Bombay High Court
Vipasshi D/O Tarkeshwar Golghate ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 25 August, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
2023:BHC-NAG:12619-DB
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2152 OF 2021
Vipasshi d/o Tarkeshwar Golghate and another. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher & ...RESPONDENTS
Technical Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. S.W.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A.S.Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 6th JULY, 2023
ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON : 25th AUGUST 2023
P. C.
In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned
counsel for the parties have been heard.
2. The petitioner no.1 possesses a validity certificate of belonging to
Mahar, Scheduled Caste dated 04.01.2019. She is domiciled in the State of
Maharashtra and appeared for the NEET examination in the year 2020-21
from Nagpur. On the basis of her merit, she secured admission in the first
year M.B.B.S. course at N.C.Medical College, Panipat, Haryana. The
petitioner no.2 also possesses a caste validity certificate of belonging to
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 2/9
Mahar, Scheduled Caste dated 27.11.2018. He is also domiciled in the State
of Maharashtra. Having appeared for the NEET examination in the year
2020-21 from Nagpur, he has secured admission in the first year M.B.B.S.
course at T. S. Mishra Medical College, Lucknow (UP). Both the petitioners
contend that they are unable to pay the tuition fees as well as examination
fees which are approximately Rs.14 Lakhs annually. Under the belief that
they are entitled to reimbursement of tuition fees and examination fees for
students belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, they seek to rely upon
the Government Resolution dated 01.11.2003. As per aforesaid policy
education expenses being borne by the State Government was stated to be
continued for every academic year from 2007-08 and onwards till 2014-15.
On 31.03.2016 the Higher and Technical Education Department of the State
Government issued a Government Resolution in the matter of reimbursement
of education fees from the academic year 2015-16. On the same day, the
Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of the State Government
issued a Government Resolution by which financial assistance was provided
for students from the reserved category taking education within the State of
Maharashtra. It is under this belief that the petitioners considered
themselves entitled to the benefit of reimbursement of tuition fees and
examination fees. On 26.10.2016 a communication was issued by the
Commissioner, Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune to the Regional
Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Nagpur stating therein that the
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 3/9
benefit of Government Resolution dated 01.11.2003 of reimbursement of
admission fees and examination fees was to be discontinued insofar as the
students pursuing their education in other States than the State of
Maharashtra. It was stated that those students who were receiving such
benefits and were still continuing with their education would continue to
receive the benefits till completion of their education. However, such benefit
for the first time would not be made available to any new student. As a
result, the petitioners contend that they are not held eligible to receive
reimbursement of tuition fees and exam fees. It is in this backdrop the
petitioners have sought a declaration that the Government Resolutions dated
31.03.2016 issued by the Higher and Technical Education as well as the
Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of State of Maharashtra
resulted in discrimination and the same were not applicable to the
petitioners. The petitioners seek quashing of the communications dated
26.10.2016 and 22.02.2021 that have been issued by the Commissioner,
Social Welfare, M.S., Pune and the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare
Department, Nagpur respectively holding students who are pursuing
education in other States to be not entitled to the benefit of aforesaid
Government Resolutions.
3. In the reply filed by the Department of Social Justice and Special
Assistance as well as the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Pune, it
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 4/9
has been stated that pursuant to Government Resolution dated 01.11.2003
the benefit of reimbursement in tuition fees and examination fees was
extended to some students who were studying beyond the State of
Maharashtra. A clarification was however issued on 26.10.2016 that such
benefits would not be made available to new students taking education in
other States. A practice was followed by the Social Welfare Department by
issuing Government Resolutions every year and on that basis such benefits
were extended from 2007 to 2016. The Scheme was applicable only to
students from the Scheduled Caste category who were pursuing their studies
in government recognized private non-grant-in-aid or permanently non-grant
colleges located in the State of Maharashtra. Such benefit was not made
admissible to such students studying outside the State of Maharashtra. A
further affidavit has been filed by the said respondents on 25.10.2021 in
which it has been stated that the application preferred by the petitioner no.1
on 08.02.2021 was considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare
Department, on 15.02.2021 and it was stated therein that the Freeship
Scheme was not made applicable to new students from the year 2017-18 and
hence the petitioner no.1 was not found eligible to such benefit. The
petitioner no.1 in her affidavit has sought to urge that since the petitioners
were admitted in their respective colleges through Centralized Admission
Process, they ought to be held entitled to receive such benefit. Yet another
affidavit filed by the said respondents dated 26.07.2022 by which it has been
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 5/9
reiterated that the benefit of the aforesaid Scheme was made admissible only
to students belonging to Scheduled Caste category who were studying in
professional institutions within the State of Maharashtra.
