ORDER The petitioners in all the writ petitions are the unaided professional educational institutions, both non-minority and minority. They are aggrieved by the amendments made to A.P. Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate and Pharm-D (Doctor of Pharmacy) Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2011 and A.P. Unaided Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate and Pharm-D (Doctor of Pharmacy) Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2011 by G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 3.9.2012 respectively. Thus all the writ petitions are filed seeking a declaration that the above said Rules as amended by G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 3.9.2012, particularly Rule 6(ii) are arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Introduction: Admissions to Engineering Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh are governed by the provisions of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and the Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, (for short, ‘the Capitation Fee Act’) which empowers the 1st respondent to regulate admissions into educational institutions. Section 3(1) provides that such admissions shall be subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf and shall be made either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of the ranking assigned in the entrance test conducted by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. In exercise of the powers so conferred, the State Government made the Rules called A.P. Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate and Pharm-D (Doctor of Pharmacy) Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2011 vide G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 28.7.2011. Similarly, so far as the minority institutions are concerned, A.P. Unaided Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate and Pharm-D (Doctor of Pharmacy) Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2011 are made vide G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 28.7.2011. Under the above said Rules made by G.O.Ms.Nos.74 and 75, dated 28.7.2011, the provisions of which are almost identical, the Chairman, A.P. State Council for Higher Education is constituted as the competent authority and under Rule 3 of the Rules, the seats to be allotted in each Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institution as well as Private Unaided Minority Professional Institution are categorized into two sections namely Category-A seats and Category-B seats. Rule 3 (ii) made it clear that the Category-A seats shall be 70% of sanctioned intake of seats in each course in Unaided Non-minority Professional Institution which shall be filled with the eligible candidates on the basis of rank obtained at the Common Entrance Test following the procedure of admissions under Rule 6 (i). So far as Category-B seats are concerned, it is provided that the same shall be 30% of the total intake of seats in each course in respect of Unaided Non-minority Professional Institutions which shall be open for admission to all the eligible candidates on merit basis following the procedure of admissions under Rule 6 (ii). Rule 5 (i) of the Rules provided for the method of admission of candidates, according to which all Category-A seats shall be allotted by the Convenor of EAMCET admission and all Category-B seats shall be filled in by the respective institutions as per the procedure laid down in Rule 6 (ii). Rule 6 (i) provides for admissions into Category-A seats and Rule 6 (ii) provides for admissions into Category-B seats. The procedure prescribed by Rule 6(ii) both under G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 28.7.2011 with regard to admissions to Category-B seats by the institutions themselves, included notifying the details of the courses offered in daily newspapers and also displaying the same on college website and notice-board. Institutions are required to provide a facility for downloading the application forms from the college website and the college authorities shall maintain a register containing the particulars of day-wise sale of applications and it shall be made available for inspection for any officer authorized by the competent authority. The institutions are also required to prepare a merit list of eligible applicants for each course and display the same on the website and also notice board of the college and thereafter obtain ratification from the competent authority for all the admissions conducted by them under Category-B seats. While so, the impugned notifications namely G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 3.9.2012 came to be issued amending the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 28.7.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 28.7.2011, particularly substituting Rule 6 (ii) to the effect that the selection for admission to Category-B seats shall be conducted through a common web portal set up by the Chairman, A.P. State Council for Higher Education. When the said substituted Rule 6 (ii) was sought to be applied to the admission process for the academic year 2012-13, a batch of writ petitions came to be filed by various unaided professional Institutions challenging the vires of the said Rules and applicability of G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 3.9.2012 contending inter alia that the said substituted Rule cannot be applied for the academic year 2012-13 since the admission process has already commenced. Having regard to the admitted fact that the admissions have already taken place in the petitioner colleges in terms of Rule 6 (ii) as it stood prior to amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.66 & G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 3.9.2012, this Court passed an interim order dated 11.9.2012 directing that no effect should be given in respect of G.O.Ms.No.66 & G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 3.9.2012 for the academic session 2012-13 since the amended Rules cannot be given effect to retrospectively. Since the said order of stay of enforcement of the substituted Rule 6(ii) was restricted only to the academic year 2012-13, the respondents insisted that the admissions into Category-B seats for the academic year 2013-14 should be in compliance with the procedure prescribed under the substituted Rule 6(ii). Under the circumstances, a fresh batch of writ petitions came to be filed by several other unaided professional institutions, both non-minority and minority seeking a similar declaration that G.O.Ms.No.66 & 67, dated 3.9.2012 are arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. On 13.6.2013 this court passed an interim order directing that the impugned notifications shall not be given effect to until further orders. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit and sought to vacate the interim order dated 13.6.2013. When the said vacate petitions are listed before us, with the consent of both the parties we have taken up the main writ petitions for hearing along with the writ petitions that were filed during the academic year 2012-2013. Contentions: The vires of the amended Rule 6 (ii) by G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 03.09.2012, is questioned in the writ petitions primarily on the ground that the amended rule which imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right of the unaided non-minority as well as minority professional institutions to make admissions to the Category-B seats is violative of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the admission procedure prescribed under the amended Rule 6(ii) for Category-B seats is in clear violation of the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.A. INAMDAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2005) 6 SCC 537 ).The further contention is that the procedure is unworkable since the candidates are given option to choose any number of colleges/ subjects which would invariably result in multiple blockage of seats making the admission process endless. