Bombay High Court
Miss. Firdos Vahajuddin Ansari vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 5 April, 2017
Bench: Shantanu S. Kemkar
WP.4916.13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4916 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1053 OF 2016
Miss Firdos Vahajuddin Ansari, ]
aged about 20 years, Occu - Student, ]
R/o. Post - Temapla, Taluka - Mangaon, ]
District - Raigad - 402 103 ] ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
through the Secretary, ]
Medical Education, having their ]
office at G. T. Hospital, Mantralaya ]
Building, 9th Floor, Mumbai - 400 002. ]
2. The Secretary, ]
Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (PNS) ]
having their office at 305, ]
Government Polytechnic Building, ]
49, Kherwadi, Ali Yawar Jung Marg, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ]
3. The Registrar, ]
Maharashtra University of Health ]
Sciences, Nashik, having their office ]
at, Vani Road, Mhasrul, Nashi. ]
4. The Secretary ]
Association of Management of Unaided ]
Habeeb 1/37
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:11:29 :::
WP.4916.13.doc
Private Medical and Dental College, ]
Maharashtra (AMUPMDC) ]
having their office at Shreeji House, ]
75, Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai. ]
5. The Medical Council of India, ]
through its Chairman, ]
having their office at Pocket 14, ]
Sector 8, Dwarka, Phase - I, ]
New Delhi - 110 077. ]
6. Godavari Foundation's Dr. Ulhas Patil ]
Medical College & Hospital, ]
NH 6, Jalgaon Bhusawal Highway, ]
Jalgaon - 425 309. ]
7. Ashwini Rural Medical College, ]
Hospital & Research Centre, ]
having their address at Kumbhari, ]
Solapur - 413 001, Maharashtra. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. Kamal Bulchandani i/b. Kamal & Co. for the Petitioner/Applicant.
Mr. R. V. Govilkar a/w Ms. Heena Bhagtani for Respondent No. 3.
Mr. V. N. Sagare, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w Ateet Shirodkar for Respondent No. 5.
Mr. Sameer Khedekar a/w Kishor Ajetrao for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 15th MARCH 2017
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 05th APRIL 2017.
Habeeb 2/37
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:11:29 :::
WP.4916.13.doc
JUDGMENT (Per PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.):
. The petitioner has preferred the aforesaid petition before
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the counsel for both the respective parties, matter is taken up for
final disposal forthwith.
3. The petitioner had sought issuance of Writ or Order in
the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take fresh
admission/re-admission in accordance with law and rules. It was
also prayed that the respondents be directed to submit the necessary
report of compliance of rules/regulations and an undertaking to
follow rules and law and giving admission to meritorious students on
the basis of merit without any discrimination whatsoever. It was
further prayed that, the petitioner be directed to be admitted after
considering her merit over the other students who have scored lower
marks and to inquire into the entire issue of admission and violation
Habeeb 3/37
WP.4916.13.doc
of law and rules by the colleges and take necessary action against the
institution found to be in violation of law. The petitioner also prayed
that adequate compensation be directed to be provided by the
respective colleges for damaging the academic career of the
petitioner and the mental agony and stress caused to her.
4. The relevant facts as contended by the petitioner and the
factual aspects which are necessary for adjudication of the issues
involved in the petition and the application are as follows;
(a) The petitioner belongs to minority community and the
caste of OBC.
(b) The respondent no. 3 is in-charge of the functioning of
institution of Health Science and is the registered
University. The respondent no. 4 is the Association of
Management of Unaided Private Medical College which
accepts application forms with preference for
admission on behalf of unaided medical colleges. The
Habeeb 4/37
WP.4916.13.doc
respondent no. 5 is the Apex Body which is in-charge of
the entire system of education and medical profession.
The respondent No. 2 controls and gives schedule of
admission process and is also in-charge of handling
complaints against the colleges. The respondent nos. 6
and 7 are Medical Institutions which are members of
respondent no. 4.
