ORDER : The parties to both these petitions are the same and the issue involved is the same. Accordingly, these petitions are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioners at the first instance were before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to allot the seats to the second petitioner institution as per their preference indicated through the letter dated 14.05.2018 as at Annexure-A. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent No.1 declined the request through their communication/endorsement dated 04.07.2018 which is impugned at Annexure-P by amending the first set of petitions and is also assailed in the subsequent petitions. It is in that circumstance all these petitions arise for a common consideration. 3. The position which does not admit of any dispute is that the petitioner No.1 Trust which was registered with the object of providing education and related activities to children of all castes, creed, community, sex, race and religion was thereafter amended through the supplemental trust deed dated 04.08.2015 and inserted the additional clause modifying the object to establish, run and administer educational institutions primarily for the benefit of the Muslim Minority community and also the society at large. Subsequently the appropriate minority certificate has been obtained and through the petitioner No.2 the Medical education is being imparted. In pursuance thereof consensual agreement has been entered into with the Government and in that regard the seat matrix has also been fixed. Towards the total 150 seats available to the petitioner No.2, 38 seats are allotted to the Government quota and 30 seats to NRI. The institution being a minority institution, 82 seats are allotted in that regard towards minority quota. The issue presently is only with regard to the said 82 seats which have been earmarked for minority students which would be filled up through the selection process conducted by the respondent No.3. In that regard, the petitioners contend that the first petitioner trust is promoted by the trustees belonging to the Sunni sect of the Muslim community and as such the petitioners be allotted from the students belonging to that sect on being duly certified by the President, Sunni Jam Iyyathul Ulama, Karnataka, Mangaluru on inter-se merit of the applicants. 4. In that regard, the petitioners contend that the first petitioner trust is promoted by the trustees belonging to the Sunni sect of the Muslim community and as such the petitioners be allotted from the students belonging to that sect on being duly certified by the President, Sunni Jam Iyyathul Ulama, Karnataka, Mangaluru on inter-se merit of the applicants. 4. Sri Madhusudan Naik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.V. Nishanth, learned counsel for the petitioner would at the outset refer to the right given to the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions as provided under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In that light the manner in which the petitioner No.1 trust is created and the petitioner No.2 educational institution is being run is referred. In that light it is contended that as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments the right of minority to establish and run the education institutions is absolute. However, considering the fact that a consensual agreement has been entered into and the seat matrix is also acceded to, the petitioners are presently limiting their claim to admit Sunni Sect students for only such of those seats that is allotted as minority quota, in the present year being 82 seats. It is contended that the trustees of the petitioner trust belong to Sunni sect and as such in order to help the students belonging to their community they intend to admit such students. Even in that regard they would adhere to the inter se merit and choose the students belonging to their community. It is contended that despite such right being guaranteed under the Constitution and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to that effect, the respondents have failed to accede to the request of the petitioner by the impugned communication. 5. In that regard, since the learned senior counsel has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with specific reference to the paragraphs which provides the right to establish and run the educational institution by the minorities, it would be profitable to extract the relevant portions for a proper understanding. The same is as follows: 6. In the case of Dar Us Slam Educational Trust and ors vs. Medical Council of India and others (W.P.(Civil) No.267/2017 dated 09.05.2017) wherein it is held as hereunder: “2. The same is as follows: 6. In the case of Dar Us Slam Educational Trust and ors vs. Medical Council of India and others (W.P.(Civil) No.267/2017 dated 09.05.2017) wherein it is held as hereunder: “2. Common counselling for State Quota seats in Government as well as Private Medical Colleges including colleges/institutions run by religious and linguistic minorities affiliated to State Universities shall be conducted by the State Government or the authority designated by the State Government. The notification issued by the State Government intimating the students about the Common Counselling must specify that at the time of counseling the students belonging to minority community will be required to furnish the necessary proof regarding their minority status and submit in writing about their willingness to take admission in the concerned minority college/institution. 8. In the applications submitted by the students belonging to the minority community they should confirm their minority status as well as the fact that they fulfill other conditions which may be prescribed by the minority institutions. Accordingly, the DGHS as well as the State Government shall prepare a separate list of minority students seeking admissions in the respective minority institutions in order of merit. The competent authorities of the College present during counseling shall check/verify the minority status of the candidate. This arrangement is only meant for the State Quota.” 7. In the case of Dr. Rachana Kishore Ubarangal vs. St. John’s National Academy of Health Sciences and others (W.P.No.11076/2017 dated 13.04.2017) wherein it is held as follows: “8. The question is whether an unaided minority medical educational institution is entitled, by virtue of the right conferred on it under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, to have its own admission procedure contrary to Regulation 9A to admit students to the Postgraduate medical courses. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India states that “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”. It is now well settled that rights conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution are not absolute. They are subject to regulatory measures for the maintenance of standards and excellence in education which are necessary in the national interest. A falling education system inevitably leads to a failing nation.” 8. The Hon’ble Court has further noticed P.A. Inamdar’s case wherein it is held as under:- “136. They are subject to regulatory measures for the maintenance of standards and excellence in education which are necessary in the national interest. A falling education system inevitably leads to a failing nation.” 8. The Hon’ble Court has further noticed P.A. Inamdar’s case wherein it is held as under:- “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 courses of study offered, the number of seats, the kind of minority to which the institution belongs and other relevant factors. Such an agency conducting 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 counselling or, in other words, single-window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent in the right of minority unaided educational institutions to admit students of their choice. Such choice can be exercised from out of the list of successful candidates prepared at CET without altering the order of merit inter se of the students so chosen. In that light it has further held as hereunder: “10. 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. In that light it has further held as hereunder: “10. The above three decisions of the Supreme Court clearly show that regulating admissions by a single-window system does not cause any dent in the right of minority unaided educational institutions to choose the categories of students it is at liberty to choose from, for e.g., minority students of the State, minority students from the other states, non-minorities etc. Common Counselling mandated under Regulation 9A will check minority and non-minority institutions from choosing students arbitrarily from within the sources they are entitled to choose from. 16. We deem it necessary to state that allotment of seats through the Common Counselling to unaided minority educational institutions has to be done in conformity with their rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Hence, an unaided minority medical educational institution is entitled to indicate its choice of preferences to the Common Counselling Authority in the matter of admission of students to its institution, to the extent of its entire sanctioned intake, in conformity with its rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, for e.g., minority students of the State for whose benefit the institution was established, minority students from the other states, non-minorities etc.; the Common Counselling Authority shall make allotment by following the principle of inter se merit within the categories of students the institution is at liberty to choose from. If seats allotted by the Common Counselling Authority to an unaided minority educational institution is not in terms of its choice of preferences and the principle of inter se merit, it is open to the institution to challenge the allotment in accordance with law.” 9. In the case of Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630 wherein it is held as follows: “(2) The minorities whether based on religion or language have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The administration of educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) means 'management of the affairs of the institution’. In the case of Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC 1630 wherein it is held as follows: “(2) The minorities whether based on religion or language have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The administration of educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) means 'management of the affairs of the institution’. This management must be free from control so that the founder or their nominees can mould the institution as they think fit, and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution in particular will be best served. But the standards of education are not a part of the management as such. The standard concerns the body politic and is governed by considerations of the advancement of the country and its people. Such regulations do not bear directly upon management although they may indirectly affect it. The State, therefore has the right to regulate the standard of education and allied matters. Minority institutions cannot be permitted to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions. They cannot decline to follow the general pattern of education under the guise of exclusive right of management. The right to administer does not include the right to maladminister. The State being the controlling authority has right and duty to regulate all academic matters. Regulations which will serve the interest of students and teachers, and to preserve the uniformity in standards of education among the affiliated institutions could be made. The minority institutions cannot claim immunity against such general pattern and standard or against general laws such as laws relating to law and order, health, hygiene, labour relations, social welfare legislations, contracts, torts etc. which are applicable to all communities. So long as the basic right of minorities to manage educational institution is not taken away, the State is competent to make regulatory legislation. Regulations, however, shall not have the effect of depriving the right of minorities to educate their children in their own institution. That is a privilege which is implied in the right conferred by Article 30(1).” 10. So long as the basic right of minorities to manage educational institution is not taken away, the State is competent to make regulatory legislation. Regulations, however, shall not have the effect of depriving the right of minorities to educate their children in their own institution. That is a privilege which is implied in the right conferred by Article 30(1).” 10. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Advocate General appearing along with Sri Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that the right of the petitioner to run a minority institution as guaranteed under the Constitution in any event is not hampered. It is contended that the trust is registered as a Muslim minority institution as per which in the process of their activity while obtaining the essentiality certificate have agreed to the Regulations to adopt and adhere to the State Policy on admission of students. In that regard, on obtaining the certificate from the competent authority it is mentioned as a Religious Muslim Minority Institution. In that background, the seats as allotted is the minority quota for Muslim candidates and such admission is strictly to be based on the merit of the Muslim minority candidates and as such there cannot be a further bifurcation among the Muslims to select only the candidates belonging to Sunni Sect in the petitioner institution which would alter the allotment of seats based on merit. In that regard learned Advocate General apart from referring to the portions from the very judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the decision in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 wherein it is held that the right of minority unaided Education institutions is not dented if common entrance test followed by centralized counseling for admissions is held to admit students of their choice. 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. 11. The decision in the case of Sisters of St. Josephs of Cluni and others vs. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 2018 SC 213 wherein it is held as hereunder: 16. 11. The decision in the case of Sisters of St. Josephs of Cluni and others vs. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 2018 SC 213 wherein it is held as hereunder: 16. Secondly, Section 11(f) is a very wide provision which empowers the NCMEI to decide all questions relating to the status of an institution as a minority educational institution and to declare its status as such. The expression "all questions" as well as the expression "relating to", which are words of wide import, clothe the NCMEI with the power to decide any question that may arise, which may relate directly or indirectly, with respect to the status of an institution as a minority education institution. Looked at by itself, Section 11(f) would include the declaration of the status of an institution as a minority educational institution at all stages. Article 30 of the Constitution of India grants a fundamental right to all minorities, whether based on religion or language, to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The power under Section 11(f), read by itself, would clothe the NCMEI with the power to decide any question that may arise with regard to the right to establish and/or administer educational institutions by a minority. The power does not stop there. It also includes the power to declare such institution as a minority educational institution, which is established and administered as such, so that it can avail of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. and decision in the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore Association vs. Medical Council of India and others, (2017)8 SCC 627 wherein it is held as hereunder: “6.4. The aforesaid prescription shall only be applicable to the minority students admitted by the petitioner colleges on the basis of the common counselling. The representative of the colleges shall identify the status of minority, but what will ultimately prevail is that the minority candidate must fit into the compartment of merits. To clarify, if a student is meritorious and belongs to the minority community, he shall have the priority in admission. 23.7. In order to ascertain the number of seats that still remain vacant after the counseling the State Government or the authority designated by the State Government shall conduct manual counseling for allotment of students. To clarify, if a student is meritorious and belongs to the minority community, he shall have the priority in admission. 23.7. In order to ascertain the number of seats that still remain vacant after the counseling the State Government or the authority designated by the State Government shall conduct manual counseling for allotment of students. After the completion of counseling, the State Government shall determine the number of seats that are still vacant and thereafter shall forward a list of students in order of merit, equaling to ten times the number of vacant seats to the medical college so that in case of any stray vacancy arising in any college the said seat may be filled up from the said list. 23.10. Common counselling conducted by the DGHS/State Government will not in any manner affect the rights of minority institutions to admit students of their respective minority community. The minority quota seats, if any, in institutions run by minorities will be filed up by minority students only. Therefore, the rights of minority institutions are fully protected. are relied upon by the learned Advocate General. 12. Having taken note of the rival contentions and the decisions as relied upon by both the sides, it would not be necessary for us to once again articulate about the right guaranteed to a Minority Educational Institution, the right as available to the State Government to regulate its activities and also relating to the Common Entrance Test and the Counselling to be held in that regard since the decisions extracted above makes it crystal clear about the right of the minority institutions and the power of the Government to regulate. In any event, the petitioners in these petitions are not seeking to make admissions dehors the process being undertaken by the respondents and the procedure as is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the same time, the respondents are also not preventing the petitioners from admitting the Muslim minority students for the number of seats allotted under the minority quota for Muslim community for whose benefit the educational institution is said to be set up. At the same time, the respondents are also not preventing the petitioners from admitting the Muslim minority students for the number of seats allotted under the minority quota for Muslim community for whose benefit the educational institution is said to be set up. However, the issue is as to whether the petitioners in the present context being a trust set up for the benefit of the Muslim Minority and being a minority institution can now further seek to exclude the other Sects/Groups belonging to Muslim minority community and seek to admit only the candidates belonging to the Sunni Sect though such selection would be made from the merit list as prepared by the respondents. 