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the procedure prescribed in the substituted Rule 6 (ii) has only provided a fair, transparent and a non-exploitative procedure thereby facilitating merit based admissions to be made under Category-B quota in the petitioner colleges. Denying the allegation that the substituted Rule 6 (ii) is in clear violation of the dicta laid down in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra), it is contended that the procedure prescribed in the impugned rule is a permissive regulation in public interest. It is further contended that the procedure prescribed in the existing rules under G.O.Ms.No.74 and 75 being totally inadequate to oversee the admissions into Category-B seats into huge number of colleges numbering 685 Engineering Colleges and 280 Pharmacy Colleges in the State of A.P. and it is practically impossible for the competent authority to ensure that the Category-B admissions are made in a transparent manner by the respective colleges, G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, dated 3.9.2012 have been issued to facilitate admission through a common web portal. This is in accordance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in M. RATIN AND ANOTHER v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ( 2008 (3) ALD 105 (DB). Thus it is contended that the impugned rule which is the most effective permissive piece of legislation made in public interest and the student community at large cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional. Submissions made by the Counsel for the parties: Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Sri P.P. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the restrictions imposed by the impugned Rule 6 (ii) on the right conferred by Article 19 (1) (g) to establish and administer educational institutions by citizens are unreasonable, wholly unjustified and violative of Articles 19 (1) (6) of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon CHINTAMANRAO v. STATE OF M.P. ( AIR 1951 SC 118 )and OM KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA (2001) 2 SCC 386 ). It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the very object of categorization of seats into A and B categories is defeated by the impugned rule since nothing is left for selection by the management if the impugned rule is enforced. Placing reliance upon PARSHVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (2013) 3 SCC 385 ) wherein the Supreme Court prescribed time schedule for admission into the colleges, Sri P.P. Rao further submitted that in view of the unlimited multiple options given to the candidates under the impugned rule to choose any college and any subject therein, it is impossible to complete the selection process within the time schedule and therefore the impugned rule which is unworkable is arbitrary and wholly unjustified. Referring to various paragraphs from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2002) 8 SCC 481 )and P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra), it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the admission procedure prescribed under the impugned Rule runs contrary to the law declared therein. It is also contended that the impugned Rule which has completely taken away the right of rejection of unsuitable candidates made inroads into autonomy of unaided professional colleges in the matter of administration of educational institutions. While reiterating the submissions made by Sri P.P. Rao, it is contended by Sri L. Nageswara Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the other writ petitioners that the restrictions imposed under the impugned amended rules are beyond the regulatory power of State. To substantiate his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has extensively referred to the various paragraphs from the judgment of the Constitution Bench in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra) as well as the later decision of the seven-Judge Bench in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra). The learned counsel has also referred to the observations in MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v. STATE OF M.P. (2009) 7 SCC 751 ). The learned counsel has also referred to the observations in MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v. STATE OF M.P. (2009) 7 SCC 751 ). It is further submitted by Sri L. Nageswara Rao that any regulatory measure can be imposed by the State only when the management fails to adhere to the triple test of fairness, transparency and non-exploitativeness mentioned in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra). Pointing out that the respondents have not shown any situation where a management of educational institution violated the existing rules and action taken upon such derogation, it is urged by Sri L. Nageswara Rao that the assertion of the respondents that the managements have failed to comply with the rule of merit is without any basis and such unilateral assertion cannot be accepted. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that in spite of the power conferred under the rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.74 & G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 28.07.2011 to penalize institutions which do not make admissions in the stipulated procedure, the State has not even penalized a single institution till now which itself shows that the existing rules in G.O.Ms.No.74 and G.O.Ms.No.75 are adequate. It is further contended by Sri L.Nageswara Rao that it is impossible to implement the procedure prescribed in the impugned rule for the current academic year in view of the time schedule fixed in PARSHVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST’S case (5 supra) according to which the admission should be completed by 30th July and consequently several seats in educational institutions will go vacant thus causing irreparable loss and damage not only for the institutions but also for the students. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions filed by minority institutions, at the outset referred to ST. STEPHEN’S COLLEGE v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI (1992) 1 SCC 558 ), wherein it was held that the minorities whether based on religion or language have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India and that the State being the controlling authority has right and duty to regulate all academic matters. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the view expressed in ST. STEPHEN’S COLLEGE’S case (8 supra) is affirmed by the eleven-Judge Constitution Bench in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra). It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the view expressed in ST. STEPHEN’S COLLEGE’S case (8 supra) is affirmed by the eleven-Judge Constitution Bench in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra). Sri D.Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that surrendering the total process of selection to the State is unreasonable and the same was disapproved in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra). According to the learned Senior Counsel, the real purpose sought to be achieved by Article 30 of the Constitution of India is to give minorities some additional protection and therefore even when students are required to be selected on the basis of merit, the ultimate decision to grant admission to the students who are otherwise qualified for grant of admission must be left with the educational institution concerned. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy and Sri S.Sriram, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have also made their submissions on the same lines. Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the amendment to Rule 6(ii) by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.66 & G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 03.09.2012 is in fact made to comply with the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra), P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra) and M. RATIN’S case (2 supra) and to ensure and enable the eligible meritorious candidates to have a reasonable and transparent approach for admission under Category-B seats. It is contended by the learned Advocate General that the impugned rules are permissive regulations as held by the Apex Court as well as this Court in various decisions and they cannot be held to be unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate General relied upon N.K. BAJPAI v. UNION OF INDIA (2012) 4 SCC 653 ). Point for consideration: In the light of the rival submissions noticed above, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the admission process provided under Rule 6 (ii) as amended by G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, dated 3.9.2012 amounts to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to establish and administer unaided educational institutions so as to declare the same unconstitutional? Consideration of the rival submissions: Before proceeding further, it may be reiterated that the impugned Rule 6 (ii) deals with the admission to Category-B seats only i.e., 30% of the total intake of the seats to be filled by the unaided institutions (both non-minority and minority). The question whether there can be Government regulations in case of private institutions (unaided and aided) and if so to what extent, was one of the issues that fell for consideration by the eleven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra). The Apex Court through the majority opinion held that the right to establish and administer private unaided non-minority educational institutions broadly comprises the right to admit students and to set up a reasonable fee structure, the other rights being to constitute a governing body; to appoint staff; and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employee. In para-54 of the judgment it is explained: “The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of maladministration by those in charge of management. The fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions.” In para-58 of the judgment, while making it clear that the merit must play an important role for admission, it is observed: “For admission into any 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. 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.” So far as the regulations that can be framed relating to private unaided professional institutions are concerned, it is held in para-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. The same principles may be applied to other non-professional but unaided educational institutions viz. graduation and postgraduation nonprofessional colleges or institutes.” With regard to rights of minority institutions to administer educational institutions, it is held in paras 137 to 139: “It follows from the aforesaid decisions that even though the words of Article 30(1) are unqualified, this Court has held that at least certain other laws of the land pertaining to health, morality and standards of education apply. The right under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of the law, and we reiterate the same. The right under Article 30(1) has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of the law, and we reiterate the same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1). As we look at it, Article 30(1) is a sort of guarantee or assurance to the linguistic and religious minority institutions of their right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Secularism and equality being two of the basic features of the Constitution, Article 30(1) ensures protection to the linguistic and religious minorities, thereby preserving the secularism of the country. Furthermore, the principles of equality must necessarily apply to the enjoyment of such rights. No law can be framed that will discriminate against such minorities with regard to the establishment and administration of educational institutions vis-à-vis other educational institutions. Any law or rule or regulation that would put the educational institutions run by the minorities at a disadvantage when compared to the institutions run by the others will have to be struck down. At the same time, there also cannot be any reverse discrimination. It was observed in St. Xavier’s College case [ (1975) 1 SCR 173 ] at SCR p. 192 that : (SCC p. 743, para 9) “The whole object of conferring the right on minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minority. If the minorities do not have such special protection they will be denied equality.” In other words, the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. No one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for that matter, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions. The minority institutions must be allowed to do what the non-minority institutions are permitted to do. No one type or category of institution should be disfavoured or, for that matter, receive more favourable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions. The minority institutions must be allowed to do what the non-minority institutions are permitted to do. 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.” Thus it is clear that the only difference between the right of minorities under Article 30 and the right of non-minorities under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in the matter of establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice is only that the minority institutions can admit students belonging to the minority group while non-minority institutions do not have the right to admit students of any particular group to the exclusion of others. In all other respects the position of unaided private educational institutions established and administered by both minorities and non-minorities is the same. The ratio decedendi of T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra) with regard to the admission procedure of unaided educational institutions, both minority and non-minority has been culled out by the seven-Judge Bench in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra) as under: “137. 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 therefor 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 professional 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. All institutions imparting same or similar professional 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. 138. 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 malpractices, it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralised 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. In the light of the ratio laid down in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra) as explained in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra) there can be no dispute that so far as the admissions to 30% seats under Category-B are concerned, unaided professional institutions have a right to admit students of their choice. However regulation of admission process by the State by imposing reasonable restrictions is permissible to ensure admission of eligible candidates on the basis of merit satisfying the triple test of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. It is the specific case of the petitioners before us that they have been making the admissions against the 30% seats under Category-B strictly on the basis of merit and that the admissions made by them to Category-B seats have been in compliance with the triple test of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. According to them Rule 6(ii) as it stood prior to impugned amendment had given ample power to the State to regulate the admission process and to ensure fairness and transparency, particularly to ensure that the admissions are on merit basis. It is alleged that the procedure sought to be introduced by the amended Rule 6(ii) has virtually taken away the autonomy