(c) The petitioner is a meritorious student having secured
143/200 marks in the Common Entrance Exam
conducted by respondent no. 4. The petitioner's name
was listed on merit list no. 4600 as per the certificate
issued by competent authority of respondent no. 4.
The petitioner had applied for admission in various
medical colleges including respondent nos. 6 and 7.
(d) Vide Circular No. PNS(MED)/Admission-
2012/UG/Schedul/3529, the respondent no. 2 issue a
schedule of admission process for 1st Year Health
Science Course. As per the circular, the schedule was
Habeeb 5/37
WP.4916.13.doc
to be followed strictly. The respondent nos. 6 and 7
ignored the circular and changed the schedule without
giving proper notice to the students. The action of
respondent nos. 6 and 7 resulted in denial of admission
to the petitioner.
(e) The petitioner submitted the application for admission
with respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 in accordance with
rules and regulations. However, non-meritorious
students securing lesser marks were granted admission
and the petitioner was denied the admission. The
denial of admission has damaged her career and right
to profess medical profession. The act of respondents
caused great mental agony, stress and torture not only
to the petitioner but also to her family.
(f) After display of second merit list, the vacancy was
declared on 14th September 2011. Unfortunately, 15th
16th, 19th and 20th of September were either declared as
Band or holidays. The petitioner was left with two
Habeeb 6/37
WP.4916.13.doc
days to apply for admission in various colleges across
Maharashtra and it was practically impossible to
remain physically present with provisional documents
for the purpose of admission.
(g) The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint dated 6 th
November 2012, with respondent no.2. In the said
complaint it was stated that she had applied for
admission in three colleges viz. Dr. Ulhas Patil Medical
College, Jalgaon, Dr. Vithal Rao Vikhe Medical College,
Ahmednagar and Ashwini Medical College, Solapur. It
was stated that the said colleges did not follow the
rules of admission and the students were having lesser
marks are admitted in the said colleges.
(h) The respondent no. 2 had issued guidelines and
schedule was given to all private unaided
Medical/Dental Colleges for filling up vacant seats at
institute level from merit list of Asso-CET. The
respondent no. 2 held meeting under the chairmanship
Habeeb 7/37
WP.4916.13.doc
of the retired judge of this Court on 14 th August 2012.
The aforesaid guidelines were received in the said
meeting which is evident from the minutes of the
meeting dated 14th August 2012. Inspite of guidelines,
complaints were received about irregularities such as
not adhering to the schedule, not publishing vacant
seats on website and allotting seats to lower
meritorious candidates.
(i) On the receipt of the complaint the respondent no. 2
conducted a meeting on 28th September 2012 and
directed the concerned medical/dental colleges to
submit clarifications on affidavit regarding the
complaints against the institute level admission
process. It was decided by the respondent no. 2 that
the complaint received be inquired by three State level
inquiry committees.
(j) On the basis of reports of enquiry committees,
respondent no. 2 in its meeting dated 11th January
Habeeb 8/37
WP.4916.13.doc
2013, recommended to the State Government to cancel
the said admissions and also to approach the Supreme
Court to extend the cut-off date for admission. The
cut-off date was 30th September 2012 for the academic
year 2012-13.
(k) In the minutes of the meeting dated 11 th January 2013
conducted by respondent no. 2 a reference was made
to irregularities committed by respondent no. 6. The
respondent no.2 confirmed the findings of the enquiry
committee as under ;
"Samiti therefore confirms the findings of
Enquiry Committee as under:-
a) PNS Schedule was not followed.
The admission process was thus not fair,
transparent & merit based. Samiti therefore
disapproves all the admissions i.e. 19 done by
the College/Institute after the last "Common
Admission Process" (CAP) round of Asso-CET-
2012 for the Academic Year 2012-13. Samiti
recommends to Government of Maharashtra to
direct the said College/Institute to cancel the
admissions after last CAP round of Asso-CET-
2012.
