Bombay High Court
Khan Sana Tahedis Ajaz Ahmad Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 2359
Author: S. V. Gangapurwala
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
(1) WP-5846-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5846 OF 2020
Miss Khan Sana Tahedis D/o Ajaz Ahmed Khan,
Age: 19 years, Occ: Nil-Student,
R/o C/o Mr. Ajaz Ahmed Khan, Plot No.66,
New S.T. Colony, Katkat Gate,
Aurangabad - 431 001.
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Director Education,
Central Building, Pune 411 001
3. The Director of Medical Education & Research,
Maharashtra State, Govt. Dental College &
Hospital Building,
St. Georges Hospital Compound,
Mumbai 400 001.
4. The Education Officer, (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad - 431 401.
5. The Accounts Officer,
Senior Auditor, (Education), Aurangabad.
6. MGM Institute of Physiotherapy,
N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Through its Principal. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. C. V. Dharurkar h/f Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. V. S. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
...
ORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 :::
(2) WP-5846-2020
Reserved for Judgment on : 29.09.2020.
Judgment Pronounced on : 19.10.2020.
JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for hearing at admission stage.
2. The petitioner seeks direction against respondent nos.4 and 5 to process the application for reimbursement of entire tuition fees paid by the petitioner to respondent no.6-College in terms of the policy decision dated 19.08.1995 and subsequent Government Resolution dated 29.01.1997 and circular dated 25.02.1997 and 29.01.1998.
3. Mr. Dharurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a ward of a school teacher prosecuting his undergraduate course in Bachelor of Physiotherapy with respondent no.6-College. The petitioner is admitted against free seat from the State quota on the basis of inter-se merit in institutional round. The father of the petitioner is working in Maulana Azad High School and Junior College. The petitioner is covered under the scheme promulgated vide Government Resolution dated 19.08.1995. The petitioner is sanctioned reimbursement of an amount of Rs.6000/- claiming to be as per circular dated 25.02.1997. The learned counsel submits that the tuition fees prescribed by the Fees Regulatory ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 ::: (3) WP-5846-2020 Authority constituted by the State is Rs.1,09,091/-, as against that only an amount of Rs.6000/- is sanctioned by respondent no.5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of the entire tuition fees. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.969/2017 dated 11.04.2018 to which one of us (S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) was a party. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.775/2014 dated 29.05.2020.
4. The learned A.G.P. submits that as per circular dated 25.02.1997 the maximum amount, the person is entitled to the reimbursement of the tuition fees being a ward of a school teacher is Rs.6000/-. The respondent is bound by the same. The petitioner cannot claim over and above the quantum notified in the circular. The State has not taken policy decision to reimburse the entire tuition fees. The benefit of an amount of Rs.6000/- per annum is accorded to the petitioner. There is no circular or direction from the State Government to reimburse the entire tuition fees of Rs.1,09,091/-.
5. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that the petitioner is admitted with respondent no.6-College for the course in Bachelor of Physiotherapy from the institutional round. The petitioner has paid fees for the Academic Year ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 ::: (4) WP-5846-2020 2019-2020. The petitioner submitted application on 01.11.2019 requesting respondent no.6 to forward the proposal seeking scholarship on 12.11.2019. Upon receipt of the proposal, respondent nos.4 and 5 sanctioned Rs.6000/- as scholarship/reimbursement to the petitioner.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions canvased by the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue for determination would be the quantum of the amount, the petitioner would be entitled for reimbursement of the fees. The respondent nos.4 and 5 have undisputedly reimbursed Rs.6000/- per annum to the petitioner being ward of a school teacher placing reliance upon the Government Resolution dated 19.08.1995 and the circular dated 24.01.2003. The relevant clause of the Government Resolution dated 19.08.1995 is in a regional language. It reads thus:
"2½ O;kIrh % ¼v½ jkT;krhy ek/;fed o mPp ek/;fed 'kkldh; 'kkGsr vFkok LFkkfud laLFksP;k ¼egkuxjikfydk] uxjikfydk] uxjifj"kn] f'k{k.keaMGs] ftYgkifj"kn vkf.k dVd eaMGs ½ 'kkGsr vFkok ekU;rkizkIr o vuqnkfur 'kkGsr dk;Zjr vlysys iw.kZosG f'k{kd o f'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kaP;k ikY;kauk loZ Lrjkoj fu%'kqYd f'k{k.kkP;k loyrhl ik= let.;kr ;kos-