of the unaided institutions in the matter of selection of candidates for admission under the guise of ensuring fairness, transparency and non-exploitativeness in the admission process. It is alleged that the procedure sought to be introduced by the amended Rule 6(ii) has virtually taken away the autonomy of the unaided institutions in the matter of selection of candidates for admission under the guise of ensuring fairness, transparency and non-exploitativeness in the admission process. The restrictions imposed by the amended Rule 6(ii) according to the petitioners are unreasonable restrictions infringing their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. We may at the outset mention that in determining the question of reasonableness, the Courts have to take into account the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied by the law, the disproportion of the imposition and the prevailing conditions at the time. It is also necessary to view the tests of reasonableness in the context of the issues which faced the legislature. In the construction of such laws and in judging their validity, Courts must approach the problem from the point of view of furthering the social interest which is the purpose of the legislature to promote [see State of Madras v. V.G.Row ( AIR 1952 SC 196 ), Virendrav. The State of Punjab & another ( AIR 1957 SC 896 ), Jyoti Pershadv.UT of Delhi ( AIR 1961 SC 1602 ) and Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai (1986) 3 SCC 20 ] While reiterating the above noticed settled principles of law it is further explained in a recent decision in N.K.BAJPAI’S case (9 supra) as under: 16. No person can be divested of his fundamental rights. They are incapable of being taken away or abridged. All that the State can do, by exercise of its legislative power, is to regulate these rights by imposition of reasonable restrictions on them. Upon an analysis of the law, the following tests emerge: (a) The restriction can be imposed only by or under the authority of law. It cannot be imposed by exercise of executive power without any law to back it up. (b) Each restriction must be reasonable. (c) A restriction must be related to the purpose mentioned in Article 19(2). 17. Upon an analysis of the law, the following tests emerge: (a) The restriction can be imposed only by or under the authority of law. It cannot be imposed by exercise of executive power without any law to back it up. (b) Each restriction must be reasonable. (c) A restriction must be related to the purpose mentioned in Article 19(2). 17. The questions before us, thus, are whether the restriction imposed was reasonable and whether the purported purpose of the same squarely fell within the relevant clauses discussed above. The legislative determination of what restriction to impose on a freedom is final and conclusive, as it is not open to judicial review. The judgments of this Court have been consistent in taking the view that it is difficult to define or explain the word “reasonable” with any precision. It will always be dependent on the facts of a given case with reference to the law which has been enacted to create a restriction on the right. It is neither possible nor advisable to state any abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness as applicable uniformly to all cases. 18. A common thread runs through Parts III, IV and IV-A of the Constitution of India. One Part enumerates the fundamental rights, the second declares the fundamental principles of governance and the third lays down the fundamental duties of the citizens. While interpreting any of these provisions, it shall always be advisable to examine the scope and impact of such interpretation on all the three constitutional aspects emerging from these Parts. 20. As difficult as it is to anticipate the right to any freedom or liberty without any reasonable restriction, equally difficult is it to imagine the existence of a right not coupled with a duty. The duty may be a direct or indirect consequence of a fair assertion of the right. Although Part III of the Constitution of India confers rights, still the duties and restrictions are inherent thereunder. These rights are basic in nature and are recognised and guaranteed as natural rights, inherent in the status of a citizen of a free country, but are not absolute in nature and uncontrolled in operation. Each one of these rights is to be controlled, curtailed and regulated, to a certain extent, by laws made by Parliament or the State Legislature. These rights are basic in nature and are recognised and guaranteed as natural rights, inherent in the status of a citizen of a free country, but are not absolute in nature and uncontrolled in operation. Each one of these rights is to be controlled, curtailed and regulated, to a certain extent, by laws made by Parliament or the State Legislature. In spite of there being a general presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a legislation under challenge in case of allegations of violation of the right to freedom guaranteed by clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution, on a prima facie case of such violation being made out, the onus shifts upon the State to show that the legislation comes within the permissible restrictions set out in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and that the particular restriction is reasonable. It is for the State to place appropriate material justifying the restriction and its reasonability on record. In the light of the legal position noticed above we shall now proceed to examine whether the admission procedure provided under the impugned rule 6(ii) would amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners recognized in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra) and P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra) to establish and administer unaided educational institutions. For proper appreciation of the said question it is necessary to notice Rule 6 (ii) as it stood prior to amendment by G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 03.09.2012 and thereafter. Rule 6(ii) as it stood prior to amendment reads as under:- 6 (ii) To fill up Category-B Seats (30%) 1. The institution shall conduct Admissions to the seats available as specified below: (i) The Institution shall not issue notification and receive the applications until the EAMCET admission notification is issued by the concerned. (ii) The NRI seats (not exceeding 15% of the sanctioned intake in each course) shall be filled on merit basis with NRI / NRI sponsored candidates who have passed the qualifying examination with not less than 50% of in the prescribed group subjects or Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) equivalent to 5 on a scale of 10. (iii) The remaining seats shall be filled on merit basis with candidates belonging to other States and Union territories who have secured rank at AIEEE and secured not less than 50% of aggregate marks in the qualifying examination. (iii) The remaining seats shall be filled on merit basis with candidates belonging to other States and Union territories who have secured rank at AIEEE and secured not less than 50% of aggregate marks in the qualifying examination. (iv) The seats remaining unfilled from (ii) and (iii) above shall be filled with eligible candidates on merit basis following eligibility criteria laid in rule (4) of these rules. (v) Thereafter, if any seats still remain unfilled such seats may be filled on merit basis with candidates securing not less than 50% in the prescribed group subjects taken together in the qualification examination. 