5. Considering the large number of resultant
vacancies, Samiti decides to suggest
Habeeb 9/37
WP.4916.13.doc
Government of Maharashtra to consider
moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi for permissions to fill in the
resultant vacancies, extension of cut-off-date
and also praying their in that all admissions
even after CAP rounds be brought under
"Common Admission Process" only."
(l) Similarly, the irregularities committed by respondent
no. 7 were also quoted by confirming the findings of
inquiry committee which are as under ;
"In light of above, Samiti therefore confirms the
findings of Enquiry Committee as under:-
a) College admitted non Meritorious Students.
b) Reservation rules were not followed.
c) Applications sent by speed post and email were
not accepted by college.
d) Attendance record was not kept at the time of
counseling.
The admission process was thus not fair,
transparent & merit based and reservation rules
having not followed in the right perspective.
Samiti therefore disapproves all the admissions
i.e. 07 done by the College/Institute after the
last "Common Admission Process" (CAP) round
of Asso-CET-2012 for the Academic Year 2012-
13. Samiti recommends to Government of
Maharashtra to direct the said College/Institute
to cancel the admissions after last CAP round of
Habeeb 10/37
WP.4916.13.doc
Asso-CET-2012.
5. Considering the number of resultant vacancies,
Samiti decides to suggest Government of
Maharashtra to consider moving the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi for
permissions to fill in the resultant vacancies,
extension of cut-off-date and also praying their
in that all admissions even after CAP rounds be
brought under "Common Admission Process"
only."
(m) Several petitions were filed before this Court against
the respondents and respective colleges. It was
contended that before the cut-off date of 30 th
September 2012 for the admissions to the medical
colleges for the academic year 2012-13, the admissions
were declared closed. It was also contended that
admissions were granted to non-meritorious candidates
by depriving the eligible candidates.
(n) Most of the writ petitions filed before this Court were
disposed of as rejected as there were no vacancies and
much time has lapsed for the academic year 2012-13.
Writ Petition No. 214/2013 was disposed of vide order
Habeeb 11/37
WP.4916.13.doc
dated 12th August 2013. This Court while disposing of
the said petition had observed that petitioner had
pressed only prayer clause (b) of the said petition. As
per the said prayer clause the directions were sought to
be issued to respondent no. 2 to take necessary steps to
provide admissions to the petitioners to the respective
respondents colleges as expeditiously as possible. The
petitioner therein submitted that even before the cut-
off date for concluding the admission process i.e. 30 th
September 2012, the petitioners approached the
respondent no. 2 with the grievance as regard the
illegalities committed by concerned colleges by
admitting ineligible students. It was further contended
that the recommendations of the 2nd respondent have
not been acted upon.
(o) This court in the order dated 12 th August 2013 passed
in writ petition no. 214 of 2013 has observed that it is
not in dispute that 30th September 2012 was the cut-off
Habeeb 12/37
WP.4916.13.doc
date for concluding the admission process to the
medical and dental colleges. The students were
allegedly ineligible and who have been unlawfully
admitted have not been made parties. Probably for
that reason the petitioner had not pressed for the relief
of cancellation of admission granted to the said
students. Therefore, unless admission granted to
certain students is cancelled the petitioners therein
cannot be accommodate. The Court further observed
that, though adjudication on the contention that
ineligible students were unlawfully admitted by the
concerned medical/dental colleges, the Court is not in
a position to grant any relief as prayed for. Issue
whether admissions were illegal or unauthorizedly
granted to some other students remains open. This
court also made reference to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Asha v/s B. D. Sharma
University of Health Science and others pronounced
Habeeb 13/37
WP.4916.13.doc
in Civil Appeal No. 5055 of 2012 and observed that in
paragraph 31 of the said decisions the power to extend
the cut-off date can be exercised by the Apex Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. In the light of another decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Faiza Chaudhari v/s.
State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 2012 (10)
Supreme Court Cases 149 it was observed that the said
decision lays down that a medical seat has a life only in
the year it falls, that to, only till cut-off date, i.e. 30 th
September in the respective year. Hence the petition
was rejected.
