Bombay High Court
Swami Ramanand Teeth Shikshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep Vishnupant Marne
1 wp 3548.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3548 OF 2019
1. Swami Ramanand Teerth Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal Shahagad through
its President and another .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
and others .. Respondents
Shri B. L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. S. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The Respondent No. 4 served.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
RESERVED FOR ORDER ON : 28.07.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 02.08.2022
FINAL ORDER (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :-
. The present petition was originally filed by the petitioners
seeking declaration that they are entitled to receive 100% grant
in aid for new subjects of Public Administration, Psychology,
Home Science, Dramatics, Computer Science and Physical
Education with effect from the date of commencement of the said
subjects in the petitioner No. 2 college in accordance with the
government policy as per the Government Resolution dated
17.06.1995. However, during the pendency of present petition,
2 wp 3548.19
the proposal of the petitioners came to be rejected by the
respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13.08.2019. The petitioners
have accordingly amended the petition and have challenged the
communication dated 13.08.2019 by adding prayer clause B-1 to
the petition.
2. During the course of his submissions, the learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners has sought to assail the
communication dated 13.08.2019 essentially on the following
three grounds :
(i) That the said decision is discriminatory as similar request
of Vaidyanath College, Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed has been
granted vide the Government Resolution dated 24.02.2019 and
that, therefore, the action of the respondents is discriminatory
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(ii) That similar issue has been decided by this Court, Bench
at Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 5366 of 2013 in the case of
Vidyabharati Sanstha, Wardha Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and another.
(iii) That the petitioners fulfill all the conditions laid down in
the Government Resolutions dated 17.06.1995 and 26.05.1999,
which provide for 100% grant in aid for new subjects.
3. The petition is resisted by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by filing
affidavit in reply dated 23.09.2019, inter alia, contending that
3 wp 3548.19
the petitioners are not entitled to be granted 100% grant in aid
for the new subjects in pursuance to the Government Resolution
dated 17.06.1995. With regard to the plea of discrimination,
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed an additional affidavit dated
04.09.2020 denying any discriminatory treatment being meted
out to the petitioners.
4. We have heard learned counsel for respective parties and
have carefully perused the record of the case.
5. The first submission of the learned advocate for the
petitioners is that they are meted out discriminatory treatment
vis-a-vis Vaidyanath College, Parli Vaijanath, Dist. Beed, which
is raised by relying on the Government Resolution dated
24.01.2019. By the said Government Resolution, State
Government has granted approval for grant in aid for the
subjects of Computer Science and Physical Education to
Vaidyanath College, Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. The respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 in their additional affidavit, have pointed out that the
said Government Resolution dated 24.01.2019 is restricted to the
subjects of Computer Science and Physical Education, whereas
grant in aid claimed by the petitioners is for the subjects of
Public Administration, Psychology, Home Science and
Dramatics. It is further pointed out that the grant in aid in
favour of Vaidyanath College, Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed is
sanctioned in pursuance of Government Resolution dated
04.04.2012 under which grant in aid is admissible in respect of
subjects of Computer Science, Physical Education and
4 wp 3548.19
Electronics. The State Government has contended that there is
no parity between the case of the petitioners and that of
Vaidyanath College, Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. We are satisfied
by the said explanation offered by the State Government and do
not find that any discriminatory treatment has been meted out to
the petitioners vis-a-vis Vaidyanath College, Parli Vaijnath, Dist.
Beed. Therefore, the contention of the learned advocate for the
petitioners in this regard is rejected.
6. Now we come to the second ground of challenge viz reliance
on the judgment dated 25.07.2014 passed by this Court, Bench at
Nagpur, in Writ Petition No. 5366 of 2013. After going through
the said judgment, we find that the same has no remote
application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In
the said case, the petitioner society was initially granted
permission to open first section in commerce faculty.
Subsequently, on account of increase in the strength of students,
permission was sought to open second section in commerce
faculty, which was also granted. However while extending 100%
grant in aid to the commerce faculty, the Government restricted
the same only to one out of the two sections in the commerce
faculty. The grievance of not providing grant in aid to the
second section of commerce faculty was raised in Writ Petition
No. 5366 of 2013 by the petitioner therein. This Court held that
the action of the State Government to deny 100% grant in aid to
the second section of commerce faculty was bad in law and
accordingly directed the State Government to provide grant in
aid to both the sections of the commerce faculty. As against, this
5 wp 3548.19
the petitioners are seeking grant in aid for new subjects. Thus
the said judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5366
of 2013 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the
present case and accordingly the second contention of the learned
advocate for the petitioners also deserves to be rejected.
7. Now we come to the third contention raised by the learned
advocate for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is
squarely covered by the Government Resolutions dated
17.06.1995 and 26.05.1999. We have carefully gone through the
said Government Resolutions dated 17.06.1995 and 26.05.1999.
By the Government Resolution dated 17.06.1995, it was resolved
to grant 100% grants to one senior college in the talukas. The
petitioner No. 2 college has been established in Ghansavangi
taluka of Jalna District and by way of Government Resolution
issued on 31.03.1999, 100% grant in aid has already been
sanctioned to the petitioner No. 2 college in accordance with
Government Resolution dated 17.06.1995 as a special case
considering the fact that there was no other senior college in the
said taluka. By Government Resolution issued on 26.05.1999, all
that is provided, is that in the event of only one or two out of the
three traditional streams of Arts, Science and Commerce are
started in such college at taluka and subsequently the college
starts balance second or third stream, such stream would also be
granted 100% grant in aid from the date of commencement of
such stream(s). The Government Resolution dated 26.05.1999
further provided that in case new optional subjects were
receiving 100% grant in aid, such subjects would also continue to
6 wp 3548.19
receive 100% grant in aid and that all professional courses and
subjects which were on permanent non grant basis would
continue to remain on permanent non grant basis. We fail to
comprehend how the Government Resolution dated 26.05.1999
would come to the aid of the petitioners. Therefore third
contention of the learned advocate for petitioners also deserves to
be rejected.
8. We therefore find that petition filed by the petitioners is
devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. The
same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
bsb/Aug. 22