2. The Institution shall follow the procedure mentioned below to conduct the Admissions: (i) The Managements of the Colleges shall notify the details of courses offered with intakes, schedule of admissions, cost of Application form and Minority/Non Minority, statues in popular news dailies one in each language i.e. English, Telugu & Urdu which is to be displayed on the College website and also on the college notice board. (ii) The blank application forms for admission in ‘B’ category seats shall be made available to the candidates from the college counter on payment of the prescribed fee. The facility for downloading the form of application from the college website should also be provided. In this case, the cost of procuring the application from shall be paid to the college by the applicant at the time of submission of the duly filled in application forms. (iii) The college authorities shall enter the day wise sale of applications with the name of the candidates and address in a Register opened for the purpose and it shall be made available for inspection for any Officer authorized by the Competent Authority. (iv) The college shall issue an acknowledgment / receipt for the applications received. (v) The Management shall prepare the merit list of eligible applicants for each course and announce the same by displaying both on the website and notice board of the college for at least two weeks from the date of announcement. (vi) The Institution shall obtain ratification from the Competent Authority for all the admissions conducted under Category B seats by the institution. (vii) The Management shall collect the Tuition fees as prescribed by AFRC for category ‘B’ seats. (vi) The Institution shall obtain ratification from the Competent Authority for all the admissions conducted under Category B seats by the institution. (vii) The Management shall collect the Tuition fees as prescribed by AFRC for category ‘B’ seats. (viii) The Management shall comply with the above instructions and failure in implementing the same shall entail to withdrawal of Government permission, University affiliation and AICTE approval. 3. After scrutiny, the Competent Authority shall send the ratified list of admitted candidates from outside the State, NRIs and others admitted by the Institution to the University concerned and also to the respective Institutions. After the amendment by G.O.Ms.No.66 and G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 03.09.2012, Rule 6(ii) reads as under:- 6 (ii) To fill up Category-B Seats (30%) 1. The Institution shall conduct Admissions to the seats available as specified below: (i) The Institution shall not issue notification and receive the applications until the EAMCET admission notification is issued by the Competent Authority. In the interests of students, the Competent Authority may suggest dates for different milestones in the admission process. (ii) The institutions that are approved by All India Council for Technical Education and permitted to fill NRI seats not exceeding 5% of the sanctioned intake in each course for the academic year shall admit NRI candidates (sons and daughters of NRIs) who have passed the qualifying examination with not less than 50% marks in the prescribed group subjects or 50% aggregate marks in the qualifying examination or Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) equivalent to 5 on a scale of 10. (iii) The remaining seats shall be filled on merit basis with candidates including from other States and Union territories who have secured rank at AIEEE and secured not less than 45% of marks in the prescribed group subjects in the qualifying examination. (iv) The seats remaining unfilled from (ii) and (iii) above shall be filled with eligible candidates, who have qualified the EAMCET examination on merit basis following eligibility criteria laid in rule (4) of these rules. (v) Thereafter, if any seats still remain unfilled such seats may be filled on merit basis with candidates securing not less than 45% (40% in case of candidates belonging to reserved categories) of marks in the prescribed group subjects taken together / aggregate marks in the qualifying examinations, as prescribed. 2. (v) Thereafter, if any seats still remain unfilled such seats may be filled on merit basis with candidates securing not less than 45% (40% in case of candidates belonging to reserved categories) of marks in the prescribed group subjects taken together / aggregate marks in the qualifying examinations, as prescribed. 2. The Institutions shall follow the procedure mentioned below to conduct the Admissions: (i) The Competent Authority shall facilitate the setting up of a web portal which will act as a “Single Window for Category ‘B’ seats” for both the Colleges and the Students for filling up of the “Category B” seats. (ii) Each college will be provided a Unique ID and password to port its data relating to the category ‘B’ seats in the said portal. (iii) Subsequently, all colleges will be provided with a digital signature to ensure secure access of their operations. (iv) The colleges shall port all the relevant data regarding the Category “B” seats, branch wise as provided in the said web portal. (v) Once the data is finally entered by the managements no change shall be permitted. (vi) The web portal shall provide the students, the facility for making online applications for the Category “B” seats. A printable/recordable electronic acknowledgment shall be provided to the student on successful uploading of his online application. This will dispense with the need for the student to physically visit each and every college besides ushering in transparency. (vii) The management of the Colleges shall notify the details of courses offered with intakes, schedule of admissions (date wise), registration fee for the application, minority or non-minority status in leading news dailies one in each language i.e. English, Telugu & Urdu & which will also be uploaded on the web portal hosted by the Competent Authority. (viii) The Competent Authority will suggest a time schedule with dates for such notification to enable the students to opt for category ‘B’ seats uniformly across the state. All admissions to the category ‘B’ seats will be completed during the suggested time period. (ix) On the dates as suggested by the Competent Authority, the web portal will be opened for all students desirous of seeking admissions to Category ‘B’ seats in all Private Un-Aided Professional colleges in the State. Candidates can apply to colleges of their choice by visiting the portal only during the suggested dates by the Competent Authority. (ix) On the dates as suggested by the Competent Authority, the web portal will be opened for all students desirous of seeking admissions to Category ‘B’ seats in all Private Un-Aided Professional colleges in the State. Candidates can apply to colleges of their choice by visiting the portal only during the suggested dates by the Competent Authority. (x) A candidate can select any of the college/colleges and apply online for seeking admissions to Category ‘B’ seats of college/colleges after paying the requisite registration fees as notified by the college. (xi) The candidate can also give his order of preference for admission to a college by giving the order of preference among the courses offered by the college in the online application form. Only one form needs to be filled for a college regardless of the number of options. (xii) The candidate can apply for more than one college by visiting the respective website of colleges and apply online after paying the registration fees specified for each college. (xiii) No new application will be accepted after the closing date of admissions to the college. (xiv) The Management of the college will solely upload the data and administer the selection process as per the admission procedure specified. Each college will be permitted to download the data of the applications received and pertaining to it, after the closing date as suggested by the Competent Authority. (xv) Thereafter, the college can at its option use the online merit generation facility available on the web portal. The merit list generated will be in order of NRI quota (if available), AIEEE rankers, EAMCET rankers & qualifying examination in order of merit as prescribed in Rule 6(ii)(I) of these rules. (xvi) The selection of candidates will be done by the college managements themselves, as per the merit of the candidates. (xvii) The selection list, after selection process is completed by the management of respective colleges as per the prescribed norms will be uploaded by the managements on the web portal and be transmitted online to the Competent Authority. (xviii) The Competent Authority will verify the list of the selected candidates and validate the same with reference to the G.O.s and the procedure prescribed through an online cross verification procedure based on applications received by a college. (xviii) The Competent Authority will verify the list of the selected candidates and validate the same with reference to the G.O.s and the procedure prescribed through an online cross verification procedure based on applications received by a college. (xix) The Competent Authority shall approve the validated list if found tallying by the cross validation process or reject the lists if found to be at variance to the rules and procedures prescribed, and communicate the same to the concerned colleges for compliance. (xx) In case of unfilled seats if any, the concerned colleges will again upload for validation the second list of selected candidates from out of the left over candidates who have applied in the portal. After generation of the merit list, the college managements will forward the applications and approval by Competent Authority as per the schedule prescribed by the Competent Authority. (xxi) Applications of candidates not fulfilling the required conditions during the online cross validation of the list by the Competent Authority will summarily be rejected. (xxii) The Competent Authority shall open a helpline to assist the candidates and college managements to sort out their grievances and provide technical support if needed. (xxiii) The Competent Authority will issue detailed operational guidelines for using the web portal besides prescribing a fee for usage of the portal by the managements of colleges and applicants. (xxiv) The Management shall collect the Tuition fee as prescribed by the Government for category ‘B’ seats and any excess fee collected will amount to capitation fee and Managements are liable for action under A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation fee) Act, 1983. (xxv) Any complaint/appeal against the selection shall be made to the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC). (xxvi) The managements shall comply with the above instructions and failure in implementing the same shall entail actions as per the relevant Acts and Rules in force. A perusal of the above extracted provisions would show that as per Rule 6 (ii) as it stood prior to the amendment though the institutions were required to display the details of the courses offered and other details on the college website and the facility for downloading the application forms was also provided to the candidates, submission of the duly filled-in applications should be done only in person by the candidates at the respective institutions. Thereafter, the selection would be made by the management and the merit list of the eligible applicants for each course would be announced by displaying on the website and also on the notice-board of the college. The further requirement was that all the admissions under Category-B should be ratified by the competent authority. However, under the amended Rule 6(ii) the entire selection process to the Category-B seats shall be completed online through the common web portal set up by the competent authority. It is also relevant to note that a candidate can select any of the college/colleges and can also give their order of preference for admission to a college as well as the courses offered by the college in the online application form. The candidate is also given option to apply for more than one college by visiting the respective website of college. Though the Rule provides that the selections will be made by the managements themselves, the selection list has to be uploaded on the web portal and it shall be transmitted online to the competent authority for validation and approval. For better appreciation, the procedure prescribed under the amended Rule is explained hereunder: All the institutions have to port their data regarding Category-B seats branch-wise as provided in the said web portal using the unique ID and password provided by the competent authority. The institutions shall also notify the details of the courses offered with intakes, schedule of admissions, registration fee for the application, minority or non-minority status in leading news dailies one in each language i.e., English, Telugu and Urdu and the same will also be uploaded on the web portal hosted by the competent authority. The time schedule with dates for such notification will be suggested by the competent authority to enable the students to opt for Category-B seats uniformly across the State and all admissions will be completed during the time period so fixed. On the dates as suggested by the competent authority the web portal will be opened for all students desirous of seeking admission to Category-B seats and the candidates can apply to colleges of their choice by visiting the portal during the suggested dates by the competent authority. The management of the college will be permitted to download the data of the applications received and pertaining to it after the closing date as suggested by the competent authority. The management of the college will be permitted to download the data of the applications received and pertaining to it after the closing date as suggested by the competent authority. Thereafter the college can at its option use the online merit generating facility available on the web portal and the selection of candidates shall be as per the merit of the candidates. After selection process is completed the management has to upload the selection list on the web portal and it shall be transmitted online to the competent authority. On verification of the list of the selected candidates the competent authority will validate the same through an online cross verification procedure based on applications received by a college. The competent authority shall approve the validated list if it is found tallying by the cross validation process. The list shall be rejected by the competent authority if it is found to be at variance with the rules and procedures prescribed and communicate the same to the concerned colleges for compliance. In case of unfilled seats if any the concerned colleges will again upload for validation of the second list of selected candidates from and out of the leftover candidates who have applied in the portal. After generation of the merit list the college management will forward the applications for approval by competent authority as per the schedule prescribed by the competent authority. According to the learned Advocate General, there is no interference by the State either with the finance, administration or right to admission of the petitioner institutions. Thus, it is contended that the amended Rule which is aimed at regulating the admission process by promoting merit and achieving excellence in the larger interest and welfare of the student community is permissible as held in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra). Apparently, the submission of the learned Advocate General is based upon the following observations made in para-138 of P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra). Para-138. 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 malpractices, it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralised and single-window procedure. Such a procedure, to a large extent, can secure grant of merit-based admissions on a transparent basis. Para-138. 