JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the respective judgments dated 23.10.2024 in W.P.(C)No.33768 of 2024 and the judgment dated 17.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025, by the petitioners in those writ petitions. The 1 st petitioner in both the writ petitions is the Kerala State Indian System of Medicine Self-Financing College Management Association (KISMA), which is a registered Association of Ayurveda Colleges functioning in the State of Kerala in the self-financing stream. The remaining petitioners in the writ petitions are the Medical Colleges that are members of KISMA offering courses in Ayurveda. Since the issue involved in both these writ appeals are one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they were referred to in W.P.(C) No.33768 of 2024 and corresponding writ appeal, unless otherwise stated. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that the process resorted by the 5 th respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for allotment of seats in the Colleges under the Association of the 1 st petitioner was not by following the procedure stipulated in Ext.P2 communication dated 22.08.2024 and Ext.P2(a) order dated 03.09.2024 issued by the 1 st respondent National Commission for Indian Systems of Medicine. According to the petitioners, the word management quota used in Ext.P4 prospectus for admission to Professional Degree Courses, 2024, published by the 5 th respondent, has been misconstrued. When eligibility and qualification criteria are provided in Exts.P2 and P2(a) order, the eligibility criteria laid down in Ext.P4 prospectus have no legal existence. It is the case of the petitioners that, as per Ext.P2, the total seats available in Government, Government-aided institutions and private institutions were divided into two categories, in which 15% thereof are set apart as all India quota and 85% are set apart as State-Union Territory quota. As per Clause 4 of Ext.P2, the management seats under the State-Union Territory quota in private institutions shall be treated as domicile-free. However, while carrying out the admission process by way of Ext.P4 prospectus, the respondents are insisting on the nativity certificate and thereby confining the opportunity of admission to students from the State of Kerala. As per Clause 4 of Ext.P2, the management seats under the State-Union Territory quota in private institutions shall be treated as domicile-free. However, while carrying out the admission process by way of Ext.P4 prospectus, the respondents are insisting on the nativity certificate and thereby confining the opportunity of admission to students from the State of Kerala. Therefore, the educational institutions are deprived of students from outside the State, which affects the quality and homogeneous character of the campus. In W.P.(C) No.33768 of 2024, the petitioners sought the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 eligibility criteria and to quash the same as the stipulation of eligibility provided therein cannot be made applicable for the BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and post graduate courses; ii. Issue a writ declaring that admission for BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and Post graduate courses in private self-financing institutions including admissions in the All India quota and NRI quota can only be made without insisting on the domicile restriction as contained in Ext.P4 which run contrary to the stipulations in Exts.P2 & P2(a); iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 5 th respondent to invite fresh applications and allotment for the unfilled seats for the BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and post-graduate courses following the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 and P2(a) as it will override the stipulations in Ext.P4.” 3. In W.P.(C) No.33768 of 2024, on behalf of the 1 st respondent, a statement dated 03.10.2024 has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) document. The 5 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 07.10.2024, followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 17.10.2024, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) document. According to the 5 th respondent, there is no inconsistency between Ext.P2 communication and Ext.P4 prospectus. It is contended by the 5 th respondent that, as per the stipulations contained in Ext.P2, the State is empowered to adopt and apply the policy of the State while filling up the seats coming under the quota set apart for the State. The various Clauses in Ext.P2 were referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent. The maintainability of the writ petition was also challenged in the counter-affidavits. The various Clauses in Ext.P2 were referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent. The maintainability of the writ petition was also challenged in the counter-affidavits. According to the contesting respondents, the interest of the Colleges will not in any way be affected due to the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4, since the College will get sufficient students, whatever be the policy decision of the Government. 4. To the counter affidavits, the petitioners filed a reply affidavit dated 20.10.2024, producing therewith Exts.P14 and P15 documents. 5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C) No.33768 of 2024, holding that none of the reliefs sought by the petitioners is legally sustainable. 6. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025 also approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the very same pleadings as in W.P.