Pursis has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 placing on
record the Government Resolution dated 02.08.2022 issued by the Other
Backward Class Welfare Department as well as subsequent Government
Resolution dated 12.09.2022 issued by the same Department. By referring to
Government Resolution dated 08.11.2017 it is sought to be stated that 100
students belonging to Scheduled Caste category were permitted to take
benefit of Rajarshee Shahu Maharaj Merit Scholarship Scheme from 2017-18
with regard to the institutions indicated in Annexure-B of the said
Government Resolution. These institutions include the Indian Institute of
Information Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, National Institute of Technology, etc.
4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid documentary material, we have
heard the learned counsel for the parties. The right of a student belonging to
Scheduled Caste category to receive the benefit of reimbursement of tuition
fee and examination fee is a matter of Policy to be undertaken by the State
authorities. By virtue of Government Resolution dated 01.11.2003 the
Department of Social Justice started implementation of aforesaid Scheme
from the academic year 2004-05. This Scheme came to be continued from
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 6/9
time to time and was based on the Scheme framed by the Central
Government with regard to scholarship for the post-Matric course. By virtue
of further policy decision taken by the Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department as well as the Higher and Technical Education Department the
benefit was extended for academic year 2015-16. It is by virtue of the
decision dated 26.10.2016 that such benefit which was being extended in
some cases to students pursuing their education in States other than the
State of Maharashtra came to be discontinued. This was however done in a
phased manner by ensuring that the students who were in the midst of their
education would not suffer and hence that benefit was extended till such
students completed their education. At the same time, it was clarified that
no student would get such benefit for the first time from academic year
2015-16. Such benefit has not been shown to have been made available to
fresh students who were taking education in States other than the State of
Maharashtra from 2015-16 and onwards.
5. Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 31.03.2016 issued by
the Department of Higher and Technical Education as well as Social Justice
and Special Assistance Department, clearly indicates that the benefit of the
Scheme has been made applicable to students pursuing education in the
State of Maharashtra in the specified educational institutions. It has been
clearly stipulated that such benefit would be admissible only to the
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 7/9
educational institutions mentioned therein. The same does not indicate that
such benefit can be granted to students who pursue their education in other
States than the State of Maharashtra. We find that it is for the respective
departments to consider the beneficiaries under the said Scheme. Both the
departments have made such benefits available to students taking education
in the State of Maharashtra. However with a view to maintain continuity,
such benefit was extended to those students who had received such benefits
in the earlier academic years and whose education was likely to be affected
by issuance of these Government Resolutions. We do not find that there is
any arbitrariness in restricting the benefit of aforesaid Government
Resolutions to the category of students taking education in the State of
Maharashtra and not making it admissible to students who have been
admitted in other States. It is true that the petitioners though domiciled in
the State of Maharashtra have got their admissions in States other than the
State of Maharashtra. The rights of the petitioners would be governed by the
prevailing Policy dated 31.03.2016. The students taking education in the
State of Maharashtra form one class and such benefit has been admissible to
the entire class of such students. There is a reasonable nexus in providing
for such benefit by the State Government to students eligible to receive such
benefit by virtue of they pursuing their education in the State of
Maharashtra. It is not the case of the petitioner that such benefits are made
admissible to students taking education in State 'A', other than the State of
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 8/9
Maharashtra and that benefit is not being made available to students taking
education in State 'B', other than the State of Maharashtra. There is no
material on the basis of which it can be held that by not making such benefit
available to students taking education beyond the State of Maharashtra, the
State has acted in an arbitrary manner that is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Reference was made to the decision in Public Interest Litigation
No.69/2011( Bapu Supadu Thorat vs. The State of Maharashtra). Therein
the students pursuing professional courses in colleges affiliated to deemed
universities under the University Grant Commission Act, 1974 were denied
the benefit of policy of reimbursement of fees. In that context, it was held
that benefit under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of post-Matric
scholarships cannot be denied to students of deemed universities who were
otherwise eligible to such scholarship. The ratio of this decision cannot be
applied to the facts of the present case. Similar is the case with the
judgment of the Full Bench in Writ Petition No.775 of 2014 (Yash Pramesh
Rana and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others).
The Government Resolution dated 08.11.2017 pertains to grant of
scholarship to 100 students from the Scheduled Caste category taking
education in the institutions indicated in Annexure-B to the said Government
Resolution. The institutions where the petitioners are pursuing their
WP-2152-2021(O).odt 9/9
education are not named in Annexure-B and hence the petitioners cannot be
granted benefit of Government Resolution dated 08.11.2017.
7. For aforesaid reasons we do not find that the reliefs sought by the
petitioners can be granted to them. The writ petition therefore stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/08/2023 11:26:14
