Prathemesh Mahesh Kulkarni vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12763 Bom

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                       WRIT PETITION NO.9164 OF 2021


           1        Prathemesh Mahesh Kulkarni,
                    Age 23 yrs., Occ. Education,

           2        Mahesh Vasantrao Kulkarni,
                    Age 54 yrs., Occ. Service,

                    Both are r/o House No.548, N-6,
                    Avishkar Colony, CIDCO,
                    Aurangabad - 431 003.

                                                                    ... Petitioners
                                  ... Versus ...


           1        The State of Maharashtra,
                    Through Principal Secretary,
                    School Education & Sports Department,
                    Mantralaya, Mumbai.

           2        The Director of Education,
                    Central Administrative Building,
                    Pune.

           3        The Director of Technical Education,
                    Fort, Mumbai.

           4        The Education Officer (Secondary),
                    Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
                    Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

           5        The Accounts Officer - Education,
                    Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,
                    Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

                                                           ... Respondents




::: Uploaded on - 09/12/2022                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/12/2022 20:17:26 :::
                                            2                                  WP_9164_2021_Jd



                                           ...
                        Mr. V.S. Kadam, Advocate for petitioners
                    Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4
                                           ...

                                    CORAM :      SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                                 Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

                                    RESERVED ON :      18th OCTOBER, 2022
                                    PRONOUNCED ON : 08th DECEMBER, 2022



JUDGMENT :              [PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]




1              The petitioners are the son and father, who seek reimbursement

of the fees paid for the education of petitioner No.1 for M.B.A. Course as per

the Government Resolution dated 19.08.1995 and proposal sent by

respondent Nos.4 and 5 to be processed by Government for the

reimbursement for the entire tuition fees.

2 The facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner No.2 is

serving as Full Time Librarian in Sharda Mandir Kanya Prashala,

Aurangabad. Earlier, he was Part Time Librarian, who came to be appointed

by following due process of law on 27.09.1993. His initial appointment was

with Saraswati Bhavan High School, Godhegaon, Tq. Soygaon and the said

school is run by Saraswati Bhavan Shikshan Sanstha, Aurangabad. The

3 WP_9164_2021_Jd

school is receiving 100% grants from the respondent-State. The services of

petitioner No.2 were approved by respondent No.4 as Part Time Librarian

and thereafter as Full Time Librarian of the said school also. He is

continuously working on the said post in the said school. Thereafter, he came

to be transferred to Sharda Mandir Kanya Prashala, Aurangabad.

Respondent No.4 has also granted the approval for the said transfer.

Respondent No.1 had issued Government Resolution on 19.08.1995 for

providing free education from 1st standard up to Post Graduation level to the

wards of teaching and non teaching staff working in the Secondary and

Higher Secondary Schools, which are receiving 100% grants. The said

scheme is applicable to those students only who have secured admission

against free seat. Respondent No.1 has thereafter issued Corrigendum from

time to time to the said Government Resolution. Petitioner No.1, who is a

son of petitioner No.2 secured 79.64% marks in 10 th standard in the year

2013 and thereafter he secured 62.46% in the Higher Secondary Examination

in the year 2015. Petitioner No.1 has completed Bachelor of Engineering

(Mechanical) in the academic year 2019 in the First Class with Distinction.

He had then appeared entrance examination online conducted by State

Common Entrance Test Cell for Master of Business Administration i.e. MBA/

MMS CET 2020. Petitioner No.1 got admission to the MBA course in CAP

Round as per merit and he has been allotted Shree C.E. Society's Indira

4 WP_9164_2021_Jd

Institute of Management, Pune. Thereafter, he paid amount of Rs.2,20,000/-

for First Year Academic year fees for the said course to the institution.

Petitioner No.1 had thereafter applied to the said institute to forward

proposal seeking reimbursement of his fees as per the GR dated 19.08.1995.

It was accordingly forwarded to respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent Nos.4

and 5 have not considered the said proposal as per the policy decision taken

in GR dated 19.08.1995. Rather they have wrongly applied GR dated

16.03.2021. Petitioners contend that the subsequent GR dated 16.03.2021 is

violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in Writ

Petition No.5846 of 2020 (Miss Khan Sana Tahedis d/o Ajaz Ahmed Khan vs.