(C)No.33768 of 2024. The reliefs sought in that writ petition are as under: “i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exts.P1 eligibility criteria and to quash the same as the stipulation of eligibility provided therein cannot be made applicable for the BAMS/BSMS/ BUMS and post graduate courses; ii. Issue a writ declaring that admission for BAMS/BSMS/ BUMS and Post graduate courses in private self-financing institutions including admissions in the All India quota and NRI quota can only be made without insisting on the domicile restriction as contained in Ext P1, which run contrary to the stipulations in Exhibits P2 and P2(a); iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 6 th respondent to invite applications and allotment for the seats in the BAMS/BSMS/BUMS and post graduate courses, for the academic year 2025-26, without insisting on a nativity or domicile restrictions.” 7. On hearing both sides, finding that the issue has already been covered in the judgment dated 23.10.2024 passed by in W.P.(C)No. 33768 of 2024, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025, in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.33768 of 2024. 8. On 04.11.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for admission, though this Court admitted the appeal, did not stay the admission process at the behest of the appellants whose locus has been disputed by the respondents. 9. 8. On 04.11.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for admission, though this Court admitted the appeal, did not stay the admission process at the behest of the appellants whose locus has been disputed by the respondents. 9. On 27.11.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for consideration, this Court directed the National Commission to clarify whether the impugned stipulation by the State of Kerala directing that 15% Management seats in the private institutions in the State should be kept aside on the basis of domicile is correct. The National Commission was directed to file a counter-affidavit only on the said specific issue. It was clarified that if a counter affidavit cannot be filed due to shortage of time, written instructions from the National Commission addressed to the Standing Counsel for the National Commission be placed on record, along with the memo of the Standing Counsel for the National Commission. 10. On 03.12.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for consideration, this Court directed the State to take a specific decision as regards the subject matter, both in respect of 15% quota which is kept domicile free falling under Clause 3 and the remaining seats. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that order read thus; "2. This matter has been heard from time to time. During the hearing today, it would so transpire that as per Clause 3 of the National Commission guideline, wherein the State can have a policy as regards 85% of State quota, 15% quota has been carved out to be made domicile free. According to the Petitioners, such a carving out and restriction only to 15% is not permissible and it should be in respect of the remaining seats as well. This argument is based on the premise that for exercise of power under Clause 3 of the guidelines, there has to be a specific direction under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which is not on record. According to the learned Government Pleader, it was after the process has commenced, upon representation of the managements that 15% in respect of the seats contemplated under Clause 3 were kept domicile free as Management quota. Even then, it being a policy matter, a decision should have been taken by way of an order. We are informed that third stray vacancy allotment is now going on and would end on 20 December 2024. 3. Even then, it being a policy matter, a decision should have been taken by way of an order. We are informed that third stray vacancy allotment is now going on and would end on 20 December 2024. 3. Considering the fact that there has to be a specific decision as regards providing quotas which would be a policy, we direct the State to take a specific decision as regards the subject matter, both in respect of 15% quota which is kept domicile free falling under Clause 3 and the remaining seats. Since the admission would close on 20 December 2024, let a decision be taken and order be placed on record within a period of one week." 11. On 10.12.2024, after hearing the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, this Court suo motu corrected the typing error in the order dated 03.12.2024 by correcting the Article stated in the order dated 03.12.2024 as Article 162 of the Constitution of India at the place of Article 161 of the Constitution of India. 12. In pursuance to the direction in the order dated 27.11.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent produced Annexure R1 instructions cum clarification along with a memo dated 30.11.2024. 13. On 12.12.2024, when W.A.No.1744 of 2024 came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader placed on record an order dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Government in pursuance to the direction in the order dated 03.12.2024. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants stated that the said order will have to be challenged by way of an amendment. 14. In view of the passing of Ext.P16 order dated 11.12.2024 by the Government, the appellants filed I.A.No.5 of 2024 to incorporate additional pleadings challenging Ext.P16 order. By the order dated 18.12.2024, this Court allowed the amendment application and permitted to carry out those amendments in the writ appeal. 15. In W.A.No.635 of 2025, the 6 th respondent therein, who is the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, filed a counter affidavit dated 22.05.2025 reiterating the stand in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.33768 of 2024. 16. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent NCISM, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel for the 2 nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 6 th respondent. 17. 16. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent NCISM, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel for the 2 nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 6 th respondent. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would argue that, as per the seat matrix provided in Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 communication dated 22.08.2024 issued by the 1 st respondent, the filling up of 85% of seats in private institutions shall be domicile-free. Clause 6 of Ext.P4 prospectus issued by the Government by insisting nativity certificate and classification of the students into three categories, such as Keralite, Non-Keralite Category I (NK I) and Non-Keralite Category II (NK II), is against the stipulations in Ext.P2. After the passing of the interim order dated 03.12.2024 by this Court, the Government has passed Ext.P16 order by dividing the 85% quota as 70% for the Government quota and the remaining 15% as the Management/NRI Quota, which is also against Ext.P2 and hence liable to be set aside. Since this Court has already allowed the amendment application filed by the appellants challenging Ext.P16, there is no necessity to once again ask the appellants to file a separate writ petition challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the Government. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge went wrong in finding the locus standi to move a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the appellants, by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev [ AIR 1964 SC 685 ] and Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. And Others [ (2001) 4 SCC 734 ] . By relying on Paragraph 48 of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ], the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the writ petitions are perfectly maintainable by the Private, Unaided, Non-Minority Educational Institutions challenging the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4 prospectus issued by the Government. 18. By relying on Paragraph 48 of the judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ], the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the writ petitions are perfectly maintainable by the Private, Unaided, Non-Minority Educational Institutions challenging the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4 prospectus issued by the Government. 18. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that a combined reading of Exts.P2 and P4 would make it clear that at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the management seats mentioned in Clause 4 of Ext.P2 refer to the entire 85% of seats set apart for State/Union Territory Quota. The appellants, being a college and the association of colleges, have no locus standi to challenge Ext.P4, since the appellants will not be prejudiced by the stipulation of nativity in the Ext.P4 prospectus, as they will be provided with sufficient number of students. Moreover, by Ext.P16 order, the Government has made it clear that the management seats mentioned in Ext.P2 are 15% and the admission to those seats will be domicile-free. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Ext.P16 order of the Government is not challenged by the appellants even in W.P.(C)No.10508 of 2025, and hence the writ petitions as well as the appeals are not maintainable. The locus standi of the appellants to file the writ petitions challenging Ext.P4 prospectus is raised by the respondents, and the learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out various judgments on this point in support of the contentions of the respondents, including those pointed out by him before the learned Single Judge. 19. According to the respondents, the appellants are getting sufficient number of students, whatever be stipulation regarding nativity made by the Government and hence the appellants have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. But while going through T.M.A. Pai Foundation [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] , we are of the opinion that the aforesaid stand of the respondents has no merits. Paragraphs 48 and 50 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation read thus; "48. Private education is one of the most dynamic and fastest-growing segments of post-secondary education at the turn of the twenty-first century. Paragraphs 48 and 50 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation read thus; "48. Private education is one of the most dynamic and fastest-growing segments of post-secondary education at the turn of the twenty-first century. A combination of unprecedented demand for access to higher education and the inability or unwillingness of the Government to provide the necessary support has brought private higher education to the forefront. Private institutions, with a long history in many countries, are expanding in scope and number, and are becoming increasingly important in parts of the world that relied almost entirely on the public sector. 