Bombay High Court
Sagar Uttam Bhoite And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 5 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 2519
Author: Surendra P. Tavade
Bench: S. C. Gupte, Surendra P. Tavade
3.WPL.3114.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Aarti Digitally signed
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
by Aarti G.
Palkar
G. Date:
2021.02.05
Palkar 18:54:26 +0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3114 OF 2021
Sagar Uttam Bhoite & Anr. ....Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Arvind Tiwari a/w. Mr. Atal Bihari Dubye and Mr. Devendra Shah for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Himanshu B. Takke, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w. Mr. Aadesh J. Sawant for Respondent No.2.
Mr. P.M. Palshikar for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : S. C. GUPTE AND
SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : 5 FEBRUARY 2021.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned AGP for the Respondent-State (Respondent No.1), learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Cell, learned counsel for Respondent No.3-University and learned counsel for Respondent No.4-Institute. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of counsel.
2. We are concerned in the present petition with selection of students for the course of Master of Management Studies (MMS) in supernumerary seats reserved for various categories of foreign students. In the Information Brochure issued by the CET Cell under the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions & Fees) Act, 2015 ("Act"), for postgraduate technical courses including management for Aarti Palkar 1/5
3.WPL.3114.2021.doc the academic year 2020-21, there is a provision for supernumerary seats for for OCI/PIO, Foreign Students and Children of Indian Workers in Gulf Countries (CIWGC). These seats are subject to the maximum of 15% of the sanctioned intake, out of which one third seats are reserved for Children of Indian Workers in Gulf Countries (CIWGC) and two third seats are reserved for OCI/PIO or Foreign Students or as prescribed by the appropriate authority from time to time. The approached authority in the present case is All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). AICTE has prescribed guidelines providing for requirements and eligibility for allotment of seats in this particular quota (termed as "Approval Process Handbook 2020-21"). AICTE has reiterated in these guidelines the same provisions as are contained in the Information Brochure above referred to, namely, availability of 15% of the sanctioned intake seats, out of which, one third are reserved for Children of Indian Workers in Gulf Countries (CIWGC) and two third seats for OCI/PIO/Foreign Students. Considering the total intake in the present case, the number of available seats works out as follows: 6 seats for CIWGC and 12 seats for OCI/PIO/Foreign Students. The Information Brochure further provides that if seats reserved for CIWGC candidates remain vacant, they have to be flled in from candidates of OCI/PIO or Foreign Student categories and likewise if any seats reserved for candidates of OCI/PIO or Foreign Students remain vacant, then such vacant seats have to be flled in from CIWGC category. There is a further proviso in the relevant clause (Clause 7.5) of the Information Brochure, which allows vacant seats in both quotas to be flled in from NRI candidates subject to approval from the appropriate authority for such NRI candidates. The Petitioners were applicants in CIWGC category. In the merit list published by Respondent No.4-Institute for candidates of CIWGC category, the Petitioners are placed at Sr.Nos.9 & 10. Whereas the frst six candidates of CIWGC cateogary, in this merit list are shown as provisionally selected, candidates from Sr.Nos.7 to 10, including the Petitioners herein, are shown as waitlisted. As far as OCI/PIO/Foreign Students are concerned, two Aarti Palkar 2/5
3.WPL.3114.2021.doc candidates belonging to this category are shown as provisionally selected. There is a separate merit list published of candidates belonging to the category of NRI students. About 10 students in the merit list of this category are shown as provisionally selected. The candidates from Sr. Nos.7 to 10 are shown as provisionally selected against vacancy in PIO/OCI/Foreign Students Category, whilst rest of the students (Sr.Nos.11 to 19) are shown as waitlisted.
3. The Petitioners' grievance is that whereas the Information Brochure as well as the Approval Process Handbook 2020-21 of AICTE requires vacant seats from OCI/PIO/Foreign Students category to be flled in from candidates of CIWGC category, these seats are allotted to NRI candidates without any approval from AICTE (as appropriate authority) for NRI seats.
4. The Petitioners' grievance appears to be legitimate. There is no justifcation for declaring a merit list of NRI students, despite there being candidates available from the category of CIWGC and that too without seeking any approval from AICTE for NRI seats. Under the Information Brochure for admission to postgraduate management courses, vacancies in both quotas, i.e. CIWGC on the one hand and OCI/PIO/Foreign students on the other, can be flled in from NRI candidates, but only subject to approval from the appropriate authority for NRI seats. Appropriate authority under the Act is AICTE, as defned in Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Even according to the Respondents, the whole admission process is governed by the provisions of the Act. If that is so, without approval from AICTE, no seat out of the supernumerary quota for OCI/PIO/Foreign Students/CIWGC candidates can be allotted to any NRI candidate.
5. On the Respondents' own showing, there were only two candidates from the category of OCI/PIO/Foreign Students. 16 out of 18 seats in this quota thus fell vacant and could only have been flled in by students from CIWGC category. On the Respondents' own showing, atleast four Aarti Palkar 3/5
3.WPL.3114.2021.doc candidates of CIWGC category including the two Petitioners herein were in the fray. It is only when vacant seats from OCI/PIO/Foreign Students category are allotted to these four students, would the Respondents be within their rights to fll up further vacant seats from NRI candidates subject, of course, to obtaining approval of the appropriate authority, i.e. AICTE, for the seats.
6. We are informed that selection of all candidates is presently provisional and there is no fnalization as yet of any admission in any of these categories.
7. In the premises, we make Rule absolute and allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the merit list published by Respondent No.4- Institute partly. We cancel the provisional selection shown as "Against Vacancy in PIO/OCI/Foreign Students Category/NRI Students" in the merit list of NRI students at Sr.Nos.7 to 10. These seats must go in accordance with the Information Brochure published for admissions to Postgraduate Management Course to candidates at Sr.Nos.7 to 10 in the merit list of CIWGC candidates. Both Petitioners shall accordingly be entitled to be allotted seats (having been placed at Sr.Nos.9 and 10 in the Merit List). In case students listed at Sr.Nos.7 and 8 in this merit list (i.e. list of CIWGC students) or any of them do not or does not accept the seat, the seat/s may then go to NRI candidates in accordance with their merit list published by Respondent No.4 subject to seeking approval from the appropriate authority, i.e. from AICTE for the NRI seats. It is made clear that the students listed at Sr.Nos.1 to 6 in the merit list of NRI students, who are shown as provisionally selected, would also have to have an approval from AICTE. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we permit AICTE to grant approval ex post facto. Respondent No.4 Institute shall permit the Petitioners as well as those students from CIWGC category (at Sr.Nos.7 and 8) who are willing to take admission in accordance with the present order to submit their Aarti Palkar 4/5
3.WPL.3114.2021.doc documents in the course of tomorrow, i.e. 6 February 2021, and upload the list in accordance with the admission notice issued by Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 Cell has no objection to documents being submitted by the students online.
8. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)
Aarti Palkar 5/5