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 malpractices, it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralised 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. It is relevant to note that the petitioners are also relying upon the very same observations made in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra) and it is their submission that para-138 shall be read in conjunction with para-137. Thus, according to the petitioners though it is always open to the State to regulate the admission process, such regulation is permissible only where the institutions failed to satisfy the triple test of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having carefully gone through the amended Rule 6 (ii), we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the procedure prescribed under the amended Rule 6 (ii) has taken away the choice of the petitioner institutions in the selection process. Clause (xvi) of the amended Rule 6 (ii) specifically provides that the selection of candidates will be done by the college management themselves as per the merit of the candidates. Even according to the law laid down in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra) the admissions should be merit based and the admission process should be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The petitioners do not dispute the legal position and it is reiterated by the petitioner institutions that they have never deviated from the requirement of merit while making the admissions into Category-B seats. The preamble to the impugned G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, dated 03.09.2012 shows that the main object of introducing the admission process through “common web portal” set up by the competent authority is to oversee admissions made by the unaided institutions and to ensure that the admissions are made strictly on merit basis satisfying the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. It is also brought to our notice that this Court in M. RATIN’S case (2 supra) while considering the grievance of some of the candidates that the institutions were not following the fair and transparent method as enjoined on them by the Rules made under the Capitation Fee Act, directed that the respondents should actively oversee the process of admissions by the unaided non-minority private managements from the time of commencement of the process till the approval of the list submitted by the colleges and shall take appropriate action wherever it finds that the colleges indulged in violation of the rule either by not following the procedure in the proposed operating guidelines or by denying seats to students with superior merit and who have duly applied for seats. The said direction in fact is in tune with the view expressed by the Apex Court in para-138 of P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra). Therefore, the petitioners cannot and shall not have any grievance if the State seeks to regulate the admission process for the purpose of ensuring that the admissions are strictly on merit basis and that the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative are satisfied. It is explained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the A.P. State Council for Higher Education that about 685 Engineering Colleges and 280 Pharmacy Colleges are existing in the State and as per the admission procedure prescribed under the unamended Rule 6 (ii) it is practically impossible for the competent authority to ensure that the admissions are made in a transparent manner and therefore under the amended Rule 6 (ii) the admissions are sought to be made through a common web portal set up by the competent authority. On a careful reading of the amended Rule 6 (ii), we are of the opinion that the admission procedure prescribed therein is aimed at enabling the competent authority to oversee the admissions so as to ensure that the admissions are strictly on merit basis satisfying the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. On a careful reading of the amended Rule 6 (ii), we are of the opinion that the admission procedure prescribed therein is aimed at enabling the competent authority to oversee the admissions so as to ensure that the admissions are strictly on merit basis satisfying the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. It may be true that the amended Rule does not contain an express provision enabling the management to call upon the candidates selected on merit basis to appear in person so as to establish their credibility and financial capacity for payment of the tuition fee as prescribed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) to the satisfaction of the management. Moreover, there appears to be certain practical difficulties in making the admissions on account of the option given to the candidates to opt for any number of colleges/courses in the order of preference which is likely to result in delaying the completion of the admission process. It may also result in many seats remaining vacant in Category-B. As per the settled legal position, the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed has to be tested in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case taking into account the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed and the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied by the law. The Rules under G.O.Ms.No.74 & 75, dated 28.7.2011, are made in exercise of the powers conferred under the Capitation Fee Act, which itself is aimed at prohibiting the collection of capitation fee in the State in order to avoid frustration among the meritorious and indigent students and to maintain excellence in the standards of education. The specific case of the respondents is that it has come to the notice of the State Government that a majority of the managements of the private unaided professional colleges are not following a fair and transparent procedure to fill up the Category-B seats and there are also instances where the managements had failed even to supply the application forms to the eligible meritorious candidates thereby preventing them from applying for admission and therefore with a view to streamline the admission process in the interest of students it has been decided to amend the Rule by providing for making the admissions through common web portal set up by the competent authority. Rule 6 sub-rule (2) clause (vi), which provides for availability of application forms to the eligible candidates and submission thereof after duly being filled up through Single Window system does not appear to be unreasonable and the reasonableness can be deduced from the following test. If this clause is upheld, whether management will at all be prejudiced or will suffer unjustly, and whether it will benefit the aspirant candidates. In our view, if this clause is allowed to be operative, it does not affect the right of the management to choose the eligible candidates by selection. This is a measure provided for collecting application forms in a systematic way and it really helps the management to start admission process smoothly. The right of selection of the candidates by the management has not been touched by this questioned Rule at all and this will be clear from sub-clause (xvi) under clause (2) of Rule 6 (ii) which provides for preparation of merit list of the eligible applicants for each course by management and management alone. On the other hand, the aforesaid measure will benefit the applicant in a transparent manner to have an opportunity to collect and submit the application form free from any harassment or any anxiety and this will also eliminate possibility of making any complaint or grievance from any corner with regard to distribution and collection of the application form by the management. In our considered view, no man of ordinary prudence will think that the aforesaid clause will interfere with or affect the interest of the management in any manner whatsoever. It further appears that after the selection process is over by the management, the same has to be displayed both on the website and notice board of the college for at least two weeks from the date of announcement. Further it has to be sent for ratification of the competent authority for all the admissions conducted under category-B seats by the institution. This has provided a safeguard measure against any possible manipulation and injustice to any candidate and also ensures total transparency in the matter of selection and it does not affect any just right of management. We think the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is concerned about the independence of the management as far as the admission of the candidates in category-B is concerned. We think the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court is concerned about the independence of the management as far as the admission of the candidates in category-B is concerned. The right of choice, as we have already indicated, has not been touched and the same has to be done by the management. We fail to see any reason why the aforesaid measure can be said to be an unreasonable so much so it may be termed as interfering device to the independent right of the administration to admit students in B category seats. Having regard to the object with which the impugned notifications are issued substituting Rule 6 (ii), particularly keeping in view the observations made in para-138 of P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra) that it would be permissible to regulate admissions by providing a centralized and single window procedure so as to secure merit based admissions on a transparent basis, we are of the view that the amended Rule 6 (ii) can neither be said to have encroached upon the autonomy of the unaided educational institutions in the matter of admissions to Category-B seats nor it has imposed unreasonable and unacceptable restrictions on their right to make admissions into the said seats. Hence there is no infringement of the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) or Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above conclusion reached by us, we are unable to accept further contention of the petitioners that the procedure prescribed under the amended Rule amounts to unilateral imposition of seat sharing pattern even in respect of 30% seats under Category-B which was held to be unconstitutional in P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra). As already expressed above, even under the amended Rule the autonomy of the petitioner institutions to make admissions into Category-B seats remained untouched, however the selection process is made transparent to enable the competent authority to oversee the selection process at every stage right from the stage of notifying the seats till the admissions are made. It may also be added that the amended Rule 6 (ii) is only regulatory in nature and does not in any way restrict or control the rights guaranteed to the petitioners to administer unaided minority/non-minority educational institutions. It may also be added that the amended Rule 6 (ii) is only regulatory in nature and does not in any way restrict or control the rights guaranteed to the petitioners to administer unaided minority/non-minority educational institutions. Since their right to admission to Category-B seats is not restricted at all, the contention that under the guise of the amended Rule the State has unilaterally imposed ‘seat sharing’ even in respect of Category-B seats is untenable. However, Rule 6 (ii) sub-rule (1) clause (ii) provides that the reservation of NRI seats should not exceed 5% of the sanctioned in-take in the course. The reduction of NRI quota from 15% to 5%, in our view, is not justified as the same cannot be reduced unilaterally by the Government in the name of regulatory measure. The aforesaid stipulation, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners, is in substance contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of P.A. INAMDAR (supra). In paragraph-131 of the report, the Supreme Court has clearly mentioned as follows: “In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with the Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilised bona fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, merit should not be given a complete go-by. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilised bona fide by NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilised for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on well-defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidised payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed.” To our mind, by the above decision discretion is left with management not with government to reduce quota. In any event, no reason has been assigned why the aforesaid NRI quota has been reduced to 5%. We think that it has been done without having any legally entertainable complaint not to speak of enquiry as regards mala fide utilisation of the funds collected from the NRI candidates or total regardless of merit. It has to be understood clearly that these unaided educational institutions are depending upon the tuition fees and the funds made available by the candidates alone. Therefore, consideration of survival and sustenance of the educational institution has also to be kept in mind. Further, undoubtedly the NRI quota is a substantial source of fund. Payment of commensurate salary to the teaching faculty and staff, providing good infrastructural facilities including hostel accommodation require a large amount of fund and the State Government is not coming forward to inject any fund to support the educational institutions. It requires reasonable degree of leverage as envisaged by the Supreme Court. This, in our view, presuming for argument sake the State has say in this regard, should not have been reduced without proper deliberation and discussion with the educational institutions and without understanding the difficulty. Accordingly, we hold and declare that the aforesaid reduction of the seats to 5% from 15% is unjustified and unfounded and the same is accordingly struck down and we restore the NRI quota to 15%. Accordingly, we hold and declare that the aforesaid reduction of the seats to 5% from 15% is unjustified and unfounded and the same is accordingly struck down and we restore the NRI quota to 15%. For the aforesaid reasons, Rule 6 (ii) as amended by G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, dated 3.9.2012, except the portion reducing percentage of NRI seats to 5% from 15%, cannot be held to be unconstitutional or contrary to the dicta laid down in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION’S case (6 supra) and P.A. INAMDAR’S case (1 supra). Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for. However, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions for effective implementation of the amended Rule 6 (ii). (i) Apart from making the applications online through the common web portal, the candidates shall be given an option to submit their applications in person at the college of their choice, however one select list shall be prepared and be uploaded in the web portal for verification and validation in terms of the Rule. (ii) The management of the institution shall be given an option to call upon the selected candidates to appear in person for interview to substantiate their credibility and financial capacity to the satisfaction of the management. (iii) In the event of the management finding that any of the selected candidates is not suitable for admission, the management shall be at liberty to reject the candidature of such candidates and the reasons should be communicated to the competent authority. (iv) So far as the option given to the candidates to opt for any number of colleges/courses is concerned, the A.P. State Council for Higher Education shall have a consultation with the petitioner institutions and work out the modalities so as to prevent multiple blockage of seats and to ensure that the selection process is completed within a timeframe. The A.P. State Council for Higher Education shall take expeditious steps for implementation of the above directions. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.