(p) Vide order dated 12th August 2013, the aforesaid
judgment and order was challenged by some of the
students by preferring Special Leave Petition before the
Supreme Court. On hearing the petitioners therein and
the respondents, the Supreme Court disposed of the
said Special Leave Petition No. 31900 of 2013, vide
Habeeb 14/37
WP.4916.13.doc
judgment and order dated 2nd September 2014.
(q) In the said decision, the Supreme Court had observed
that none of the petitioners, secured admission at the
said examination in the course of their choice. The
Supreme Court took cognizance of report dated 11th
January 2013, submitted by respondent no. 2. It was
noted that the said report was forwarded to the State
of Maharashtra and inspite of that no action was
initiated in the matter. It was further observed that
after dismissal of the writ petitions by the High Court,
the petitioners there in had preferred Special Leave
Petitions before the said Court and although the said
petition was pending for over a year, the State did not
file any affidavits explaining its stand in the matter. It
was further observed that it is unfortunate situation
that directions given by the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court with a view to ensure compliance with
the mandates of the constitution in the matter of
Habeeb 15/37
WP.4916.13.doc
admissions to various courses run by unaided private
education institutions is allowed to remain only a
paper declaration. The directions of the said Court
mandating the constitution of the committee to
monitor the whole process to ensure that the
educational institutions do not flout the constitutional
mandate and the legal obligations are not adhered to.
Although, the respondent no. 1 constituted the
committee, it did not act upon the recommendations of
the committee. The committee constituted to monitor,
specifically recorded a finding that the admission
process adopted by the members of the respondents
association is faulty and less meritorious students have
been admitted into the colleges in preference to the
more meritorious students.
(r) The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision concluded
by observing that, in the circumstances, though the
relief such as the one sought by the petitioners cannot
Habeeb 16/37
WP.4916.13.doc
be granted at the stage in view of long lapse of time,
the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are
certainly entitled to public law damages. The
respondent no. 1 was directed to pay an amount of Rs.
20,00,000/- to each one of those petitioners towards
public law damages and such payment should be made
within a period of four weeks from the date of passing
order. It was further directed that the respondent no. 1
to indemnify the officers who are responsible for the
inaction on the report of monitoring committee dated
11th January 2013 and take appropriate action against
them including the recovery of the amount from the
said officers.
(s) The respondent no. 1 was slow in complying the
aforesaid directions of the Apex Court within the time
frame as set out therein. The petitioner therein issued
contempt notices on the concerned respondents by
their Advocate's letter dated 21st January 2015.
Habeeb 17/37
WP.4916.13.doc
Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 complied with the
directions of the Supreme Court and paid sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- to each of the petitioners before the
Apex Court.
(t) The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was heard
by this Court on 12th August 2013 itself i.e. the day on
which Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013 was rejected. This
Court had passed the following order in the present
petition on 12th August 2013.
"1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on
instructions, states that he is not pressing
prayers (a) and (c). We accept the statement.
2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on
30th September 2013. In addition to the service
of notice through Court, private notice is
permitted. Learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 5 waives service. Learned AGP
waives service for respondent No. 1."
(u) As per aforesaid order, the petitioner had not pressed
prayers (a) and (c). However, the petition remained
pending for admission for a long period of time. In
Habeeb 18/37
WP.4916.13.doc
view of the order dated 12th August 2013, passed in the
present petition, it would be appropriate to quote the
prayer clauses of the petition.
