JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions are filed by Managers of Aided Schools challenging the Government Order vide No. G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 7.7.2022 and the prospectus issued by the Government for admission to Plus One course (Higher Secondary) for the academic year 2022-2023 insofar as it concerns Private Aided Schools. As per the above Government Order, the Government has ordered that in all Private Aided and Private Aided/ Minority/Backward Community Higher Secondary Schools in the State, the Management Quota seats shall henceforth be 20%, with a rider that if the Management declares the community to which the management profess allegiance, 10% of seats can be allotted to the students of that community, albeit on merit basis. If no community is declared by the Management, then the 10% seats shall be converted as merit seats and the same shall be filled up through the Central Allotment Process. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, the pleadings of the parties are summarized as under: 2.1 Before proceeding further, it needs to be stated at the outset itself, that in these cases, we are concerned only with the share earmarked towards Management Quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools (“PAHS” for the sake of brevity). PAHS can be further subclassified into 3 categories based on the management that operates the School. These Schools are (a) established and maintained by minority communities; (b) established and maintained by communities other than minority communities; and (c) established and maintained by individuals and agencies such as Societies, Trusts, etc. and not falling in category (a) or (b) above. 2.2. In Government, Private Aided, Private Aided/Minority/Backward Community Schools in the State, as per G.O.(M.S.) No.206/2005/G.Edn. dated 1.7.2005, the allotment of seats in various quotas was being carried out in the following manner till the academic year 2020-2021. Government Private Aided Private Aided/Minority/ Backward Communities Management 1 2 3 Open Merit 60% 50% 40% Management Quota - 30% 40% Other Backward Communities 1. Ezhava 8% -- -- 2. Muslim 7% -- -- 3. Latin/SIUC 1% -- -- 4. Other Backward Christian Community 1% -- -- 5. Government Private Aided Private Aided/Minority/ Backward Communities Management 1 2 3 Open Merit 60% 50% 40% Management Quota - 30% 40% Other Backward Communities 1. Ezhava 8% -- -- 2. Muslim 7% -- -- 3. Latin/SIUC 1% -- -- 4. Other Backward Christian Community 1% -- -- 5. Other Backward Hindu Community 3% -- -- Scheduled Caste 12% 12% 12% Scheduled Tribe 8% 8% 8% 2.3 As per the above criteria, the management of PAHS were required to fill up 50% of seats on open merit basis, 30% of seats towards the management quota, and the balance 20% was earmarked for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. 2.4 During the academic year 2021-2022, the Government came out with a prospectus interfering with the 30% seats which were earmarked towards the management quota. 2.5 The clause in the prospectus which interfered with the quota earmarked to the management was the subject matter of challenge in numerous writ petitions. This Court, taking note of the fact that the clause in the prospectus is against the G.O.(M.S.) No.206/2005/G.Edn. dated 1.7.2005, stayed the objectionable clause. Directions were issued to the concerned respondent to permit the schools to admit students in the management quota without insisting that 10% of the seats shall be earmarked for being allotted to the same community. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the admission process was completed, and accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of by ordering that the observations and directions are confined to the relevant clauses in the prospectus for Single Window System for admission to Plus One course for the academic year 2021-2022. It was also made clear that the orders passed by this Court shall not stand as an impediment in coming out with a prospectus for the next academic year in tune with the policy of the Government. 2.6 For the academic year 2022-2023, the Government has come out with order dated 7.7.2022, which reads as follows: 2.7 The order discloses that based on recommendations of the Director of General Education, the Government has taken a policy decision to limit the management quota seats in Private Aided Schools to 20%. However, if the Educational Agency which runs the school declares the community to which the management belongs, the management would be permitted to fill up the seats on merit basis with students belonging to the declared community. However, if the Educational Agency which runs the school declares the community to which the management belongs, the management would be permitted to fill up the seats on merit basis with students belonging to the declared community. In the event of the failure of the management, the above 10% seats would be converted as merit seats in the allotment process. 2.8 In tune with the stipulations in the Government Order, the above conditions have been incorporated in the prospectus for admission to Plus One courses 2022-2023. 2.9 These writ petitions have been filed by Managers of various schools seeking to quash the Government Order insofar as it sets apart 10% as community quota seats and for a further direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to fill up the entire 30% management quota seats by qualified students without any restriction or reservation for any community. They have also sought a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to fill up 30% of seats of Plus One course as management seats. 3. In view of the fact that the Centralized Allotment Process has commenced, the petitioners insisted that the matter be heard urgently. This Court had directed the respondents to place on record their statement. 4. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) 23186 of 2022 controverting the contentions in the writ petitions. It is brought to the notice of the Court that separate applications have been filed to adopt the said statement in the other cases as well. 5. For the sake of ease and clarity, W.P.(C) No.23186 of 2022 shall be treated as the leading case. Parties and exhibits shall be referred to as described in W.P.