Bombay High Court
The Shramjivi Samaj Kalyan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 November, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 498.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 498 OF 2015
The Shramjivi Samaj Kalyan Mandal,
Hadolti, At Post Rani Sawargaon,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Secretary,
Shivaji S/o Vitthalrao Dalnar,
Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Service
and Social Work,ig
R/o Rani-Sawargaon, Tq. Gangakhed,
District Parbhani. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Divisional Joint Director,
Higher Education, Nanded,
District Nanded.
4. Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
University, Nanded - 431 606,
Through its Registrar. .. Respondents
Shri A. B. Tele, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Vaishali N. Patil, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Yuvraj V. Kakade, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2016 00:24:14 :::
2 wp 498.15
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. Mr. Tele, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that,
the petitioner mandal had made an application to the
respondents seeking permission to start new senior college from
the academic year 2001-2002. Along with the petitioner, nine
other institutions had also made similar applications. The State
on 08.01.2001 decided to grant recognition to ten institutions
including the present petitioner. The application was to start
new senior college for arts faculty. According to the learned
counsel other nine institutions who were granted recognition in
the same meeting, are given the benefit of grant in aid. The
learned counsel submits that, initially permission was granted
on permanent non grant in aid basis. However, as per the
Government Resolution dated 04th April, 2012 those institutions
which have been granted the permission upto June 2001 were
given benefits of grant in aid from the year 2012. The learned
counsel submits that, the petitioner was communicated late of
the permission being granted. Even petitioner had filed writ
petition before this Court. A statement was made by the State
3 wp 498.15
that, permission has been granted. The petitioner had started
the college in physical education subject since June 2001 and
even the students had appeared for the examination for the
academic year 2001-2002. The affiliation was also granted by the
university for the academic year 2001-2002. According to the
learned counsel, only because communication was made to the
petitioner of permission being granted to the petitioner late,
cannot be a ground to discriminate petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/university
submits that, the petitioner institution had started the college in
the academic year 2001-2002. The students were also admitted.
The affiliation was also granted by the university to the
petitioner initially for the academic year 2001-2002 and
thereafter consistently the affiliation is granted. The students
appeared for the examination of physical education subject even
for the academic year 2001-2002.
4. Mrs. Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that, the petitioner has been granted permission vide
letter dated 06th September, 2001. As the said permission is not
prior to June 2001, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of
Government Resolution dated 04th April, 2012. Instead the
petitioner would be governed by the Government Resolution
dated 24th September, 1991. The learned A. G. P. further submits
4 wp 498.15
that, the petitioner cannot be expected to start the college before
getting the permission. The Incharge Director of Higher
Education has after hearing all the parties rightly taken a
decision that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of
Government Resolution dated 04th April, 2012. The learned A. G.
P. submits that, in view of Sec. 83 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, if the communication of permission is not made
to the university prior to 15th July, then the affiliation is to be
granted for the next academic year.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for respective parties.
6. The letter dated 12.01.2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary
clearly states that, in the meeting dated 08.01.2001, it was
decided to grant recognition to ten institutions, who had applied
seeking permission to start the colleges for various faculties. The
petitioner is at Sr. No. 2, wherein permission is granted to start
college in arts faculty.
7. It appears that, communication was not made to the
petitioner about permission being granted. So the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2156 of 2001.
The said petition appears to have been filed earlier in point of
time. However, subsequently a statement came to be made on
5 wp 498.15
behalf of the Government that the petitioner has been granted
the permission. As such, said writ petition was withdrawn on
10th September, 2001.
