Bombay High Court
Ms. Pranjli Maroti Gajghate, And ... vs The State Of Maha.,Through ... on 27 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp4321.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4321/2015, 5308/2015 & 989/2016.
...........
WRIT PETITION NO. 4321/2015.
1. Mrudul s/o Namdev Meshram,
Aged about 21 years, Occ - Student,
r/o. Plot no.24, Umang Housing Society,
Narendra Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Akshay s/o Siddharth Moon,
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Student,
3. Preeti d/o Govinda Chopde,
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Student,
4. Akshaya s/o Gautam Bansode,
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Student,
5. Madhuri d/o Tathagat Sonone,
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Student,
6. Mayur s/o Ganpat Morey,
Aged about 21 years, Occ - Student,
7. Ajit s/o Durgadas Tonde,
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Student,
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 c/o. Dr.
Punjabrao @ Bhausaheb Deshmukh
Memorial Medical College, Amravati. ....PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2016 23:58:05 :::
Judgment wp4321.15
2
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Social Welfare & Special
Assistance, Mantralaya Annex,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The District Social Welfare
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3. The District Social Welfare
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
4. The Dean,
Dr. Punjabrao @ Bhausaheb Deshmukh
Memorial Medical College,
Amravati.
5. The Dean,
NKP Salve Institute of Medical
Sciences and Research, Nagpur.
6. The Union of India,
through its Secretary, Department of
Social Justice and Empowerment,
New Delhi. .... RESPONDENTS
.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5308/2015.
1. Ms. Pranjli Maroti Gajghate,
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2016 23:58:05 :::
Judgment wp4321.15
3
2. Ms. Homeshwari Pramod Patode,
Aged 18 years, Occ - Student.
3. Ms. Ranjana Rupchand Karade,
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
4. Mangesh Bholaji Tumasare,
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
5. Ms. Prachi Gautam Rahulkar,
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
6. Shubham Vinod Jakkanwar,
Aged 21 years, Occ - Student.
7. Ms. Pranali Shankar Kalambe
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
8. Chetan Ramesh Waghare,
Aged 18 years, Occ - Student.
9. Ms. Divya Maroti Boliwar
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
10. Ms. Sushmita Rajkumar Ramteke
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
11. Ms. Asmita Devidas Shashtri
Aged 21 years, Occ - Student.
12. Ms. Bramhananda Dnyaneshwar Padole
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
13. Parag Vasantrao Sukare
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
14. Ms. Jyotsana Laxman Motghare
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
15. Ms. Tejaswini Omrao Tembhurne
Aged 18 years, Occ - Student.
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2016 23:58:05 :::
Judgment wp4321.15
4
16. Ms. Reena Narayan Kosare
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
17. Ms. Shambai Pritam Dhakate
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
18. Prafull Vibhakar Hadge
Aged 32 years, Occ - Student.
19. Shubham Sapremlal Dhongade
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
20. Ankush Pitambar Ganvir
Aged 24 years, Occ - Student.
21. Ms. Pranali Shankar Sahare
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
22. Roshan Ramaji Sonatakke
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
23. Piyush Vikash Thorat
Aged 21 years, Occ - Student.
24. Ms. Pournima Tulshidas Kukadkar
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
25. Nandalal Dnyaneshwar Maske
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
26. Ms. Dimple Khushal Motghare
Aged 1 9years, Occ - Student.
27. Akash Arun Bhoyar
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
28. Pramod Ushtu Kunghatkar
Aged 39 years, Occ - Student.
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2016 23:58:05 :::
Judgment wp4321.15
5
29. Chetan Bhaskar Bambode
Aged 20 years, Occ - Student.
30. Ajaykumar Shyam Ramteke
Aged 22 years, Occ - Student.
31. Hemantkumar Manohar Lanjewar
Aged 30 years, Occ - Student.
32. Sunil Dnyandeo Indurkar
Aged 21 years, Occ - Student.
33. Maheshkumar Bhagwat Kawale
Aged 34 years, Occ - Student.
34. Pradeepkumar Naryanrao Gurunule
Aged 40 years, Occ - Student.
35. Ms. Tanuja Ashok Dudhpachare
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
36. Ms. Ashwini Gajanan Watmode
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
37. Nisha Suryakant Suryawanshi
Aged 18 years, Occ - Student.
38. Neha Bhaurao Dandekar
Aged 19 years, Occ - Student.
39. Ghonmode Sushant Prabhakar
Aged 34 years, Occ - Student.
