Bombay High Court
Bal Bhagwan Shikshan Prasark ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2338 OF 2016
Bal Bhagwan Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal's New Mother Teresa RANM
School of Nursing,
Deglur Road, Udgir, Tq. Udgir,
District Latur, through its
Principal Shivkumar Bhavrao More,
Age : 31 years Occu. Service,
R/o Deglur Road, Udgir, Taluka
Udgir, District Latur PETITIONER
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary for
Medical Education and Drugs Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai
3. The Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
4. The Director,
V.J.N.T, O.B.C. and S.B.C.
Social Welfare Department,
Maharashtra State,
Pune-1
5. The Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Latur Region, Latur
6. The Assistant Commissioner,
District Social Welfare Office,
Latur
::: Uploaded on - 22/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:50:49 :::
2 wp2338-2016
----
Mr. Chandrakant A. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the respondents
----
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 18th JULY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.S. SHINDE, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
petition is taken for final hearing.
2. The petitioner claims reimbursement of fees in
respect of reserved category candidates/students for the
years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
3. We have heard Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for
the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is
that, for the period prior to 2012-2013 and for the
period from 2013-2014, the petitioner is being
reimbursed the tuition fees and other fees of reserved
category candidates/students in respect of ANM course.
According to the learned counsel, reimbursement of the
3 wp2338-2016
fee for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 has been
illegally withheld and the petitioner is entitled for
the same.
4. Mr. Dighe, thewp2338-2016 learned Assistant
Government Pleader submits that in view of clause (9) of
the Government Resolution dated 21st March, 2005, as the
petitioner had not obtained permission of the
Government, the reimbursement of the fees is not
granted. It is only after the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in PIL No.72 of 2013, the
petitioner is being given reimbursement of fees for the
subsequent years.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned counsel for the respective parties. Clause
(9) of the Government Resolution dated 21 st March, 2005
has been held to be ultra virus and illegal by the
Division Bench of this Court in PIL No. 72 of 2013. When
the said clause itself has been set aside and held to be
illegal and not in consonance with the Statute, then
only because the said PIL was pending, the State would
not be entitled to withhold reimbursement of the fees
for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-13. The condition of
4 wp2338-2016
suitability certificate is imposed vide Government
Resolution dated 27.3.2014. The directions with regard
to reimbursement of fees is for the years 2011-12 and
2012-13. The said condition was not relevant for the
said period.
6. In light of the above, the Respondent - State
is directed to release the tuition fees/ examination
fees of the approved students of the petitioner School
for the reserved category students of ANM course
admitted for the academic year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013,
expeditiously and preferably within three (03) months
from today, without insisting for the suitability
certificate for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13.
7. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms.
No costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp2338-2016