(C) No.23186 of 2022 unless otherwise stated. 6. In the statement filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that it was by Ext.R1(a) Government Order vide G.O.(M.S.) No.18/91/G.Edn. dated 01.02.1991 that the criteria to fill up pupils in Higher Secondary Course in the State of Kerala was fixed. As per the said order, the management quota was fixed as 20% in all Aided Schools. Later, the Government came out with Ext.R1(b) Government Order vide G.O.(M.S.) No.29/91/G.Edn. dated 27.02.1991 as per which Private Aided, Non-minority schools were permitted to admit 20% seats in the management quota and 10% seats under community quota, i.e., to the community to which the school belongs. Later, the Government came out with Ext.R1(b) Government Order vide G.O.(M.S.) No.29/91/G.Edn. dated 27.02.1991 as per which Private Aided, Non-minority schools were permitted to admit 20% seats in the management quota and 10% seats under community quota, i.e., to the community to which the school belongs. Insofar as Minority/backward community management is concerned, the open merit was 40%, management quota was 20%, and community quota was 20%. 6.1 The management quota criteria as per Ext.R1(b) Government Order was followed for more than a decade until the Government came out with G.O.(M.S.)No.206/2005/G.Edn. dated 01.07.2005. The above Government Order was issued pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 06.02.2003 in O.P.No. 18658/2000 and interim order dated 07.04.2003 in O.P.No.23665/2000. 6.2 The 1st respondent contends that instead of taking away 10% community quota from Non-Minority/Non-Backward Management and restoring the same back to Open Merit Quota, the Government restored it to Management Quota. This anomaly continued since 2005. It was with a view to correct the above anomaly that the Government Order impugned in these writ petitions have been issued. It is stated that the 10% quota has been merged with the general quota for meritorious students belonging to the community to which the management belongs. It is also stated that the intention of the Government is to grant the benefit to those Managers who have declared the religious community to which the management belongs, to admit students belonging to the declared community. In view of the Government Order, the management quota for all Aided Schools is only 20%. 6.3 It is further stated that the Centralized Admission Process (CAP) in the State was introduced to put an end to the defects in the admission process and also the denial of social justice by flouting the reservation norms. None of the schools reckon the merit of the students for management quota admission. Even after the introduction of the CAP, there have been instances wherein community quota seats have been irregularly converted as management quota. It is in the said circumstances that the Government instructed that the name of the community shall also be mentioned before commencing the admission process to the community quota so that the Government would be able to verify whether community quota admissions are carried out purely on merit basis from among the students of that particular community. It is in the said circumstances that the Government instructed that the name of the community shall also be mentioned before commencing the admission process to the community quota so that the Government would be able to verify whether community quota admissions are carried out purely on merit basis from among the students of that particular community. As per the Government Order, the reservation for admission to Higher Secondary courses in Kerala are as follows: RESERVATION Of SEATS Category Govt. schools Aided Schools (Non-minority/Nonbackward) Aided schools run by Minority/ Backward Communities 1 2 3 Open Merit 42% 50% 40% Management Quota Nil 20% 20% Other Backward Communities Community Quota - 10% is for the students of the same community on merit basis 20% is for the students of the same community on merit basis Ezhava,Thiyya, Billava (ETB) 8% Nil Nil Muslim 7% Nil Nil Latin /SIUC/Anglo Indian 3% Nil Nil Other Backward Christian Communities (OBX) 1% Nil Nil Dheevara and related communities (DV) 2% Nil Nil Viswakarma and related communities (VK) 2% Nil Nil Kudumbi and related communities (KU) 1% Nil Nil Kusavanand related communities (KN) 1% Nil Nil Other Backward Hindu communities (OBH) 3% Nil Nil Scheduled Caste (SC) 12% 12% 12% Scheduled Tribe (ST) 8% 8% 8% Economically Weaker Sections in Forward category 10% Nil Nil 6.4 It is stated that the reservation pattern in Government Schools in the State has changed from time to time to meet the requirement of deserving categories in the society. The Aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State are running mainly on Government aid, and the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff are paid by the Government. The schools are therefore bound to comply with the policy decision taken by the Government. It is stated that the Government has been receiving complaints that admission under management quota in Private Aided Schools is not being done on merit basis, and capitation fee/bribe is being collected from students. It is further stated that the intention of the Government is to bring in uniformity in the percentage of management quota in Private Aided Schools and Minority Schools. By issuing the order impugned in these writ petitions, the intention of the Government is to safeguard the best interest of the students of the community to which the management belongs and to ensure that those students get admission on a merit basis. By issuing the order impugned in these writ petitions, the intention of the Government is to safeguard the best interest of the students of the community to which the management belongs and to ensure that those students get admission on a merit basis. The percentage of management quota in Private Aided Colleges is governed by the norms prescribed by the Government from time to time, and the same has been 20% all along for Private Aided Colleges and Minority institutions. The claim of the Non-minority management to have 30% management quota to be filled at their discretion is untenable and unacceptable as it would affect the interest of the student community. 