13. In that regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the admission in any event is required to be made on the basis of merit even from the list of minority candidates. Hence, if a candidate belonging to the Muslim minority but not of Sunni sect is placed above a candidate belonging to Sunni Sect in the order of merit and if such candidate who belongs to the Muslim minority community other than the Sunni sect, gets the right to opt earlier to the candidate of Sunni sect and if such Muslim minority candidate opts the petitioner No.2 institution which has been notified in the seats availability list, such candidate cannot be denied the seat in the petitioner No.2 Institution though entitled to, only for the purpose of preferring a candidate who is lower in the merit list but belongs to Sunni Sect. If the said aspect is kept in view and a similar consideration is allowed to be made by the other religious minorities as well as linguistic minorities by resorting to preferential treatment to smaller groups in the minority quota in every such minority institution, the entire process of admission would get affected. On the other hand, denial of such claim by the petitioners in our view does not effect the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to the minority institution which is set up for the benefit of the minorities but thereafter seeks to make micro-classifications. 14. On the other hand, denial of such claim by the petitioners in our view does not effect the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to the minority institution which is set up for the benefit of the minorities but thereafter seeks to make micro-classifications. 14. If in that background, the present facts relating to the respondents are revisited, the petitioner institution though has through the supplemental trust deed dated 04.08.2015 added an additional clause, which reads as hereunder:- “3(q) to establish run and administer educational institutions primarily for the benefit of the Muslim Minority community and also society at large.” The object therefore is for providing benefit to the Muslim Minority community as a whole and not only to the Sunni sect of Muslim Community. 15. The certificate dated 01.09.2015 issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions indicates that the petitioner No.1 is declared as a minority educational Institution covered under Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 which defines that it is an institution administered by minorities. The fact that for the present academic year 82 seats to be filled up by minority community students is allotted and notified is not disputed. The proforma for Religious Minority Certificate would provide for indicating the religion and the consensual agreement (Annexure-R.4) would provide that not less than 66% of the seats shall be filled by minority students within the State belonging to Minority to which the institution belongs. The affidavit filed by the Trustee of the petitioner, available along with Annexure-R.5 to the objection statement indicates that the trust is especially meant for benefit of the Muslim Minority community and is established by the members of the Muslim community which is meant for the benefit of Muslim boys and girls. The affidavit filed by the Trustee of the petitioner, available along with Annexure-R.5 to the objection statement indicates that the trust is especially meant for benefit of the Muslim Minority community and is established by the members of the Muslim community which is meant for the benefit of Muslim boys and girls. If all these aspects are taken note, the entire consideration relating to the petitioner institution has been on the basis that the right is available to the petitioner as Muslim minority which is not effected and the further sub-classification as sought to be made by the petitioner to limit the admission to only a sect of the Muslim minority community and moreso when that is likely to deny the benefit to the more meritorious candidates of the Muslim community, the denial of the request of the petitioner by the respondents would be justified and cannot be considered as a denial of the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to establish and run an educational Institution by a minority community. 16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner no doubt has sought to contend that a Christian minority institution namely the St.John’s College has been permitted to admit only Roman Catholics though the said institution is a Christian Minority Institution. The respondents in their objection statement have referred to the same to contend that the said institution has not entered any consensual agreement with the State Government whereas the petitioner having entered into a consensual agreement cannot seek such benefit. Though contentions are urged in that regard, from the very memorandum of association produced at Annexure-R by the petitioners relating to St.John’s Institution, it would disclose that even though as per the notification dated 27.01.2014 the Ministry of Minority Affairs has notified the Chritians as a Minority community, in the object indicated in the memorandum, it is stated that the institution is for the benefit of the Catholics. The said institution in that regard has proceeded to indicate the seat categories as Roman Catholics. Except for noticing this aspect, we do not propose to proceed beyond this point since the said institution is not a party to the present proceedings and the correctness of their action in any event cannot be decided herein without seeking justification from them though the respondent regulatory authorities are parties. Except for noticing this aspect, we do not propose to proceed beyond this point since the said institution is not a party to the present proceedings and the correctness of their action in any event cannot be decided herein without seeking justification from them though the respondent regulatory authorities are parties. In any event having arrived at the conclusion that the right of the petitioner to run the minority educational institution and to admit Muslim minority candidates is not effected by the impugned action of the respondents, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned endorsement nor issue directions as sought by the petitioner. In that view, these petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs.