institution receiving grant-in-aid would not be completely outside the discipline of Article 29(2) of the Constitution, by no stretch of imagination can the rights guaranteed under Article 30(1) be annihilated. It is in this context that some interplay between Article 29(2) and Article 30(1) is required. As observed quite aptly in St. Stephens case (at SCC p. 608, para 85) "the fact that Article 29(2) applies to minorities as well as non-minorities does not mean that it was intended to nullify the special right guaranteed to minorities in Article 30(1)". The word "only" used in Article 29(2) is of considerable significance and has been used for some avowed purpose. Denying admission to non-minorities for the purpose of accommodating minority students to a reasonable extent will not be only on grounds of religion etc., but is primarily meant to preserve the minority character of the institution and to effectuate the guarantee under Article 30(1). The best possible way is to hold that as long as the minority educational institution permits admission of citizens belonging to the non-minority class to a reasonable extent based upon merit, it will not be an infraction of Article 29(2), even though the institution admits students of the minority group of its own choice for whom the institution was meant. What would be a reasonable extent would depend upon variable factors, and it may not be advisable to fix any specific percentage. The situation would vary according to the type of institution and the nature of education that is being imparted in the institution. What would be a reasonable extent would depend upon variable factors, and it may not be advisable to fix any specific percentage. The situation would vary according to the type of institution and the nature of education that is being imparted in the institution. Usually, at the school level, although it may be possible to fill up all the seats with students of the minority group, at the higher level, either in colleges or in technical institutions, it may not be possible to fill up all the seats with the students of the minority group. However, even if it is possible to fill up all the seats with students of the minority group, the moment the institution is granted aid, the institution will have to admit students of the non-minority group to a reasonable extent, whereby the character of the institution is not annihilated, and at the same time, the rights of the citizen engrafted under Article 29(2) are not subverted. It is for this reason that a variable percentage of admission of minority students depending on the type of Institution and education is desirable, and indeed, necessary, to promote the constitutional guarantees enshrined in both Article 29(2) and Article 30. 151. The right of the aided minority institution to preferably admit students of its community, when Article 29(2) was applicable, has been clarified by this Court over a decade ago in St. Stephens College case. While upholding the procedure for admitting students, this Court also held that aided minority educational institutions were entitled to preferably admit their community candidates so as to maintain the minority character of the institution, and that the State may regulate the intake in this category with due regard to the area that the institution was intended to serve, but that this intake should not be more than 50% in any case. Thus, St. Stephens endeavoured to strike a balance between the two articles. Though we accept the ratio of St. Stephens which has held the field for over a decade, we have compelling reservations in accepting the rigid percentage stipulated therein. As Article 29 and Article 30 apply not only to institutions of higher education but also to schools, a ceiling of 50% would not be proper. Though we accept the ratio of St. Stephens which has held the field for over a decade, we have compelling reservations in accepting the rigid percentage stipulated therein. As Article 29 and Article 30 apply not only to institutions of higher education but also to schools, a ceiling of 50% would not be proper. It will be more appropriate that, depending upon the level of the institution, whether it be a primary or secondary or high school or a college, professional or otherwise, and on the population and educational needs of the area in which the institution is to be located, the State property balances the interests of all by providing for such a percentage of students of the minority community to be admitted, so as to adequately serve the interest of the community for which the institution was established." 7. In P.A. Inamdar case (supra) the Supreme Court further clarified the issue and held as under : "123. Conditions which can normally be permitted to be imposed on the educational institutions receiving the grant must be related to the proper utilization of the grant and fulfillment of the objectives of the grant without diluting the minority status of the educational institution, as held in TMA Pai Foundation (see para 143 thereof). As aided institutions are not before us and we are not called upon to deal with their cases, we leave the discussion at that only. 124. So far as appropriation of quota by the State and enforcement of its reservation policy is concerned, we do not see much of a difference between non- minority and minority unaided educational institutions. We find great force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the State have no power to insist on seat-sharing in unaided private professional educational institutions by fixing a quota of seats between the management and the State. The State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no aid from the State to implement the States policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks i.e., on any criterion except merit. 125. The State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no aid from the State to implement the States policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks i.e., on any criterion except merit. 125. As per our understanding, neither the judgment of TMA Pai Foundation nor in the Constitution Bench decision in Kerala Education Bill which was approved by Pai Foundation is there anything which would allow the State to regulate or control admission in the unaided professional educational institution so as to compel them to give up a share of the available seats to the candidates chosen by the State, as if it was filling the seats available to be filled up at its discretion in such private institutions. This would amount to nationalization of seats which has been specifically disapproved in TMA Pai Foundation. Such imposition of quota of State seats or enforcing reservation policy of the State on available seats in unaided professional institutions are acts constituting serious encroachment on the right and autonomy of private professional educational institutions. Such appropriation of seats can also not be held to be regulatory measure in the interest of the minority within the meaning of Article 30(1) or a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Merely because the resources of the State in providing professional education are limited, private educational institutions, which intend to provide better professional education, cannot be forced by the State to make admissions available on the basis of reservations policy to less meritorious candidates. Unaided institutions, as they are not deriving any aid from State funds, can have their own admissions if fair, transparent, non- exploitative and based on merit. 130. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot approve of the scheme evolved in Islamic Academy to the extend it allows the States to fix quota for seat-sharing between the management and the States on the basis of local needs of each State, in the unaided private educational institutions of both minority and non- minority categories. That part of the judgment in Islamic Academy in our considered opinion, does not lay down the correct law and runs counter to TMA Pai Foundation." 8. That part of the judgment in Islamic Academy in our considered opinion, does not lay down the correct law and runs counter to TMA Pai Foundation." 8. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the impugned letters dated 10.10.2002 and 11.6.2004 issued by the respondents directing the petitioners to strictly follow the provision of reservation cannot be sustained in law. 9. However, so far procedure for admission in these minority Institutions is concerned they are bound to follow the guidelines provided by the Apex Court. In P.A. Inamdar case the Apex Court held : "136. 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 the 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 course of study offered, the number of seats, the kind of minority to which the institution belongs and other relevant factors. Such an agency conducting the 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 choise. 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 choise. Such choice can be exercised from out of the list of successful candidates prepared at CET without altering the order of merit inter se of the students so chosen. 137. TMA Pai Foundation has held that minority unaided institutions can legitimately claim unfettered fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed admission and the procedure therefore subject to its being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The same principle applies to non-minority unaided institutions. There may be a single institution 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 profession education can join together for holding a common entrance test satisfying the abovesaid 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 maladministration. The admission procedure so adopted by a private institution or group of institutions, if it fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests, indicated hereinabove, can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. The second question is answered accordingly." 10. It is, therefore, clear that petitioners Institutions imparting same or similar professional education can join together for holding a common entrance test in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions and for preventing maladministration. 11. For the aforesaid reason, this writ petition is allowed and impugned directions issued by the respondent-State are quashed. The petitioners Institutions are directed to strictly follow the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the matter of admission.