7. Smt. V.P.Seemanthini, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23928/2022 urged by referring to Article 15 of the Constitution that the State cannot, under any circumstances, discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner represents a management committee that comprises individuals belonging to various communities, and the Committee Members managing the school do not ascribe their ideology to any particular caste or religion. In view of the above, the insistence in the Government Order that unless the management declares the community to which the school belongs, a portion of the management seats would be converted as merit seats would be against the constitutional principles. The learned senior counsel would point out that while issuing the impugned order, the State Government classified ‘Private Aided Schools’ as a Single Group for the purpose of allotting “Management Quota Seats”. It is contended that a further microscopic classification among that composite group solely based on the community to which the school belongs is arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned senior counsel would further submit that under the framework of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and in view of the secular principles enshrined in the Constitution, the State ought to have refrained from issuing an order compelling secular institutions to declare the community and to admit students in 10% of the management quota from the said community. The constitution, as well as the bye-laws of some of the institutions which the learned senior counsel represents, stipulates that the Manager shall admit students irrespective of class or creed from anywhere in the State of Kerala. 7.1 Sri. The constitution, as well as the bye-laws of some of the institutions which the learned senior counsel represents, stipulates that the Manager shall admit students irrespective of class or creed from anywhere in the State of Kerala. 7.1 Sri. Jestin Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners in the writ petitions, supported the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel. According to the learned counsel, the order impugned would violate Article 15 of the Constitution of India as no quota can be reserved for the management or for any family, caste, or community which may have established such an institution. The learned counsel would refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pattali Makkal Katchi v A.Mailerumperumal [ AIR 2022 SC 1865 ], and it was argued that there is no substantive basis for the classification carried out by the Government as has been done through the impugned order. 7.2 Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the cases, submitted that the management of the schools represented by him are societies registered under the Central Act and the State Act and Trusts, which are having a secular outlook. According to the learned counsel, those Societies, Trusts, and individual Educational Agencies cannot be directed to declare the community to which they belong as they do not belong to any specific community. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the Government Order, as well as the clause in the prospectus, are unconstitutional and discriminatory. After referring to the impugned order, it is contended by the learned counsel that the order was passed purely on the recommendations of the Director of General Education and without adverting to the previous orders issued by the Government. 7.3. Sri. T.T.Muhammood, the learned counsel, submitted that in the Educational Agencies represented by him, there has been a 100% pass with some students securing good marks. The marks secured by some of the Students may not entitle them to secure admission through the CAP. All the management seats are being filled up by accommodating students from the school itself without any restrictions. By the impugned Government Order, those students who passed SSLC but who failed to secure admission through the centralized allotment process may fail to secure admission. All the management seats are being filled up by accommodating students from the school itself without any restrictions. By the impugned Government Order, those students who passed SSLC but who failed to secure admission through the centralized allotment process may fail to secure admission. Those managements which refuse to declare a community to which they belong would be forced to surrender the 10% management seats to the merit quota. The surrender of seats as aforesaid would affect the educational needs of the locality and may result in a situation that the students of the school who failed to secure good marks may be adversely affected. 7.4 Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted that setting apart 10% reservation to the pupils of the community of the Manager would give preference to the students who have not suffered from any social, economic, educational backwardness, and they would gain an advantage only because the Manager of the school belongs to the said community. He submitted that the Government Order is unconstitutional and unworkable as many of the schools in the State are managed by registered Charitable Societies and Trusts. It is anybody’s guess as to how such societies would declare a community. According to the learned counsel, the Government Order taking away 10% seats from the management quota would deny the Manager the right to choose students for the Plus One course from the same school for want of competitive marks. It is further submitted that insisting upon the non-minority Managers to admit 10% seats to the members of the forward community without considering their social, educational, and economic backwardness would go against the principles enshrined in the Constitution. 