Bombay High Court
Asmita Milind Moon vs State Of Maha. Thr. Principal ... on 29 April, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
MCA 95.22.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.95 OF 2022 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.793/2021(D)
Asmita Milind Moon
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Justice &
Special Assistant, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vishal Anand, Advocate for applicant/petitioner.
Shri N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for non-
applicants/respondents.
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE :- APRIL 29, 2022.
Heard Shri Vishal Anand, learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner, who was not the arguing counsel when
the writ petition was disposed of by the judgment which is
sought to be reviewed and Shri N.R.Patil, learned Assistant
Government Pleader who appears by waiving the notice for the
non-applicants/respondents.
2. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner is not pursuing the M.B.A.
course in London School of Economics and the petitioner has
been admitted to M. Sc. course in Social Innovations and
Entrepreneurship which is not a M.B.A. course. He submits
that this Court accepting the arguments of the
respondents/State that the petitioner was actually pursuing
the M.B.A. course, held that the course being studied by the
petitioner not being of two years' duration, the petitioner was
not entitled to receive any foreign scholarship as per the
Scheme formulated by the State of Maharashtra, which is an
error of fact patently seen from the record of the case.
3. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for
the petitioner invites our attention to the admission letter and
relevant clauses of the Government Resolution dated
30.06.2018.
4. On consideration of the submissions of the petitioner
and the documents relied upon, we find that the petitioner is
pleading a new case, not pleaded in the petition and argued at
the time of final hearing.
5. The course being studied by the petitioner is M.Sc. in
Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship, as it appears from the
impugned order dated 04.11.2020 that this course has been
considered to be a course similar to M.B.A. and since this
course was of less than two years duration, the respondent
no.3 found that the petitioner was not eligible for receiving
foreign scholarship in terms of Clause 6.1 of the Government
Resolution dated 30.06.2018. This was also one of the
conditions of the advertisement inviting applications for grant
of foreign scholarship. Condition No.31 of the advertisement
in question clarified that the foreign scholarship scheme would
not be applicable to that M.B.A. course which is less than of
two years duration. The petitioner never pleaded nor argued
in the petition that the M. Sc. course in Social Innovation and
Entrepreneurship to which the petitioner has been admitted by
the London School of Economics was not equivalent to M.B.A.
course. In fact, the admission letter issued to the petitioner
shows that this course conducted by the Department of
Management of London School of Economics pertains to
development of business sense in social innovation and
entrepreneurial skills and considering these aspects that the
respondent no.3 took a decision that this course which was
quite akin to M.B.A. was not eligible for grant of foreign
scholarship. In this backdrop, it became necessary for the
petitioner to plead a specific case that M. Sc. is a course not
equivalent to M.B.A. course and also to make specific prayer to
that effect. On these counts, there was a failure on the part of
the petitioner. The petitioner also did not make submissions
on these lines. Now, a new case is being averred by the
petitioner to point out some deficiency in the judgment, which
in the opinion of the petitioner is an error apparent on the face
of the record which, in fact, is not, against the background of
facts and circumstances just noted.
6. When it was never the case of the petitioner that her
course was not equivalent to M.B.A. course, there could not
have been any consideration of the same and thus there could
not have been any commission of error by this Court. There is
no substance in the review application. The review application
stands rejected.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Andurkar..
Digitally Signed byJAYANT S
ANDURKAR
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:
29.04.2022 18:22