40. Nakade Ankush Namdeo
Aged 22 years, Occ - Student.
41. Ms.Wanjari Anuja Devidas
Aged 25 years, Occ - Student.
42. Ms.Tembhurne Nilambari Dashrath
Aged 29 years, Occ - Student.
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2016 23:58:05 :::
Judgment wp4321.15
6
All Nos. 1 to 42, residents of c/o.
Maharashtra Institute of Pharmacy
(B PHARM), Chougan Phata, Armori
Road (Betala), Tahsil Bramhapuri,
District Chandrapur (M.S.) 441 206. ..... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS.
1. The State Of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Social
Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya Extension
Bhavan, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. Assistant Commissioner,
Office of the Social Welfare,
Chandrapur.
3. Maharashtra Institute Of Pharmacy
(B. Pharm ), through its Principal,
Chougan Phata, Armori Road (BETALA),
Tahsil Bramhapuri,
District Chandrapur (M.S.) 441 206.
4. Young Engineers Education Society,
Through its Secretary, Chougan Fata,
Armori Road, (Betala), Tahsil Bramhapuri,
District Chandrapur (M.S.).
5. The Union of India,
through its Secretary, Department
of Social Justice and Empowerment,
New Delhi. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2016 23:58:05 :::
Judgment wp4321.15
7
WRIT PETITION NO.989/2016.
Janhavi d/o Gunwantrao Bhoyar,
Aged about 20, years, Occ - Student,
c/o. V.S.P.M.S. Dental College and
Research Centre, Digdoh Hills,
Hingna Road, Nagpur 440 019. ........... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Department
of Social Welfare and Special
Assistance, Mantralaya Annexe,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The District Social Welfare Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3. The Dean,
V.S.P.M.s, Dental College and
Research Centre, Digdoh Hills,
Hingna Road, Nagpur 440 019.
4. The Union of India,
through its Secretary, Department
of Social Justice and Empowerment
New Delhi. ..... ... RESPONDENTS.
-----------------------------------
Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition
No.4321/2015 & 989/2016.
Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition
No. 5308/2015, for Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4321/2015
& for Respondent No.3 in W.P.No. 989/2016.
Mr. B.M. Lonare and Ms. P. Rane, Asstt. Govt. Pleaders
for Respondent - State.
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2016 23:58:05 :::
Judgment wp4321.15
8
Ms. M. Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent - Union of India.
Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4
in W.P.No. 5308/2015.
Shri A.J. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent No.4
in W.P.No.4321/2015.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 27, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
A common question has been raised in all these Writ Petitions filed
by the students, and hence we have heard these matters together. The said
question is - Whether facility of fee reimbursement can be declined to the
students who are admitted at Institute level, though their admissions are duly
approved by the Admission Regulatory Committee (Pravesh Niyantran Samiti)?
2. The basic facts are not in dispute. As per Government Resolution
dated 04.03.2014, a reimbursement scheme has been extended to all
students, who have taken admission to degree course in any of the Health
Sciences in First Year after competing in Common Entrance Test (CET),
through Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental
Judgment wp4321.15
Colleges of Maharashtra. The Scheme is applicable to such a student till he
completes the Course.
3. On 30.03.2015, a proviso has been added to this Clause and it
stipulates that students who are admitted on seats remaining vacant after
completion of common admission rounds & at institute level shall not get its
benefit though their admissions are duly approved by Pravesh Niyantrayan
Committee. According to the petitioners, this clause introduces partial
discrimination.
4. It is not in dispute that 85% of the sanctioned seats are filled in
through Common Admission Process after conducting Common Entrance
Test in two rounds and the remaining 15% are to be filled in as Management
quota, by respective institutes.
5. According to the petitioners, when purpose or object of extending
such benefit and for providing such scheme is looked into, denial of such a
welfare measure to the students who have cleared CET, have participated in
common admission process only on the ground that they have been admitted
after two rounds of admission by the respective institutes at their level
against the available vacancies, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
Judgment wp4321.15
of India. They submit that as such students also belonging to backward
classes face same degree of difficulty, requirement of getting admitted only
in two rounds of common admission process inserted by Government
Resolution dated 30.03.2015 is irrelevant. The classification is without any
basis and also has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
6. They have relied upon certain judgments to which we will be
making reference during the course of this judgment.
7. In Writ Petition No. 4321/2015, the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners has pointed out that two petitioners namely petitioner nos. 2
and 5 satisfy the requirement of income limit. In Writ Petition No.