7.5 Sri. Sandesh Raja, the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted that Private Aided Schools were enjoying the benefits of G.O. (M.S.) No.206/2005/G.Edn. Dated 01.07.2005 from 2005 onwards. The impugned order taking away 10% of the seats from the management quota has been issued without even affording an opportunity of being heard to the management. The learned counsel would refer to the order dated 01.07.2005, and it is submitted that the said order was passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court in O.P.No.18658/2000 and also the interim order dated 07.04.2003 in O.P. No. 23565/2000. The learned counsel would refer to the order dated 01.07.2005, and it is submitted that the said order was passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court in O.P.No.18658/2000 and also the interim order dated 07.04.2003 in O.P. No. 23565/2000. According to the learned counsel, in the statement filed by the 1st respondent, they have stated that it was in order to cure the anomaly which occurred while bringing out the order dated 01.07.2005 that the impugned order was issued. However, while issuing the said order, the respondents have not understood the reasons which persuaded the Government to come out with an order dated 01.07.2005. It is contended that the Government has blindly accepted the recommendation given by the 2nd respondent without adverting to the relevant aspects. It is further submitted that the impugned order as per which those school Managements who have refused to declare the religious community to which they belong have been singled out, is without any rational classification. The same set of persons have been treated differently on the basis of religion, and the impugned order has no reasonable relation or nexus to the object which is sought to be achieved. It is further submitted that the impugned order would be tantamount to classification based on religion and the same is impermissible and violative of the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 7.6 I have heard Sri.K. Sudin Kumar, Sri. Bony Benny, Smt. Lowsy, Sri. Arun B. Varghese and Sri.V.Madhusudhanan as well. The learned counsel has further elaborated on the matter and reiterated the very same contentions. 8. Sri. Hood, the learned Special Government Pleader to the AG and Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader, countered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioners that they have a vested right to admit 30% of students in the management quota is a fallacious argument. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners have no fundamental, constitutional, statutory, or contractual right to insist that all aided Schools in the State of Kerala shall be allotted 30% seats in the management quota. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners have no fundamental, constitutional, statutory, or contractual right to insist that all aided Schools in the State of Kerala shall be allotted 30% seats in the management quota. It is urged that the Government is well within its authority to take a policy decision to rectify the anomaly that has occurred in fixing the percentage of seats in the Management Quota in aided institutions, particularly when the Government grants aid and meets the entire salary expenses of the teaching as well as non-teaching staff. It is further urged that a close analysis of the impugned order would reveal that the Government has acted on the recommendations of the Director and has reduced the Management quota to 20%. It is further submitted that the Government thought it fit to allot 10% seats to those managements who declare the community to safeguard the interest of the students of the community. However, the admission to that 10% quota is purely on a merit basis. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in MGB Gramin Bank v Chakrawarti Singh [ (2014) 13 SCC 583 ], it was argued that the Management cannot claim any vested right when they do not have a contention that such right has arisen from a contract, statute or by operation of law. It is further argued that unless an accrued or a vested right has been derived by a party, a policy decision can be changed by the Government. According to the learned Government Pleader, community quota is applicable only to the institutions which are founded and run for fulfilling the educational needs of the students in the area in question and that of a community or caste in particular to which the management belongs. 8.1 It is further contended that such an order was issued to put an end to the rampant corruption being carried out by certain managements during the admission process. As per the Government Order, the management is required to furnish the details of the community to which the management owes allegiance and thereafter make a declaration that students of the declared community shall be admitted purely on merit. This would improve transparency and would also enable meritorious students to secure admission. As per the Government Order, the management is required to furnish the details of the community to which the management owes allegiance and thereafter make a declaration that students of the declared community shall be admitted purely on merit. This would improve transparency and would also enable meritorious students to secure admission. Reference is made to the order under challenge, and it is submitted that the order has been issued in the name of the Governor and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras [ AIR 1970 SC 1102 ] and that of this court in Sudheer v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KLT 25], it was argued that the same would have immunity and the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that no such decision was taken by the Government or that the same being issued based on recommendations of the Director. The learned Government Pleader relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti & Others [ AIR 2022 SC 1767 ], submitted that when there is a reasonable basis for a classification that has been adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the same cannot be termed as a differential treatment warranting interference on the ground that the principles of equality have been breached. Reliance is placed on the law laid down in the State of Kerala and Others v. Manager, ST.Roch’s High School, Tvm and Others [ 2014 (2) KHC 520 ] and it is argued that the impugned Government order which is passed in supersession of the earlier orders cannot be challenged on the ground that the earlier orders are not referred to. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Rai Chand Jain and Others [ (1997) 5 SCC 167 ] to bring home his point that the Government has the executive powers to decide on its policy and the same cannot be interfered by this Court on a vague ground that the same is arbitrary. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Vinodkumar N.K v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2022 (2) KHC 664 ] to hammer home his contention that the framing of policy is within the exclusive domain of the Government and the petitioners herein cannot impugn the same on the ground that the same is bad for non-application of mind. According to the learned Government Pleader, the contention that grant of 10% seats would violate Article 15 of the Constitution cannot be a valid argument as religion or community is not the sole criteria, but the community of the students coupled with the status of the management. Relying on the law laid down in State of Punjab v Anshika Goyal and Others [ 2022 (3) SCC 633 ], it is submitted that this Court will not be justified in issuing a mandamus to provide for a particular percentage of reservation for a particular category of persons other than what has been provided in the policy decision taken by the State Government. Finally, it is urged that the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved since they would not be affected by the grant of 10% towards the community quota. It is also submitted that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as those managements who have benefitted from the Government Order have not been made a party to the proceedings. 9. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the entire records. 10. From the pleadings on record and the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following are the issues that arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. a) Whether G.O(MS) No.121/2022/G Edn. dated 07/07/2022, as per which the Government has taken a policy decision to reduce management quota for admission to the Plus One course in Private Aided Higher Secondary schools in the State is liable to be interfered with, on the ground that the same would infringe the rights of the management? b) Whether the provision in the Government Order as per which aided school managements have been directed to declare the community to which the school belongs and to allot 10% of the seats to the students of the declared community on merit basis would infringe Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India? b) Whether the provision in the Government Order as per which aided school managements have been directed to declare the community to which the school belongs and to allot 10% of the seats to the students of the declared community on merit basis would infringe Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India? c) Whether the provision in the Government Order which orders that in respect of those managements who refuse to declare the community to which the management belongs, the community seats shall be converted to merit seats be sustained under law? d) If issues (b) and (c) are answered in favor of the petitioners, whether the respondents can be directed to permit the management to fill up the entire 30% Plus One seat arising in the school towards the management quota in terms of the G.O(MS)No.206/2005/GEdn. dated 01/07/2005 ignoring G.O(MS) No.121/2022/G Edn. dated 07/07/2022. 11. Before adverting to the contentions, it would be apposite to understand the events which led to the commencement of Higher Secondary courses in the State. In the year 1990, a decision was taken by the Government to de-link Pre-degree courses from colleges and to introduce Higher Secondary courses with a view to reorganizing secondary education and collegiate education in the State and streamlining it with the National Educational Policy. Immediately thereafter, Higher Secondary courses were introduced in the State by opening Higher Secondary Schools and by upgrading existing schools as Higher Secondary Schools. From Ext.R1(a) Government Order, it is apparent that it was as per G.O(MS)138/90 dated 27.06.1990 that the Government introduced Higher Secondary Course (Plus Two course) in 31 Government schools in the State during the year 1991 and it was decided to include to Private Aided Schools as well. While issuing the order, the Government ordered that in PAHS open merit seats shall be 60%, management quota shall be 20% and the balance was to be distributed among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 12. Later, the Government came out with G.O.(MS) No.29/91/GEdn. Dated 27.02.1991 bringing about certain amendments to the mode of selection of pupils. As per the substituted criteria, the percentage of open merit in Private aided schools not run by Minorities/backward communities management was 50%, the management quota was 20%, the community quota (community to which the school belongs) was 10%, and the balance 20% was shared among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. 13. As per the substituted criteria, the percentage of open merit in Private aided schools not run by Minorities/backward communities management was 50%, the management quota was 20%, the community quota (community to which the school belongs) was 10%, and the balance 20% was shared among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. 13. The above Government Order was challenged before this Court by the Akhila Kerala Dheevara Sabha and by judgment dated 06.02.2003 in O.P.No. 18658/2000, their Lordships of the Division Bench quashed the clause as per which seats were reserved for the community to which the schools belong, holding that the same is arbitrary. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below for convenience. 3. Argument was raised attacking the quota reserved for Community to which the schools belong. The petitioners have raised many grounds and said that so far as the communal reservation is concerned, the reservation is possible only for socially and educationally backward classes. We don't know what is meant by Community to which the schools belong. Supposing the School is started by a private Company or a Trust, it is not possible to give this type of reservation. It may include even forward Communities. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, including the State. The State has not, in the affidavit, expressly stated the reason for bringing such a quota except stating that this kind of reservation is prevalent even when the Pre-degree courses were there. An argument was raised stating that it is because of this that the private Colleges and Schools in the State are under the control of the Government. As a result of the agreement between the Management, Government and the Staff, the salary for the Teachers are paid through the Government. Thus, certain rights of the private Institutions have been taken away and it is for this the community is given a quota. Some arguments were made on the basis of the minority and the backward classes. So far as the minority Communities are concerned, there is reservation. The attack is on the additional 20% quota given for the community to which the Schools belong. 5. During the course of hearing, we expressed our view that the reservation under the Community quota to which the Schools belong does not stand scrutiny under the Articles of the Constitution of India. The attack is on the additional 20% quota given for the community to which the Schools belong. 5. During the course of hearing, we expressed our view that the reservation under the Community quota to which the Schools belong does not stand scrutiny under the Articles of the Constitution of India. But the argument raised was that a large number of vacancies occur every year, so that all the persons, who applied for the course, will get admissions. We are not impressed with this argument. The question is not whether everybody will get admission or not. The question is whether the reservation made on the basis of the Community to which Schools belong is constitutionally valid or not. 6. In Dr. Jagadish Saran and Ors. v. U.O.I [A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 820], it has been stated that the quantum of reservation should not be excessive or socially injurious, measure by the overall competency of the end product. In Unnikrishnan's Case - (1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 , it is stated that there shall be no quota reserved for the management or for any family, castes or community which may have established such college. State of Gujarat v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust (1994) 3 S.C.C. 552 , it is stated that the donor quota who contributed a large amount as capital for starting college held arbitrary. In Mohan Bir Singh Chawk v. Punjab University - A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 788, it stated that the Collegewise preference is not permitted. 7. Thus, we find that the clause mentioned above reserving seats for Community to which the Schools belong is arbitrary. That clause is quashed. We make it clear that the admissions already made on the basis of the Prospectus will not in any way be affected by this judgment. 14. Their Lordships of the Division Bench interfered with the clause “Community to which the School belongs” and it was held that the same was arbitrary and the same was quashed. The reasons which persuaded their Lordships to interfere with the clause still exist and I am bound to follow the same. 15. In tune with the directions issued by the Division Bench, the Government came out with G.O.(MS) 156/2003/G.Edn dated 09.06.2003 as per which the community quota of 10% was merged with the management quota. The reasons which persuaded their Lordships to interfere with the clause still exist and I am bound to follow the same. 15. In tune with the directions issued by the Division Bench, the Government came out with G.O.(MS) 156/2003/G.Edn dated 09.06.2003 as per which the community quota of 10% was merged with the management quota. In other words, as per the said order, Private aided schools became entitled to 30% of seats towards the management quota. 16. It appears that numerous complaints were submitted before the Government from various quarters complaining that the interests of the minority/backward organizations are continuously being ignored despite the directions issued by this Court. After considering their grievances, the Government came out with G.O.(M.S.)No.206/2005/3 Edn. dated 01-07-2005 refixing the criteria for admission. The only change was with regard to the allotment of seats in aided Minority/Backward community management schools. The Government ordered that from the 40% seats in Plus Two Course allotted as Management quota in the Private Aided Minority/Backward Communities Management Schools, 20% shall be for the minority/backward class students, and the remaining 20% seats shall be for the concerned aided minority backward class management. 17. The quota fixed for Management as per the 2005 Government order was interfered with by the impugned order, and the Management quota was reduced to 20%. However, those managers who chose to declare the community to which they belong were held entitled to 10% quota, and they were permitted to fill the seats on merit basis with students of the declared community. 18. I have already referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which interfered with an almost identical clause. The Division Bench, after considering the entire aspects, held that the said clause would be arbitrary and would violate the constitutional provisions. It appears that the Government has attempted to reintroduce the very same clause in the impugned Government order. 19. The Division Bench, after considering the entire aspects, held that the said clause would be arbitrary and would violate the constitutional provisions. It appears that the Government has attempted to reintroduce the very same clause in the impugned Government order. 19. In Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology v. State of Punjab , [ (1997) 2 SCC 65 ], it was held by the Apex Court that preferential treatment must be consistent with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality of opportunity and that though reasonable classification is permissible, such classification must have a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules providing such admission, namely, to select the most meritorious amongst the candidates to have the advantage of such education . Applying this test, the Apex Court insisted that while nominating candidates for admission, the authority concerned should follow the criterion of merit and viewed with disfavor the conferment of discretion in this regard on the founder of the institution or the person/persons in management of the institution. It was also held that there shall be no quota reserved for the management or for any family, caste, or community which may have established such college. (emphasis supplied) 20. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the purport of the policy is to grant advantage to the community of the management, which runs the PAHS. At this juncture, it would be profitable to bear in mind that Chapter VI Rule 11 of the Kerala Education Rules stipulates that no pupil shall be refused admission to any school on the ground of caste, community or religion unless any such condition has been accepted as a condition for the recognition of the school. In the case on hand, the same set of pupils, who aspire to secure admission, are being treated differently on the basis of the community to which they belong. I do not find any reasonable relation or nexus to the object which is sought to be achieved, i.e., grant of admission on merit basis. It needs to be borne in mind at this juncture that all the PAHS in the State of Kerala are not established by minorities or backward communities who are entitled to have the freedom to manage its own religious affairs as per Article 26 of the Constitution of India. It needs to be borne in mind at this juncture that all the PAHS in the State of Kerala are not established by minorities or backward communities who are entitled to have the freedom to manage its own religious affairs as per Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Some of the schools are established by Trusts and Societies registered under the Central Enactment as well as the State Enactments. They do not owe allegiance to any religion or community. By granting 10% community quota to those institutions which declare the community to which the institution belongs, the respondents are clearly reserving a quota to the management based on the caste or religion of the management. It would also be pertinent to note at this juncture that such an incentive to admit students of the same community is being granted to certain managements ignoring the fact that those managements are not entitled to protection under Article 15(4) or (5) of the Constitution of India. 21. I am not impressed with the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the 10% community quota seats provided as per the impugned Government Order would not be hit by Article 15 of the Constitution in as much as the reservation is not purely based on the ground of religion only but to the school management which has established the institution. This is exactly what has been deprecated by this Court as well as the Apex Court. The respondents have not been able to convince this Court the exact number of schools run by Private Aided Schools which do not fall under the category of aided/minority/backward schools. By granting 10% quota to a student of the community to which the Management belongs, more meritorious students of the underprivileged classes, who may have failed to secure allotment in the centralized allotment process may fail to secure admission. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners that the majority of the Aided Schools in the State are run by forward community managements and allotment of 10% seats to the said community would infringe Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution and amount to unreasonable classification on the basis of caste/religion also is a formidable argument. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondents that there is no discrimination based on religion, community, etc cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, the contention of the respondents that there is no discrimination based on religion, community, etc cannot be accepted. As held by this Court, the clause in the Government Order allotting 10% seats to the community to which the School belongs is clearly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. I declare so. 22. The next issue for consideration is whether the petitioners have made out a case for interfering with G.O(MS) No.121/2022/G Edn. dated 07/07/2022, as per which the Government has taken a policy decision to reduce the management quota for admission to the Plus One course to 20%. 23. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned order is the expression of a policy decision of the State. The same is expressed in the name of the Governor and in no unmistakable terms states that henceforth the management quota in Aided Higher Secondary Schools shall be 20%. The question is whether the said policy decision can be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of powers of judicial review. 24. The scope of judicial review of Governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability, and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy that the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision, or is manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer, or wiser alternative is available. The legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review (vide Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364], Sitaram Sugar Co. The legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review (vide Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364], Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1990) 3 SCC 223 ], Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [ (1996) 10 SCC 304 ], BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India [ (2002) 2 SCC 333 ], State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash [ (2005) 13 SCC 495 ] and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P. [ (2006) 4 SCC 162 )]. 