8. Even if we read the letter dated 06th September, 2001
granting permission to the petitioner said letter specifically read
as under :
;k fouarhpk fopkj d#u 'kklukus ;k lanHkkZr
fnukad [email protected]@2001 jksth ?ksrysY;k fu.kZ;kuwlkj
egkjk"V~ fon;kihB dk;nk 1994 e/khy dye 82 (5)
uwlkj Jethoh lekt dY;k.k eaMG] gkMksGrh] rk-
gkMksGrh] ft- ijHk.kh ;k laLFksl jk.kh lkojxkao]
Rkk- xaxk[ksM] ft- ijHk.kh ;k fBdk.kh dyk
fon;k'kk[ksps egkfon;ky; lq# dj.;kl lu
2001&2002 ;k 'kS{kf.kd o"kkZiklwu iw<hy vVhaP;k
v/khu jkgwu 'kklukph ijokuxh ns.;kr ;sr vkgs-
9. The said letter specifically states that, the permission is
granted as per the decision taken by the Government on
08.01.2001 and the petitioner is granted permission to start the
college for the academic year 2001-2002. It would be seen that,
the permission was directed to be given in the meeting dated
08.01.2001. It was also decided that other nine institutions were
given permission. Those other nine institutions were
6 wp 498.15
communicated of permission being granted, except the present
petitioner. Thereafter, communication was made to the
petitioner on 06th September, 2001 granting permission. It is also
for the same academic year as is granted to other nine
institutions i. e. for the academic year 2001-2002. The university
has also in its affidavit in reply has admitted that, for the
academic year 2001-2002 affiliation was granted to the petitioner
and the students were admitted in the physical education subject
for the academic year 2001-2002. They had also appeared for the
examination held for the academic year 2001-2002.
10. Factual matrix as narrated above would explicitly make it
clear that, the decision was already taken to grant recognition to
the petitioner to start the senior college on 08 th January 2001.
However, the communication was made late. Other nine
institutions who were also given the permission as per the
decision in the same meeting were communicated earlier. The
date of the communication would not be much relevant. The
petitioner has started the course for the academic year 2001-2002
is not a disputed fact. On the contrary the same is also admitted
by the university, to which the petitioner is affiliated.
11. The Government Resolution dated 04th April, 2012 has
given benefit of grant in aid in electronics and physical education
subjects to those institutions which had been granted permission
7 wp 498.15
upto June 2001. Meaning thereby that which had commenced
course for the academic year 2001-2002. The relevant portion of
the said Government Resolution reads as under :
1- 'kklukus lu 1988&89 iwohZ] rlsp 1989 rs
23-9-1991 o 1991 rs twu 2001 i;Zar T;k
egkfonk;y;kauk R;kaP;k foKku o okf.kT;
fon;k'kk[kkarxZr
ig lax.kd'kkL=] bysDV~kWfuDl o
'kkfjjhd f'k{k.k ;k fo"k;kauk dk;e foukvuqnkukP;k
vVhoj ijokuxh fnyh gksrh] R;kr lq/kkj.kk
d#u ;k 'kklu fu.kZ;klkscrP;k ifjf'k"V&v izek.ks
lax.kd'kkL= & 100] ifjf'k"V&c izek.ks bysDV~kWfuDl
& 13] o ifjf'k"V&d izek.ks 'kkfjjhd f'k{k.k & 41
egkfon;ky;krhy fo"k;kauk vuqnku rRokr cny
d#u fn- 1 ,fizy] 2012 iklwu 100 % vuqnkukoj
vk.k.;kl eatwjh ns.;kr ;sr vkgs-
12. The petitioner certainly could not have been discriminated.
The other nine institutions who were considered for giving
recognition along with the petitioner have been granted the
benefits of G. R. dated 04th April, 2012. The petitioner as such
would be entitled to and cannot be discriminated only on the
ground that communication was made late to the petitioner. In
the present case, the university on affidavit has stated that, the
affiliation was granted to the college run by the petitioner
8 wp 498.15
institution in physical education subject for the year 2001-2002.
13. In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed
and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to the benefits of
Government Resolution dated 04th April, 2012, as other nine
institutions who were considered for grant of recognition in
meeting dated 08.01.2001 with regard to the grant in aid. The
authority shall consider the claim of petitioner for grant in aid, in
case the petitioner complies with all other requirements.
Rule accordingly made absolutely in above terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Nov. 16