Li"Vhdj.k % ¼1½ lnj fu;ekP;k iz;kstukps "ikY;" Eg.kts ewy ¼ eqyxk @ eqyxh ½ vkf.k nRrd ewy vls let.;kr ;kos- ¼2½ fu;fer osruJs.khr iw.kZ osGslkBh fu;qDr dsysys f'k{kd o f'k{kdsrj deZpkjh gs iw.kZosG deZpkjh let.;kr ;kosr- ¼Ck½ f'k{kd o f'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kaP;k QDr nksu ikY;kaukp loZ Lrjkoj ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 ::: (5) WP-5846-2020 ¼ b-1 yh rs inO;qRrj Lrj½ fu%'kqYd f'k{k.kkP;k loyrhl ik= let.;kr ;kos-
Li"Vhdj.k % tj nql&;k izlwrhP;k osGh ,dkis{kk tkLr viR;kauk tUe fnyk xsY;kl v'kk viR;kauk ,dp viR; Eg.kwu ;k fu;eklkBh let.;kr ;sbZy-
3½ mRiUukph e;kZnk % iw.kZosG f'k{kd o f'k{kdsrj deZpkjh ;kaps mRiUu y{kkr u lnj fu;ek[kkyh vuqKs; vlysyh 'kS{kf.kd loyr R;kaps ik= ikY;kauk ns; vlsy-
4½ f'k{kd o f'k{kdsrj deZpk&;kaP;k ikY;kauk loZ Lrjkoj ¼ b-1 yh rs inO;qRrj Lrj½ fu% 'kqYd f'k{k.k iq<hy 'kS{kf.kd laLFksr iznku dj.;kr ;sbZy % ¼1½ b;Rrk 1 yh rs 10 oh Ik;ZUr ekU;rkizkIr izkFkfed @ek/;fed 'kkGk-
¼2½ b;Rrk 5 oh rs 10 oh Ik;Zar ekU;rkizkIr ra='kkGk vFkok laLFkk- ¼3½ b;Rrk 10 rs 12 oh Ik;Zar mPp ek/;fed ekU;rkizkIr 'kkGk o ra='kkGk ¼4½ b;Rrk 12 oh uarj inO;qRrj Lrjki;Zarps f'k{k.k gs ekU;rkizkIr egkfo|ky;s] inO;qRrj laLFkk o fo|kihB foHkkx] vkS|ksfxd o O;kolkf;d 'kkGk @laLFkk@ egkfo|ky;s-
¼5½ b-12 oh @inohuarj ekU;rkizkIr 'kkldh; oS|dh;] vfHk;kaf=dh o brj O;kolkf;d vH;kldze-
¼6½ T;k f'k{k.kdzekr f'kdo.kh dkyko/kh 3 rklkais{kk deh vkgs vkf.k v/kZosG vkgs v'kk f'k{k.kkl g;k loyrhpk ykHk vuqKs; ukgh-"
7. It is a matter of record that the petitioner is admitted against a free seat for undergraduate course in Bachelor of Physiotherapy with respondent no.6-College. The tuition fees according to the petitioner is Rs.1,09,091/-. The petitioner is reimbursed tuition fees of Rs.6000/- per annum. The communication of the Accountants (Education) to the Education Officer is placed on record ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 ::: (6) WP-5846-2020 certifying sanction for reimbursement of Rs.6000/-.
8. The aforesaid communication would testify the fact that the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of fees being ward of a school teacher. The only dispute would be the quantum of an amount of tuition fees to be reimbursed to the petitioner.
9. Reading the policy as is introduced under Government Resolution dated 19th August, 1995, it is manifest that the policy and the Government Resolution is a benevolent policy. The same is introduced with avowed object of providing free education to the wards of the full time teachers in private aided primary, secondary or higher secondary school. The scheme is a welfare scheme. The welfare scheme / policy has to be given a beneficial interpretation. The Government was well within its powers to introduce the said scheme by issuing executive instructions.
10. The intention of the Government is writ large from the recitals in the Government Resolution which in no uncertain and unambiguous words states that since the year 1995-1996 the State has decided to provide free education to the children of a full time teaching and non teaching employees in a private aided primary, secondary and higher secondary school from ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 ::: (7) WP-5846-2020 standard 1st till post graduation. The avowed object of the scheme cannot be allowed to be scuttled down by the authorities of the State. As and when the tuition fees of the free seat in the Government Medical College is increased, naturally the Government will have to bear the burden of the increased tuition fees so long the policy of providing free education to the children of a member of the teaching and non teaching staff of a private aided institution is in vogue.
11. Once the Government has 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 Rs.6,000/ only because in the year when the policy was introduced, the tuition fees was Rs.6,000/ per annum for Bachelor in Physiotherapy course. Such attitude would render the welfare policy of the Government of giving free education to the wards of full time employees of aided primary, secondary and higher secondary school nugatory.
12. It is not the case of the respondents that the Government has disbanded the policy introduced under Government Resolution dated 19th August, 1995. The said policy still exists. In ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 ::: (8) WP-5846-2020 that case, the respondents would be duty bound to reimburse the petitioner the full tuition fees applicable to the free seat.
13. In the light of above, we direct the respondents to give the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 19th August, 1995, and reimburse the entire tuition fees paid by the petitioner for the Bachelor in Physiotherapy course undergone by the petitioner on a free seat in the respondent no.6-College. The same shall be reimbursed expeditiously and preferably within three (3) months.
14. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/October-20
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2020 06:18:24 :::