Bombay High Court
Pravarsen Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:8045-DB
930. WP.2499.2017 JUDGMENT.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2499 OF 2017
PETITIONERS :- 1) Pravarsen Shikshan Sanstha Nagpur
through its Secretary, Milind Laxman
Balkhande, aged 42 years, office at Patrakar
Sahanivas, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2) Dr. L.D. Balkhande College of Arts and
Commerce College, (earlier P.S.S. College
of Arts and Commerce), Pauni through its
Principal, Dr. Jaykishan S/o. Rameshwar
Santoshi, aged 55 years, R/o. Pauni, Dist.
Bhandara.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2) The Director of Higher Education, State of
Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune-1.
3) The Joint Director of Higher Education,
State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Division,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4) Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, Nagpur, through its Registrar,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms M.H. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
930. WP.2499.2017 JUDGMENT.odt
2
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 14/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. The issue involved in the present petition demonstrates
the arbitrary approach of the authorities of the State. This Court
twice has expressed dissatisfaction about insensitive attitude of the
authorities of the State.
4. In this case, where the State permitted the
petitioners/society to teach two subjects namely "Ancient Indian
History" and "Marathi Literature" in the petitioner No.2-College,
however, the condition was put not to appoint any teachers to teach
these subjects but these subjects be taught by the existing teachers.
930. WP.2499.2017 JUDGMENT.odt
5. The respondent/State is not disputing in any of the
affidavits that these are specialized subjects. At the same time, the
State is not justifying the reason for not permitting the petitioners to
appoint teachers to teach such specialized subjects, except for the
reason that there would be financial burden on the government.
6. This Court on 15.11.2022, recorded its prima facie
observation which read thus :-
"Prima facie, the rationale behind requiring the petitioners
not to appoint teachers to teach the aforesaid subjects and
imposing a condition that the said subjects would be taught
by the members of the existing staff is not understood. The
subjects of Marathi Literature and Ancient Indian History
are specialized subjects and unless the staff teaching such
subjects is duly qualified and available at the College, this
condition cannot be successfully applied"
7. Thereafter, on 18.04.2024, this Court by referring the
order dated 15.11.2022 granted one last opportunity to State to
correct its stand and make a statement before this Court.
8. However, there was no change in the approach of the
government and therefore, this Court on 26.11.2024, passed the
following order :-
930. WP.2499.2017 JUDGMENT.odt
"We are aghast at the insensitive attitude of the State in the
matter of imparting education to its citizens. The present
case is the classic example to illustrate. The petitioner
institution by the order dated 28-7-1993 (Page No.21) was
granted permission to start a course in Marathi Literature.
The condition for such permission, being that there would
be minimum 24 students available for taking education and
no new teacher would be permissible to be appointed. The
students were directed to be imparted education in the said
subject by the existing teachers, so that no financial burden
would come on the State. By the subsequent order dated
03-8-1993 (Page No.23) permission was granted to start a
course in the subject Ancient Indian History again with the
condition that no new teacher would be appointed. When
these are special subjects which can be taught only by
teachers, who would be having P.G. Degrees in such
specialized subjects, we are unable to understand the
insistence on the part of the State that such specialized
subjects would be taught by the existing teachers without
ensuring that such existing teachers have the qualification to
impart education in such specialized subjects. The right of a
citizen, to have available variety of subjects, in which he can
undertake education, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, would also include ensuring the
availability of specialized teachers to teach such specialized
subjects. The same cannot under a spurious plea of financial
burden be thwarted by imposing the condition that such
specialized subjects should be taught to the students by
teachers who are not qualified. This would infact indicate
abject failure on the part of the State to honor its
constitutional obligations qua the citizens, of imparting
quality education to such citizens. Realizing this position,
when the matter came to this Court in Writ Petition No.
3370/2015, this Court by its judgment dated 12-4-2016
had quashed the refusal to consider grant of permission to
appoint a teacher for the aforesaid specialized subject and
directed the respondents to reconsider the issue, inspite of
which by the impugned communication dated 18-10-2016
the same stand has been reiterated again (Page No.56).
This, in our considered opinion, indicates the absolute
insensitivity of the officials of the State, to the subject in
issue as they expect persons with no education qualification
in specialized subjects to impart education to the students,
who have permitted to be enrolled to undergo teaching in
specialized subjects. Much can be said about the cavalier
attitude of the State vis-a-vis the citizens and the failure of
the duty of the State to impart quality education. We,
930. WP.2499.2017 JUDGMENT.odt
however, refrain from doing so for the present with a
direction to the learned Additional Government Pleader to
take instructions in this regard from the concerned
authorities failing which, we would be constrained to record
their conduct and insensitive attitude and issue appropriate
directions."
9. In the above referred order dated 26.11.2024, this Court
has expressed that such approach of the State is in violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and despite the same, even
today the petition was strongly opposed and tried to justify how the
stand of the Government is just and proper.
10. We are surprised to note that without bringing any
justifiable reason on record, in not allowing the petitioner to
appoint the teachers for permitted specialized courses, such request
is being opposed. This is nothing but an adamant approach of the
authorities which is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, as observed by this Court in the order dated 26.11.2024.
11. In that view of the matter, as the respondents failed to
take necessary and correcting steps in this matter, even after the
repeated opportunity, we pass the following order :-
i) The writ petition is allowed.
930. WP.2499.2017 JUDGMENT.odt
ii) The respondents are directed to grant permission to the
petitioners to appoint teachers for the subject "Marathi
Literature" and "Ancient Indian History" on grant-in-aid
basis by modifying the permission orders dated
28.07.1993 and 03.08.1993.
iii) This order will come in force with prospective effect.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