The State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 19.10.2020 directed the full

reimbursement of the tuition fees of the said petition within three months

based on the same Government Resolution dated 19.08.1995. Hence, the

petitioners are seeking declaration that the Government Resolution dated

16.03.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of

Constitution of India and the policy under GR dated 19.08.1995. Further,

they have asked for the writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.4

and 5 to reimburse the entire tuition fees of the petitioner No.1 in terms of

GR 19.08.1995.

3              Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Anil Sampatrao Sabale,





                                        5                                   WP_9164_2021_Jd

Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on behalf of

respondent No.2. It has been submitted that the petition is not maintainable

even in view of GR dated 19.08.1995. Even in the said Government

Resolution it has been stated that those benefits, which have been given

under the said Resolution, are extended to those students who would file

their application with the competent authority within a period of 30 days

from the date of admission. Thereafter, there is also a condition that such

application should reach the Education Officer prior to 31 st August of the

academic year. Here, in this case, the petitioner's application is not as per the

said schedule and, therefore, it was liable to be rejected. It can be seen from

the application that was presented by the father of the petitioner No.1 that it

was almost after the completion of her Post Graduation, more particularly, in

the month of October, 2020. The Education and Sports Department has now

issued Government Resolution on 16.03.2021, whereby clarification is given

up to what extent the fees are eligible to be reimbursed to the wards of the

staff. That clarification is in respect of meaning of some of the words

mentioned in GR dated 19.08.1995. The reimbursement has been now

allowed to a certain limit and not full reimbursement. Even as per letter

dated 06.05.1998 the Director, School Education Department has already

declared the rates for different technical courses for reimbursement of fees.

Now, the limit is up to Rs.6,000/- per student.        It is then stated that in




                                         6                                  WP_9164_2021_Jd

another writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.969 of 2017 where similar issue

was involved and this Court had directed reimbursement to the remaining

tuition fees within three months from the orders. In view of the fact that the

contempt petition was filed against the Government, the Government was

compelled to reimburse amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to concerned petitioner as a

special and exceptional case. The present petitioners cannot equate their

case with that case.

4 It will not be out of place to mention here that petitioner No.2

has then filed re-joinder to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that

inadvertently the date of the application to the competent Management

remained to be mentioned. In fact, such application was presented to the

institute on 08.02.2021 itself. However, thereafter there was second wave of

Covid-19 Pandemic, the educational institutions were not functioning

physically and, therefore, after opening of institutes as per the directions

issued by the State Government the institute has forwarded the proposal of

reimbursement of the fees to respondent Nos.4 and 5. The amount of the

fees was in fact deposited by the petitioners on 18.02.2022 itself. There was

no delay caused by the petitioners in submitting the proposal.

5              Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.S. Kadam for petitioners and





                                                       7                                       WP_9164_2021_Jd



learned AGP Mr. A.R. Kale for respondent Nos.1 to 4.


6                  The petitioners have produced on record documents to show that

petitioner No.2 was initially Part Time Librarian and then his approval on the

post of Full Time Librarian has also been approved by the Government. The

GR has been produced, which states specifically that the Government had

decided to reimburse the tuition fees of the wards of teaching and non

teaching staff of the aided schools. Such free reimbursement was to be given

for the tuition fees from 1st standard to Post Graduation. The said

Government Resolution, however, contains conditions as to how an

application should be presented, when it should be presented. Condition

Nos.6 and 7 are relevant, which are as follows -

        " 6½        ;k loyrhlkBh vtZ dj.;kph dk;Zi/nrh %

        ¼1½         ;k loyrhlkBh ek/;fed f"k{[email protected]"k{kdsrj deZpkjh ;kauh njo'khZ T;k "kS{kf.kd

laLFksr R;kapk ikY; f"kdr vlsy ¼fdaok T;k laLFksr izos"k ?ks.;klkBh vtZ dsyk vlsy½ R;k "kS{kf.kd laLFksP;k izeq[kkl vtZ dsyk ikfgts- fofgr ueqU;krhy vtZ T;k "kS{kf.kd laLFksr ikY; @ fon;kFkhZ f"kdr vlsy fdaok f"k{k.k ?ks.;kpk fopkj vlsy R;k "kS{kf.kd laLFksr feGsy- fu;e 10 izek.ks fofgr ueqU;krhy lsosps izek.ki= vtkZlkscr u pqdrk tksM.ks-