"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus or any other Writ or Order in nature
of Mandamus as may be deemed fit, directing the
Respondents to take fresh admission / re-
admission in compliance of law and rules ;
b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any
Writ directing the Respondent No. 4 and all its
members to give necessary report of compliance of
rules/regulations and an undertaking to follow
rules and law and giving admissions to
meritorious students on the basis of merit without
any discrimination whatsoever;
c) That this Court be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus, directing Respondent No. 6 and 7,
depending upon the preference of the Petitioner, to
admit the Petitioner after considering her merit
over other students who have scored lower marks;
d) That this Court be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to
inquire into the entire issue of admission and
violation of law and rules by the colleges and take
necessary action against the institution found to
be in violation of law and rules as per law;
e) That pending the final hearing and disposal of
this Writ Petition or other Writ Petition on this
issues, this court be pleased to, if deem fit, convert
the instant petition into a PIL to enable other
students whose rights have been violated to put
up the case before the Bench and in case need be,
Amicus Curiae be appointed for the same looking
Habeeb 19/37
WP.4916.13.doc
and to protect the entire medical eduction system
as whole;
f) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to provide for
cost of this petition as well adequate
compensation from the respective colleges for
damaging the academic career of the Petitioner
and the mental agony and stress caused to the
Petitioner.
(v) The petitioner preferred the aforesaid Civil Application
No. 1053 of 2016 and prayed that the petition may be
disposed of in terms of order dated 2nd September
2014, passed by the Apex Court. The petitioner is
therefore seeking public law damages as awarded by
the Apex Court vide decision dated 2nd September
2014.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner/applicant as well as the respondents. The learned counsel
for the petitioner/applicant submitted that the applicant had
suffered mental agony and the case of the applicant is similar to the
case of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition No. 214 of 2013. He
Habeeb 20/37
WP.4916.13.doc
submitted that the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition No. 214
of 2013 had approached the Apex Court seeking reliefs with regards
to the admissions of the said petitioners by challenging the order
dated 12th August 2013, passed by this Court, rejecting their
petitions. He submitted that the Apex Court had granted public law
damages considering the sufferings of the said petitioner students.
He submitted that the present petition had remained pending in this
Court. The petition was filed during the same period and although
the same was listed on several occasions, it had remained to be
disposed of. He submitted that the facts in the petition are identical
with several such other petitions filed in this Court which were
disposed of by judgment and order dated 12 th August 2013. He
further submitted that there was delay in seeking the similar reliefs
from this Court as on every modified date, it was expected that the
matter would be listed for hearing. However, on every date the
Advocate on record in the present petition had intimated to the
petitioner that no sooner the matter is listed on board, the above
development would be brought to the notice of Court and necessary
Habeeb 21/37
WP.4916.13.doc
order would be sought for. Relying upon the representations of the
Advocate, the petitioner did not insist for moving the Court for
redressal of the grievances on the same line as that of the petitioners
before the Apex Court. He further submitted that although the time
has lapsed, the prejudice continues to be caused to the petitioner
without any redressal and hence the petitioner is now approaching
this Court for indulgence and pray that this Court may grant the
relief in the light of the order of the Apex Court. He further
submitted that the petitioner belongs to OBC category and has been
a meritorious student throughout. Although, the petitioner intended
to pursue her career in MBBS. She had to opt for BDS stream and
she is pursuing the said career.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Sagare vehemently opposed the reliefs
sought by the petitioner/applicant. He submitted that the petitioner
had waived her prayers seeking admission in the writ petition which
is recorded by order dated 12th August 2013. She cannot be allowed
to seek damages on the ground that she could not secure admission
Habeeb 22/37
WP.4916.13.doc
for MBBS course. He further submitted that without amending the
writ petition the petitioner is seeking the disposal of the petition in
terms of order of the Supreme Court dated 2 nd September 2014. He
submitted that the petitioner had not chosen to pursue the writ
petition in the year 2013 and now after the period of about four
years, the civil application is filed seeking public law damages for
extraneous reasons. He submitted that the order passed by the
Supreme Court is applicable only to the petitioners who had
preferred the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. He
submitted that another petitioner Ms. Devyani Vivek Sthalekar who
was also petitioner in Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013 which was
rejected by this Court had approached the Apex Court by preferring
I.A. No. 04 of 2015 seeking reliefs granted by the Supreme Court in
order dated 2nd September 2014. The Supreme Court however
dismissed the application preferred by the said petitioner by order
dated 27th March 2015. He therefore submitted that the petitioner
was not party to Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013 and therefore the
reliefs granted by the Supreme Court cannot be claimed by the
Habeeb 23/37
WP.4916.13.doc
petitioner more particularly in the circumstances that the petitioner
had not pressed the principal prayers in her petition as stated herein
above. He further submitted that the petitioner has failed to explain
the delay in preferring the civil application and the application be
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. He submitted that
petitioner has also admitted in her application that she has opted for
BDS course and she is pursuing the said course. The vague
explanation tendered by the petitioner towards belatedly moving
application is devoid of any substance. It was contended by the Ms.