25. In the case on hand, the petitioners have not been able to convince this Court that they have any constitutional, statutory or vested right to demand that Aided Schools are entitled to 30% seats towards management quota. Though it was faintly submitted that the petitioners have been enjoying 30% quota from 2003 and therefore they have acquired a vested right, nothing has been placed before this Court to substantiate the said contention. In MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh , [ (2014) 13 SCC 583 ], the Apex Court relying on the law laid down in Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [ (2006) 5 SCC 702 ], held that vested rights can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed. 26. I have already referred to the Government order issued at the time of the introduction of Higher Secondary Courses. The management quota which was allotted to Aided Higher Secondary schools then was 20%. Though pursuant to the judgment of this Court in OP No 18658/2000, the community quota seats were converted as Management seats, the Government has now taken a policy decision to limit the same to 20%. The Government is the paymaster, and they grant aid and meet the entire salary and expenses of the non-teaching and teaching staff. If the government chooses to reduce the management seats to 20%, unless the petitioners make out a case that it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision, or is manifestly arbitrary, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. 27. If the government chooses to reduce the management seats to 20%, unless the petitioners make out a case that it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision, or is manifestly arbitrary, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. 27. The petitioners would refer to the provisions in the prospectus and it was argued that the prospectus still says that 30% would be the management quota out of which 10% shall be earmarked to the community to which the management belongs. According to them, the prospectus would give an indication that the community quota seats are still a part of management quota seats and if that be the case, in the event of this Court striking it down the objectionable clause with regard to community reservation as arbitrary or unconstitutional, the 10% seats would merge with the management quota seats. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. As the Government order is clear and emphatic, even if the prospectus is vague, the policy stated in the impugned order will prevail. Moreover, though in the prospectus, it has been stated that the management quota seats would be 30 %, it has clearly been split up as 20% management quota and 10% community quota. 28. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised a contention that the impugned order is silent as regards the earlier government orders issued in the years 2003 and 2005 and hence the same is vitiated for non-application of mind. The allotment of seats in aided educational institutions which do not fall within the ambit of minority or backward communities are within the exclusive domain of the Government and comes under the category of policy decisions. In Govt. of A.P. v. N. Subbarayudu [ (2008) 14 SCC 702 ], it was held that even in cases where no reasons are furnished in the Government Order, courts are to exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities. It was further held that the Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints. It was further held that the Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints. The Government is not required to furnish reasons for adopting a policy one way or the other as held by this Court in Vinod Kumar M.K. v State of Kerala [ 2022 (2) KHC 664 ], wherein in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the argument that the order was non-speaking was repelled. Furthermore, as held by this Court in State of Kerala v Manager St Roch’s High School [2014 (2) KLT 520], the Government has the executive power to issue Government orders in the realm of a policy matter, and when such an order is issued, there is an implied supersession of the earlier Government order which could be inferred as evident from the impugned order itself. 29. The next question is whether this Court, while quashing the clause for providing 10% seats to the community to which the management belongs, can direct the State Government to allot the said seats to the Management Quota. In State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal , [ (2022) 3 SCC 633 ], the Apex Court has held that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not be justified in issuing a mandamus to enhance the percentage of the reservation overriding what has been declared by the State Government in its policy. As the management quota has been limited to 20%, this Court, despite quashing the clause providing for community reservation, will not be justified in directing the Government to earmark the said 10% quota to management quota. There is yet another matter. The impugned order has been issued on 7.7.2022 and it is brought to the notice of this Court that several of the institutions in the State have acted in terms of the order and have declared the community. None of those schools or institutions are party to these proceedings. As held by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above, while exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in the matter of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court, it cannot interfere. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 30. In view of the discussion above, these writ petitions are ordered as follows : a) The challenge raised by the petitioner to G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 7.7.2022 insofar as it fixes the management quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State as 20% does not warrant any interference and the same will stand rejected. b) This Court holds that G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 7.7.2022 to the extent that it requires the Management to declare the community to which the School belongs and to allot 10% quota to the declared community is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. In view of the finding above, the further rider in the Government Order that on the failure of the management to declare the community to which the management belongs, the community seats shall be converted to merit seats does not assume any significance. It is made clear that if any admissions have been carried out based on the declaration so made by any management, the same shall not be disturbed. c) As the allotment of seats towards 10% community quota has been quashed, the respondents shall ensure that those seats are treated as open merit seats to be filled up through the Centralized Allotment Process strictly in accordance with merit. These writ petitions are disposed of.