¼2½ vls vtZ ikY;kus vxksnjp "kS{kf.kd lalFksr izos"k ?ksryk vlY;kl "kS{kf.kd o'kZ lq: >kY;kiklwu 30 fnolkr vkf.k T;kauh uO;kus izos"k ?ksryk vlsy R;kauh izos"k ? ksrysY;k fnukadkiklwu 30 fnolkaP;k vkr lknj dj.ks vko";d vkgs-

        ¼3½         "kS{kf.kd laLFksP;k izeq[kkus vtZ lacaf/kr f"k{k.kkf/kdkjh ¼ek/;fed½] ftYgk ifj'kn




                                                  8                                      WP_9164_2021_Jd

fdaok f"k{k.k fujh{kd] c`gUeqacbZ ;kaP;kdMs fu;e 1 [kkyh uewn dsY;kizek.ks izek.ki=kP;k izkIrhuarj lknj djkosr-

7½ mf"kjk vkysys vtZ fdaok viw.kZ vtZ ukdkj.;kr ;srhy %

¼v½ fu;e 6 [kkyh fofgr dsysyk dkyko/kh laiY;kuarj izkIr >kysys vtZ fdaok fof"k'V ekfgrh vlysys viw.kZ vtZ fdaok fofgr ueqU;kr uksdjhps izek.ki= lkscr ulysys loZ vtZ rMdkQMdh QsVkG.;kr ;srhy-

¼c½ "kS{kf.kd laLFksP;k izeq[kkus loZ vtZ R;ko'khZ 31 vkWxLV jksth fdaok R;kiwohZ f"k{k.kkf/kdkjh ¼ek/;fed½] ftYgk ifj'kn fdaok f"k{k.k fujh{kd] c`gUeqacbZ ;kaP;kdMs lknj djkosr- f"k{k.kkf/kdkjh] ftYgk ifj'kn fdaok f"k{k.k fujh{kd] c`gUeqacbZ gs lnj loyr eatwj dj.;kl tckcnkj vlwu rs R;kapk fu.kZ; "kD; frrD;k yodj ijarq dks.kR;kgh ifjfLFkrhr 1 vkWDVkscjiwohZ dGorhy-"

7 The petitioners have further produced on record the Passing

Certificate of petitioner No.1 of 10 th standard, Higher Secondary Certificate

i.e. 12th standard, then, B.E. Mark Sheet as well as Decree Certificate. He had

appeared for CET Exam and he has received the admission to Shree C.E.

Society's Indira Institute of Management, Pune for MBA course from free

sheet. Therefore, all those conditions in the said GR dated 19.08.1995 in

respect of educational qualifications and the eligibility appears to have been

fulfilled. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also not disputing this fact.

8 The petitioners have produced application filed by petitioner

No.1 to his institute stating that he wants to avail the facility as per GR dated

19.08.1995 and, therefore, the institute should take up the further steps. The

9 WP_9164_2021_Jd

copy that has been attached to the petition does not bear any signature nor

the seal of the institute. Therefore, along with his re-joinder the petitioner

No.2 has given a copy of the same. Said copy then gives the date as

08.02.2021 in hand, whereas the other contents are computer typed and

printed. Then, it bears the seal of the institute and it has been stated -

"Dear Sir, Maam

We have received application and have issued Bonafide Certificate on 08.02.2021.

Sd/-

Pradeep Kharat, Academic Coordinator MBA IIMP"

The Bonafide Certificate, which has been produced on record

dated 08.02.2021 bears a signature and the seal of the institute, but it is

stated that the said signature is by a person for Director but exactly who is

the person, who issued the said Bonafide Certificate, his designation, is not

stated. Thereafter, there is also signature and stamp of Headmistress of

Shree Sharda Mandir Kanya Prashala, Aurangabad. For what purpose the

Headmistress of the school has made signature on the Bonafide certificate

issued by the another institute, is a question. However, then, we gathered

that her signature appears to have been later on obtained for certifying that

this is a true copy, but she has not made that kind of endorsement. We have

10 WP_9164_2021_Jd

every kind of doubt in respect of copy of the application that has been

produced at Exh.R-1 along with re-joinder. Why an Academic Coordinator

should acknowledge the said application, is a question and when that

acknowledgment has been given to the student rather the applicant (herein

the petitioner No.1), then, why the Academic Coordinator should say, "Dear

Sir/Maam". The fact remains from further document i.e. Exh.'E' that the said

institute forwarded the application/proposal to the Accounts Officer,

Education, Education Officer Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad on

03.06.2021 and it was received by respondent No.4's office on 08.06.2021.

