JUDGMENT : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 1. The respondent no.1 – Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur by its communication dated 29/1/2005 informed the petitioner that upon receipt of the proposal for grant of approval to fill in the post, the same shall be forwarded to Special Backward Class Cell and it is only after determination of the reservation of posts, the names of the Members and the Experts on the Selection Committee shall be sent for selection of employees. According to the petitioner – Society, it acquired the status of minority institution and in terms of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India, the policy of reservation is not applicable to the recruitment in B.Ed. College. Therefore, the petition seeks declaration that the policy of reservation does not apply to the petitioner – Society being minority educational institution and further to restrain the respondents from making the said policy applicable to the petitioner Society. 2. The undisputed factual position as narrated by Shri Atharva Manohar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Society is that the petitioner – Society was registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act on 30/9/1997 and it has been granted status of minority institution as per the certificate dated 7/4/2014. He has invited our attention to the stand taken by the State Government in response to the present petition that the minority educational institutions have been exempted from the scope of reservation, meaning thereby that the reservation policy will not be implemented by the minority educational institutions. He, therefore, submits that the policy of reservation cannot be insisted upon. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manager, Corporate Educational Agency...Versus...James Mathew and others, reported in (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 595, he has urged that though the certificate granting status as a minority institution was issued on 7/4/2014, it is merely in the nature of declaration which shall operate from the date of establishment of the institution. 3. The provisions of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 “ University open to all irrespective of sex, creed, class, caste, place of birth, religion or opinion”, deal with the general policy of reservation adopted by the State Government. Sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1994, which are relevant, are reproduced below : “Section 7. Sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1994, which are relevant, are reproduced below : “Section 7. University open to all irrespective of sex, creed, class, caste, place of birth, religion or opinion. (1) …........... (2) The university shall adopt Government policy and orders issued, from time to time, in regard to the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, [Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes] and Other Backward Classes for appointment to different posts of teachers and non-teaching officers and employees and for the purpose of admission of students in the affiliated or conducted colleges, university departments, university institutions or recognised institutions. (3) The university shall adopt the general policy of the State Government in regard to the welfare of various categories of weaker sections of the society and minorities as directed by the State Government from time to time.” 4. In terms of Sub Section (2) of Section 7 reproduced above, the University has to adopt the Government Policy and orders issued from time to time in regard to the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes for appointment to different posts of teachers and non-teaching officers and employees. Sub Section (3) therein operates as an exception to Sub Section (2) and it states that the University shall adopt the general policy of the State Government in regard to the welfare of various categories of weaker sections of the society and minorities as directed by the State Government from time to time. 5. The policy of the State Government for welfare of the minorities in terms of Sub Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1994, reproduced above, is reflected in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. Referring to Clause 5 of Article 15 of the Constitution of India the affidavit states that the minority educational institutions have been exempted from the scope of reservation. It is clarified in the affidavit that the reservation policy will not be implemented by the minority educational institutions. 6. Referring to Clause 5 of Article 15 of the Constitution of India the affidavit states that the minority educational institutions have been exempted from the scope of reservation. It is clarified in the affidavit that the reservation policy will not be implemented by the minority educational institutions. 6. In view of the stand taken by the State Government that the minority institutions are exempted from the applicability of the policy of reservation promulgated by the State Government, the respondent – University is bound by the policy in favour of the minority institutions, in terms of Sub Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1994, reproduced above. 7. The petitioner was granted status of minority institution as per the certificate dated 7/4/2014 issued by the competent authority under the State Government. On the date of issuance of the impugned order on 29/1/2005 by the respondent – University expressing its desire to refer the issue of reservation of posts to Backward Class Cell, the certificate granting status of minority institution in favour of the petitioner was not in existence. It was issued subsequently. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manager, Corporate Educational Agency...Versus...James Mathew and others, relied upon by Shri Atharva Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the certificate is merely a declaration of such status, which shall operate from the date of establishment of the institution. In view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not entitled to such exemption on 29/1/2005. The petitioner is not required to obtain no objection certificate or approval from the Backward Class Cell of the University. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) of the petition, which is reproduced below “(A) Hold and declare that the policy of reservation does not apply to petitioner society being minority educational institution and further restrain respondents from making the said policy applicable to the petitioner institution.” Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.