Devyani Sthalekar, referred to herein above that her case is
identically situated with the petitioners to whom the public law
damages were granted by the Apex Court. Since the Apex Court had
rejected her application, even the petitioner cannot claim such reliefs
before this Court. He also submitted that during the year 2012-13
various complaints regarding irregular admissions were received and
the State Government had appointed the committee for inquiry. On
the basis of report of inquiry the committee had fixed the penalty to
colleges who had committed irregularities in admission process. The
Habeeb 24/37
WP.4916.13.doc
said decision of the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti had been stayed by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 2684/2016, 2686/2016, 2687/2016
and 2695/2016. He also contended that the irregularities were
committed by the private colleges and the State Government should
not be penalized for the same.
7. We have given anxious consideration to the submission
made by both the parties. We have also perused the documents on
record, contents of the petition and the affidavit in reply tendered by
the respondent no. 1. No doubt the petitioner was not party to Writ
Petition No. 214 of 2013. The petitioner had preferred the present
petition separately and claimed for various reliefs. We have noted
that in the order dated 12th August 2013, passed in the present
petition, it was recorded that the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner on the instructions states that he is not pressing prayers
(a) and (c) to the petition and the said statement was accepted. The
Court thereafter issued notice to the respondents and directed them
to file reply within stipulated time. The petition remained pending
Habeeb 25/37
WP.4916.13.doc
before this Court . Prayer clauses (a) and (c) to the petition which
are quoted herein above in the earlier paragraphs no doubt relates to
reliefs sought by the petitioners directing the respondents to take
fresh admission/readmission in compliance of law and rules and that
the respondent nos. 6 and 7 be directed, depending upon the
preference of the petitioner to admit the petitioner after considering
her merits over other students who have scored lower marks.
However, the fact remains that Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013 was
dismissed with observations that it is not possible to grant the
prayers as sought for by the petitioners in the said petition. The said
judgment and order was passed by this court on 12 th August 2013.
The petitioner however on the same date had invited the order in
her petition through her counsel as stated above. We cannot
overlook the fact that the petitioner is otherwise placed in identical
situation with the circumstances in which the petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 214 of 2013, were situated and had been facing similar
mental agony. We have also noted that prayer clauses (b) and (d) of
the petition preferred by the petitioner relates to issuance of
Habeeb 26/37
WP.4916.13.doc
direction to respondent no. 4 and all its members to give necessary
report of compliance of rules/regulations and an undertaking to
follow rules and law and giving admissions to meritorious students
on the basis of merit without any discrimination whatsoever. The
prayer also seeks directions against respondent nos. 1 to 3 to inquire
into the entire issue of admission and violation of law and rules by
the colleges and take necessary action against the institution found
to be in-violation of law and rules as per law. On perusal of the said
prayers it is apparent that the petitioner had challenged the
irregularities committed by the respondents and had insisted that
undertaking should be called for to follow rules and giving
admission to meritorious students on the basis of merit without any
discrimination. In the light of the utter disregard to the rules and
regulations by the concerned respondents we cannot be hyper-
technical in appreciating the prayers made by the petitioner. Prayer
clause (b) was wide enough to exercise the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India to look into the grievance of the
petitioner for grant of the admission sought by the petitioner.