Thus, it is to be noted that though it appears that the petitioners had

deposited the tuition fees of the petitioner No.1 to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/-

on 18.02.2022, it appears that the petitioners had not made application

within 30 days of the admission taken by the petitioner No.1. At the cost of

repetition, we say that we have every doubt about the document which has

been produced at Exh.'R-1' alleged to be submitted by petitioners to the

institute on 08.02.2021, as the copy thereof which has been annexed along

with the petition does not bear any signature and the acknowledgment.

Petitioner No.2 in his re-joinder has not given satisfactory clarification, as to

why Exh.'R-1' was not annexed to the petition. The explanation tried to be

submitted that copies of the application/proposal were in two sets and the

second set inadvertently did not mention the date, is unacceptable. It has

11 WP_9164_2021_Jd

been produced only after the objection has been taken by the respondents

and that too, the wordings in the acknowledgment are rather creating doubt.

Another fact to be noted is that in the said proposal dated 03.06.2021 that

was forwarded by the institute, where the petitioner No.1 has taken

admission, there is absolutely no mention of reason as to why it has been

forwarded belatedly. If at all the institute had received the proposal on

08.02.2021, then, why the institute was sitting over the file till 03.06.2021.

There is also another certificate by the institute dated 08.02.2021 produced

along with Exh.'E' signed by Director of the institute stating that the first year

tuition fees is Rs.2,20,000/- and the amount can be disbursed through online,

RTGS/NEFT and the bank details have been given. There is one fee receipt

which is a student's copy stating that tuition fee of Rs.30,000/- is paid on

30.01.2021. Further along with re-joinder, there is another fee receipt which

is also a student's copy, which states that in all amount of Rs.1,90,000/- has

been paid on 17.04.2021. If these two receipts are then considered, then, it

can be seen that the entire payment was not made by the petitioners on

08.02.2021 on the day when the alleged application Exh.'R-1' was presented

to the institute. The amounts of these two fee receipts dated 30.01.2021 and

17.04.2021 differ from the certificate that was issued by the Director on

08.02.2021. Under such circumstance, the respondents were justified in not

granting the benefit under the GR dated 19.08.1995, as the direct conditions

12 WP_9164_2021_Jd

were not observed by the petitioners. As per clause-VII of the said GR, the

respondents had right to reject the applications, which have been received

belatedly or they are incomplete.

9 It appears that still the respondents applied the recent GR dated

16.03.2021 and then granted amount of Rs.6,000/- per student, which

appears to be a justified act.

10 The facts in Writ Petition No.5846 of 2020 were different. In

that case the petitioner had complied with the strict conditions from the old

GR dated 19.08.1995. No doubt, this Court had held that the earlier GR was

the example of benevolent policy and once the Government had taken a

policy decision to provide free education to the wards of a full time teachers

teaching in private aided primary, secondary or higher secondary school,

then, the authorities implementing the scheme cannot turn around and say

that the reimbursement of tuition fees would be restricted to a particular

amount. It was also taken a note of the fact that the Government has not

disbanded the policy as introduced in GR dated 19.08.1995. As the said

policy still exists and taking note of the petitioner therein that she had

complied with the terms, the reimbursement was granted. Here, we take out

that exception and even by considering the facts of the case on the conditions

13 WP_9164_2021_Jd

those were to be observed as per GR dated 19.08.1995; yet the case of the

petitioner is not covered under the same. Therefore, the said decision of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court will not be helpful to the petitioners herein.

11 For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the present

petition. It deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. No order as to

costs.

( Y.G. Khobragade, J. )                         ( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )




agd