50. The right to establish and administer broadly comprises the following rights: (a) to admit students; (b) to set up a reasonable fee structure; (c) to constitute a governing body; (d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and (e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees." 20. According to the appellants, the classification of students based on nativity will affect their right to establish and administer educational institutions by admitting meritorious students domicile-free. When the appellants raise apprehension of negation of such a right guaranteed under the Constitution of India, as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation , it cannot be said that a writ petition challenging the order, which according to the appellants, is issued with a view to take away the said right guaranteed under the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 21. Similarly, though the respondents took a contention that the appellants have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions in view of subsequent passing of Ext.P16 order by the Government, we are not inclined to accept the said contention also for the simple reason that Ext.P16 order was passed in view of the interim order of this Court dated 03.12.2024, and moreover the appellants filed I.A.No.5 of 2024 challenging Ext.P16 and that amendment application was allowed by this Court. 22. The challenge against the criteria of eligibility for admission stipulated in Ext.P4 prospectus issued by the respondents is mainly placing reliance on Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2. Therefore, in order to understand the grounds of challenge, it would be better to extract Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 as well as Clauses 6 and 6.1 of Ext.P4. Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 read thus; “2. Therefore, in order to understand the grounds of challenge, it would be better to extract Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 as well as Clauses 6 and 6.1 of Ext.P4. Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 read thus; “2. The seat matrix for admission in the Government, Government-aided institutions and Private institutions shall be fifteen per cent (15%) for All-India Quota and eighty-five per cent (85%) for State/Union Territory Quota as specified in the NCISM and NCH Regulations in force at the time of admission. (Please refer to Sl.No.14 of this guidelines). 3) In case of 85% of State/UT Quota, the seat matrix for Government Quota, Management Quota, NRI Quota etc., shall be as per respective State and UT policy; however, all admissions in all quotas (except foreign nationals) shall be through counselling conducted by State/Ut counselling authority.” 4) The Management seats under the State/UT Quota in Private Institutions shall be treated as domicile-free.” 23. Clause 6 and 6.1 of Ext.P4 read thus. 6. CRITERIA OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION 6.1 Nativity: Only Indian citizens are eligible for admission to Professional courses unless otherwise notified. The Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder (including PIO cardholder) will also be treated at par with Indian citizens for the limited purpose of admission. However, PIO/OCI candidates will not be eligible for any kind of reservation (Judgment in W.P.(C)No. 891 of 2021 dated: 03.02.2023 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and G.O(Rt)No.1620/2023/HEdn dated:01.11.2023). Candidates seeking admission to Professional courses will be categorised as Keralite, Non-Keralite Category I (NK I) and Non-Keralite Category II (NK II). (i) Keralite : A candidate of Kerala origin will be categorised as a ‘Keralite’. Children of All India Service (AIS) officers (Non-Keralites) allotted to Kerala cadre are deemed to be ‘Keralites’ as per G.O. (Rt) No. 822/08/H.Edn. dated 29.05.2008. But they will not be eligible for Communal/Special/Persons with Disabilities reservation or any fee concession. (ii) Non-Keralite Category I (NK I) : A candidate who is not of Kerala origin but fulfils any one of the following conditions will be categorised as 'Non-Keralite Category I' (NK I). a. A candidate who has undergone qualifying course in Kerala and who is son/daughter of Non-Keralite parents belonging to Government of India/Defence Service, posted to Kerala. b. A candidate who has undergone qualifying course in Kerala and who is son/daughter of Non-Keralite parents who are serving/served Government of Kerala for a minimum period of two years. a. A candidate who has undergone qualifying course in Kerala and who is son/daughter of Non-Keralite parents belonging to Government of India/Defence Service, posted to Kerala. b. A candidate who has undergone qualifying course in Kerala and who is son/daughter of Non-Keralite parents who are serving/served Government of Kerala for a minimum period of two years. c. A candidate who is not of Kerala Origin but has been a resident of Kerala State for a period of 5 (five) years within the period of 12(twelve) years of his/her study. d. A candidate who is not of Kerala Origin but who has undergone his/her school studies in Kerala from standard VIII to XII. Note:- Non-Keralite Category I candidates will be considered against ‘State Merit’ seats for Engineering/Architecture/B.Pharm/Medical & Medical Allied courses. But they will not be eligible for Communal/ Special/Persons with Disabilities reservation or any fee concession. (iii) Non-Keralite Category II [NK II] : Candidates who do not come under ‘Keralite’ or 'Non-Keralite Category I' will be categorised as ‘Non-Keralite Category II'. Such candidates are eligible for admission to both Government and Management quota seats in Engineering courses in Government Cost-Sharing Engineering colleges. However the ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates will be considered for admission to the Government seats in Engineering courses in Government Cost-Sharing Engineering colleges only when the Keralite and Non- Keralite I (NK I) candidates are not available for admission. ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates are also eligible for admission to both Government and Management quota seats in Private Self-financing Engineering/Architecture/Siddha /Unani colleges. But for Siddha and Unani course, ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates will be considered only when the Keralite and Non-Keralite I (NK I) candidates are not available for admission. ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates are also eligible for admission to a maximum of 10% seats under Management Quota in Private Self Financing Pharmacy colleges subject to fulfilling the eligibility conditions in clause 6.2 & 6.3. ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates are not eligible for admission to Medical and Medical Allied/Engineering/Pharmacy/Architecture courses in Government colleges. ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates are also eligible for admission to a maximum of 10% seats under Management Quota in Private Self Financing Pharmacy colleges subject to fulfilling the eligibility conditions in clause 6.2 & 6.3. ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates are not eligible for admission to Medical and Medical Allied/Engineering/Pharmacy/Architecture courses in Government colleges. Fifteen percent of the seats for the admission of students to MBBS, BAMS, BSMS and BUMS Courses in Self-Financing colleges in Kerala are set apart for the allotment of candidates irrespective of their Domicile as per the rank list prepared by the Commissioner for the Entrance Examinations on the basis of the rank obtained in the NEET-UG 2024 conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA), New Delhi. The ‘Non-Keralite Category II’ (NK II) candidates will not be eligible for Communal/ Special/ Persons with Disabilities reservation or any fee concession. Note : The following category of candidates will not be governed by clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above: Candidates to be admitted in respect of seats reserved for the nominees of Government of India, Administration of Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep Administration, Jammu & Kashmir, candidates selected through the All India quota seats for MBBS/BDS courses and candidates sponsored under reciprocal quota by Govt. of Karnataka/ Tamil Nadu. 24. A reading of Clauses 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 shows that the seat matrix for admission in Government, Government-aided institutions and private institutions shall be 15% for All India Quota and 85% for State/Union Territory Quota as specified in the NCISM and NCH regulations in force at the time of admission. According to the appellants, the 85% of the seats reserved for State/Union Territory Quota are the Management seats mentioned in Clause 4 of Ext.P2. But a reading of Clause 3 of Ext.P2 makes it clear that the 85% of State/Union Territory Quota is sub divided into Management Quota/NRI Quota/Government Quota, etc. and the said Clause further states that the division of seat matrix for Government Quota/Management Quota/NRI Quota, etc. shall be as per the respective States and Union Territory policy, however, all admissions in all quotas shall be through counselling conducted by State/UT Counselling Authority. and the said Clause further states that the division of seat matrix for Government Quota/Management Quota/NRI Quota, etc. shall be as per the respective States and Union Territory policy, however, all admissions in all quotas shall be through counselling conducted by State/UT Counselling Authority. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, if the management seats mentioned in Clause 4 of Ext.P2 refer to the entire 85% of State/Union Territory Quota, it would have been mentioned in Clause 4 itself that the entire 85% of seats shall be treated as domicile-free. When Clause 3 of Ext.P2 says that the division of Management Quota/Government Quota/NRI Quota shall be as per respective State and UT policy, that means the management seats mentioned in Clause 4 are the percentage decided by the respective State and Union Territories in accordance with their policy decisions. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Clause 6 of Ext.P4 prospectus for admission to Professional Degree Courses 2024, published by the 5 th respondent Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, violates Ext.P2 communication dated 22.08.2024 issued by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Ministry of Ayush). 25. As discussed above, in view of the right of the appellants to maintain educational institutions and admit students as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] , a writ petition challenging an order of the Government which according to the appellants is detrimental to the interest of Minority Institutions run by them is maintainable and to that extent the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is incorrect. At the same time, as found herein before, the challenge against Clause 6 of Ext.P4 prospectus based on Clause 2 to 4 of Ext.P2 by the appellants holds no merit, and the respondents are entitled to take a policy decision as far as the admission to Government Quota, Management Quota and NRI Quota, by dividing these quotas into percentage within the 85% of seats set apart for State/Union Territory Quota. The writ petitions are therefore rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge. In the result, this writ appeals stand dismissed.