Habeeb 27/37
WP.4916.13.doc
8. We are conscious of the fact that petitioner was the
victim of the circumstances and was denied admission to the course
which she had sought for. This Court could not grant the prayers to
the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013. In the peculiar
circumstance as reflected in the order dated 12 th August 2013 it was
not possible to grant the reliefs prayed by the petitioner. The
petitioner case was identically situated and even if the prayers which
were waived by the petitioner in her petition had continued, the
Court could have passed similar order in the case of the petitioner.
This Court while disposing the Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013 has
observed that it was not possible to grant the prayer of admission to
the course for which the petitioners had applied for in view of
various circumstances including the fact that the petitioner therein
had not arrayed the students who were allegedly ineligible as party
to the petitions and it is not the case of the said petitioners that the
cut-off date for concluding the admission process can be extended as
there are vacant seats. It was also observed that the medical seats
has a life only for the year, that to only till cut-off date i.e. 30 th
Habeeb 28/37
WP.4916.13.doc
September in the respective year and the cut-off date can only be
extended by the Apex Court in exercise of power under Article 142
of the Constitution of India. On perusal of the said observations it is
ample clear that the petitioner was also similarly placed and could
not have succeeded in getting the reliefs even if the petition of the
petitioner was heard at that point of time with all the reliefs as
claimed in this petition. It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court
while deciding the Special Leave Petition has observed that the
petitioners could not secure admission at the said examination in the
course of their choice. The Apex Court also quoted the
recommendations of the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti wherein Samiti
had recommended to Government of Maharashtra to direct the
colleges to cancel the admissions after lapse of CAP round of MH-
CET-2012. The Samiti has also suggested to the Government of
Maharashtra moving the Supreme Court for permission to fill in the
resultant vacancy, extension of cut-off date and also prayed therein
that all admission even after CAP round be brought under common
admission process. Although the report of the Samiti was forwarded
Habeeb 29/37
WP.4916.13.doc
to the State of Maharashtra and inspite of that no action was
initiated by the State. It is in the light of the circumstances, the
Supreme Court observed that it was not possible to grant the
admissions to the petitioners in the said Special Leave Petition. The
Apex Court however, observed that inspite of the recommendations
of the committee, the State of Maharashtra did not chose to act upon
the report of the committee. In the circumstances, the Supreme
Court observed that though reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot
be granted at the said stage, in view of the long lapse of time the
said petitioners are entitled to public law damages and therefore, the
State of Maharashtra was directed to pay the amount as stipulated in
the aforesaid order by the Apex Court.
9. The petitioner is similarly placed with the petitioners in
Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013. Although the petitioner was not party
to Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013, the present petition preferred by
the Petitioner is pending for final disposal before this Court. The
objections raised by the respondent that the petitioner has not
amended the petition seeking the public law damages or that
Habeeb 30/37
WP.4916.13.doc
belatedly filing of the application seeking damages should not be
entertained is devoid of merits. The mental agony of the petitioner
on account of failure to get admission for MBBS course as sought by
her is perpetual. In that sense the petitioner is identically situated
with the petitioners to whom the relief was granted by the Supreme
Court. The said petitioners had approached the Apex Court as there
petition was dismissed by the High Court. It is necessary to consider
that the petitioners before the Supreme Court had not prayed for
public law damages and their petition was for seeking reliefs of
admission and challenging the order passed by the High Court.
Merely on the ground that the petitioner had waived certain prayers
and the petition had remained pending for a long period of time is
no ground to deny the public law damages to the petitioner. In the
civil application the petitioner has narrated the circumstances in
which her petition has remained pending and prayers for the relief
of public law damages. The other objections of the respondents that
the petitioner is pursuing BDS course and is in the final year of the
said course is no ground to refuse the reliefs sought by the
Habeeb 31/37
WP.4916.13.doc
petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner before the Apex
Court had also resorted to other courses and some of them had
secured admission in the subsequent year but not in the college of
their choice.