5308/2015 the learned Counsel for petitioner has pointed out that two
petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 41 and 42 are admitted against the
management quota.
8. The respective learned Counsel appearing for the respondents
submit that the entitlement has been restricted only to those students who
get admission in two rounds of common admission in common process and
it has been declined to others, who thereafter get admission against the
remaining vacancies by approaching the respective colleges. Ms.
Judgment wp4321.15
Chandurkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, submits
that funds are made available for the scheme approved by the Central
Government to the State Government and State Government only
administers the scheme. She also points out that the Central Government
has also prescribed the income limit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per annum for that
purpose. She further points out that scheme is known as "Post Matric
Scholarship to the students belonging to Scheduled Castes." A distinct
scheme by name "Post Matric Scholarships for Other Backward Classes in
studying in India", is also pointed out by her. She adopts the line of
arguments advanced by the respective learned Assistant Government
Pleaders.
9. The first Government resolution to which our attention is invited is
issued by the State Government on 04.03.2014. It is on the subject of
reimbursement of tuition fees to S.C., V.J./N.T., S.B.C. and O.B.C. Students,
taking admission in approved private un-aided and permanently un-aided
educational institutes in professional courses. A Information Brochure for
Asso CET-2014 has been made available as part of record. It is for admission
to un-aided private medical and dental colleges in Maharashtra. Clause 13
therein speaks of Selection Process. That clause shows that consequent to
orders dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Judgment wp4321.15
Civil Appeal No. 4318/2012, the selection procedure has been prescribed. It
has been stipulated therein, that it will be of two rounds for M.B.B.S., and
B.D.S. Course and only of one round for B.A.M.S., B.P.Th. both B.Sc.
Nursing. As per Clause 13.4 after these two rounds, vacant seats out of 85%
are to be filled in by respective college at their own level, on the basis of
merit of Asso CET-2014.
10.
Petitioners submit that benefit of reimbursement scheme should be
extended even to these students who are admitted at college level. Thus,
proviso introduced vide government resolution dated 30.03.2015, is
questioned by them.
11. The orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on
22.06.2015 in Writ Petition No. 4915/2014 show that the said order was
passed during motion hearing. Petitioners there had sought a relief of fee
reimbursement. The order does not show that the petitioners had cleared
CET and were seeking reimbursement thereafter. Perusal of the orders
dated 08.01.2016 in Writ Petition No. 6110/2014, delivered at Aurangabad
Bench, show that there a clause which restricted benefit of reimbursement
claim only to those who had secured admission through CET, was looked
into. In the light of said clause and restriction, the Division Bench at
Judgment wp4321.15
Aurangabad rejected the prayer to release scholarship to the petitioner.
Facts therein show that the petitioner was admitted directly without CAP
round in academic year 2012-13.
12. Judgment dated 18.07.2014 delivered at Nagpur in Writ Petition
No. 4822/2013 shows that there similar clauses in government resolution
dated 02.02.2012 and 11.10.2012 by which government had restricted the
scholarship to the students securing admission only through centralized
admission process was looked into. Writ Petition No.3848/2013 filed by the
Management seeking a direction to release scholarship amount and refund
of tuition fees, was dismissed, while Writ Petition No. 4822/2013 filed by
two students who had secured admission in M.B.A. Course in earlier
academic years 2012-13 and 2011-12, was partly allowed. The Division
Bench found that the circulars could have been given retrospective effect.
Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported at 2015 (2)
Mh.L.J. 370 (Association of Management of Unaided Engineering
Colleges and others .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), has quashed
and set aside the denial of benefit of fee reimbursement to the students of
those colleges whose applications to AICTE were not routed through State
Government. The restriction imposed is found without any logic. The
Judgment wp4321.15
distinction there was on the strength of a differentia which distinguished
the colleges and not the students who were similarly placed.
Division Bench of this Court at Bombay in a Public Interest
Litigation No.69/2011 decided on 20.03.2015, has extended the benefit of
said scheme to students taking education in deemed Universities. The
contention of State Government that admission therein are not regulated by
any legal provisions is, found incorrect. Again norm did not distinguish
between the students.
13. Before us, the question is whether any artificial discrimination has
been made while denying the benefits of tuition fees reimbursement to the
students who have been given admission at college level on the seats
remaining vacant after the common rounds of admission in CET ? It is not
in dispute that though the admissions are made at Institute/College level,
merit and performance of such students in CET is the only consideration.
14. Holding of CET and performance of students therein is first
scrutinized in two or three rounds of admissions, commonly called as
Centralized Admission Process. Generally more meritorious students secure
admission in these rounds. 85% of the vacancies are to be filled in through
Judgment wp4321.15
central entrance test, and after these rounds, if any seats are left vacant, the
respective colleges or institutes are permitted to fill in the same. Students
approach such institutes and on the basis of their merit in CET they are
given admission.
15. Thus, every year there are students belonging to various backward
classes who secure admission in common admission rounds and others who
do not get such admission in open rounds, secure it on the basis of their
performance in CET in respective colleges where seats in 85% are lying
vacant. That State Government has in its own wisdom, restricted the benefit
of tuition fees only to the students who are more meritorious i.e. who
secured admission in 2 rounds or 3 rounds of CET. It has not extended that
benefit to those others.
16. Thus, there are two distinct classes of backward class students
available and State Government, depending upon its resources has extended
the benefit to only one group out of them and made it eligible for grant of
reimbursement. The petitioners have not pointed out that all of them
constitute one class in terms for such government resolution in terms of any
Constitutional or Statutory provision. It is not their contention that the State
Government is duty bound to provide free education to all of them. In
Judgment wp4321.15
absence of this contention or other material on record, we find that decision
of State Government of not extending the benefit of tuition fee
reimbursement to those who are admitted at institute level or college level
cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Restriction of such benefit to more meritorious backward class students is
not shown to be impinging upon the rights of petitioners. Petitioners wish to
procure that benefit or work out a right to it by alleging breach of Article
14.
17. At this stage of dictation. When prayer clauses are seen, it needs to
be mentioned that though in Writ Petition No.4321/2015, there is a prayer
to release scholarship for petitioners, relief sought is of release of tuition fees
reimbursement for petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7. For petitioner Nos. 2 and 5
relief sought is of release of scholarship. Both the schemes are different and
relevant clauses of scholarship scheme or eligibility thereunder are not
explained to us by the petitioners. Petitioners draw support from
communication dated 06.02.2016, sent by the Commissioner, Tribal
Development to Regional Deputy Commissioners and Assistant
Commissioners. Ms. Chandurkar, and learned A.G.Ps., have pointed out that
there is no specific prayer in this respect, qua petitioner nos. 2 and 5. The
petitioners can not normally derive any legal right through such internal
Judgment wp4321.15
letter sent by one officer to another. Whether such a letter can supersede or
amend legally any Government Resolution or decision is the moot question.
Considering this position and said communication as also the nature of
controversy, we grant leave to petitioner nos. 2 and 5 to make appropriate
representation to respondent no.2 raising said grievance. If such grievance
is made within two weeks, respondent no.2 shall consider the same as per
law in furtherance of communication dated 06.02.2016, within a further
period of two weeks.
18. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4321/2015 are admitted in the
academic year 2014 -15. Their education is being affected due to rider
added vide government resolution dated 30.03.2015. Thus, reasons which
promoted this Court to allow Writ Petition No. 4822/2013 partly on
18.07.2014, apply in case of these petitioners. It therefore, follows that the
said rider added on 30.03.2015, can not be attracted and apply to the
admissions given prior to it and petitioners admissions continue and shall
be regulated by government resolution dated 04.03.2014.
19. In Writ Petition No. 5308/2015, though prayer in relation to free-
ship cannot be allowed qua petitioner nos. 41 and 42, other 14 petitioners
whose names are mentioned at its Annexure-H in Scheduled Caste category
Judgment wp4321.15
at Sr.Nos. 5 to 18 and at Sr.Nos. 3 to 8 in Other Backward Classes, are given
leave to make representation to respondent no.2 raising all the grievances
based on communication dated 06.02.2016 (supra). If such grievance is
made within two weeks, respondent no.2 shall consider the same in manner
as already directed supra, within a further period of two weeks.
20. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 989/2016, have secured admission
to B.D.S. Course in the academic year 2014-15. Thus, government
resolution dated 30.03.2015 shall not apply. Again reasons which promoted
this Court to allow Writ Petition No. 4822/2013 partly on 18.07.2014, apply
in case of the petitioner here also. It therefore, follows that the rider added
by government resolution dated 30.03.2015, shall not be attracted to the
admission of petitioner here and her admission shall be regulated in terms
of the government resolution dated 04.03.2014.
21. In view of above discussion, with aforesaid directions, We dispose
of all the challenges & the writ petitions. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