10. The learned AGP had stressed upon the fact that the
application preferred by Ms. Devyani Sthalekar was rejected by the
Supreme Court. She had belatedly moved the application seeking
damages after the Apex Court had passed the judgment and order
dated 2nd September 2014. It is true that Ms. Devyani Sathlekar was
party to Writ Petition 214 of 2013 before this Court and was
similarly placed with the students who had preferred Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court and should be granted public law
damages. However, on perusal of correspondence placed on record
by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, we have noted that the
Deputy Secretary to Government of Maharashtra had forwarded a
communication dated 2nd June 2016, to the Assistant Registrar,
National Human Rights Commission and in the said communication
it was stated that Ms. Devyani Sthalekar was one of the Petitioner in
Habeeb 32/37
WP.4916.13.doc
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 214 of 2013 and that she did not
approach the Supreme Court by preferring SLP along with other
candidates. She filed I.A. No. 04 of 2015 in SLP No. 31900 of 2013
for extending to her the reliefs granted in order dated 2 nd September
2013 passed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed
the said I.A. preferred by Ms. Devyani Sthalekar which indicates
that, only the petitioners who were party to SLP (C) No. 31900 of
2013 are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. From the
said communication it is implicit that Ms. Devyani Sthalekar was not
party to Special Leave Petition preferred by the other candidates and
her application was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order
dated 27th March 2015. We have perused the order rejecting the IA
No.4/2015, preferred by Ms. Devyani Sthalekar. The order dated
27th March 2015 reads as follows:-
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made following order. IA
No. 4/2015 is dismissed."
11. Perhaps the reasons tendered by the authority of the
respondent no. 1 in the aforesaid communications are probable that
Habeeb 33/37
WP.4916.13.doc
Ms. Devyani Sthalekar was not party to the Special Leave Petition
which was preferred by the other candidates.
12. We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner is
similarly placed with that of the candidates who had preferred
Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. We are conscious of
the fact that the petitioner is the victim on account of irregularities
committed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7. The High Court and the
Apex Court has observed that the colleges including respondent nos.
6 and 7 have committed gross irregularities while giving admissions.
It is also observed that inspite of the recommendations by the
Pravesh Niyantran Samiti, the State of Maharashtra did not take any
steps as recommended by the Samiti. In the light of the said
situation the Apex Court had granted public law damages to the
petitioners therein. The Apex Court had observed that long gap of
time and inability to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the
petitioners, in view of the circumstances referred to in the said
judgment, the petitioners therein were entitled for public law
damages. We are of the opinion that even the present petitioner is
Habeeb 34/37
WP.4916.13.doc
entitled for the public law damages as awarded by the Apex Court to
the other candidates. It is not open to the Respondent no. 1 to state
that the irregularities were committed by the colleges for which the
State should not be penalized by asking them to pay public law
damages. We have noted herein above that the State machinery had
failed to implement the recommendations of the Samiti. The Samiti
had confirmed the findings of inquiry committee, highlighting the
violations of rules and regulations by the colleges while granting
admissions to the students. It would not be out of place to mention
that the petitioner in the present petition had also prayed for
adequate compensation from the respective colleges for damaging
the academic career of the petitioner and the mental agony and the
stress caused to the petitioner. We have also noted that in the
present petition which was pending for disposal the petitioner had
averred that the denial of the admission has completely damaged
her career and the right to practice as a doctor in future seems to
have been taken away. Such an act on the part of the respondent
have caused great mental agony, stress and torture not only to the
Habeeb 35/37
WP.4916.13.doc
petitioner but also to the family of the petitioner whose dream was
to see to the petitioner as a doctor which has been completely
shattered. In this circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
respondent no.1 is liable to pay public law damages to the petitioner.
13. Hence we pass the following order.
O R D E R
a) Civil Application No. 1053 of 2016 is allowed in
terms of judgment and order dated 2nd September
2014, passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave
Petition No. 31900 of 2013 and the respondent no.
1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-
to the petitioner/applicant towards public law
damages, within a period of eight weeks from
today.
Habeeb 36/37
WP.4916.13.doc
b) Civil Application No. 1053 of 2016 and Writ
Petition No. 4916 of 2013 stands disposed of.
c) No order as to costs.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
Habeeb 37/37
