Bombay High Court
Hrushikesh Rangraoji Mete And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 7 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 1891, (2019) 6 ALLMR 320
Bench: R. K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi
1 wp8161.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8161 OF 2017
1. Hrushikesh Rangraoji Mete,
aged 22 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Pala Post -Dabha, Tq. Nandgaon
Khandeshwar, Distt. Amravati.
2. Deepali Vilasrao Wadhokar,
aged 22 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Asadpur, Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati
3. Monica Amrunrao Lohakpure,
aged 21 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. 68-B, Behind V.M.V. College,
Pundlik Baba Nagar, Amravati.
4. Shraddha Damodhar Chincholkar,
aged 22 years, Occ. Student, R/o.
At Post - Kapustalni, Tq. Anjangaon
Surji, Distt. Amravati.
5. Sayali Ramkrushna Langote,
aged 22 yers, Occ. Student,
R/o. Venkatesh Nagar, Alsana Road,
Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana.
6. Sharayu Prakash Lagad,
aged 21 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. 06, Datta Apartment, Gajanan Peth,
Akola, Tq. And Distt. Akola.
7. Unnati Ashokrao Shirbhate,
aged 22 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Bhagatsingh Chowk, Khapre
Hospital, Nandgaon (Kh.), Tq. Nandgaon
Khandeshwar, Distt. Amravati.
8. Shravni Sudhirrao Atalkar,
aged 21 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Shriniwas Nagari, Deshmukh Lawn,
Shegaon Naka to Rahatgaon Road,
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 :::
2 wp8161.17.odt
Amravati, Tq. And Distt. Amravati.
9. Ku. Mayuri Danraj Thombare,
aged 21 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Padmavati Nagar, Ring Road,
Warud, Distt. Amravati.
10. Ku. Shivani Ambadas Kantale,
aged 20 yers, Occ. Student,
R/o. Maharshi Colony, Amravati,
Tq. And Distt. Amravati
11. Ku. Shobha Hari Mankar,
aged about 20 years,
R/o. Moti Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. And Distt. Amravati
12. Sayma Husain Patel,
aged 22 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. 1st Floor, Indraprastha Apartment,
Chaparashipura, Camp Amravati ...... PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Social Justice and Special
Assistance Department, Mantralaya,
Extension Bhavan, Madam Cama
Road, Mumbai.
2. Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department,
Amravati Division, Behind Police
Commissioner Office, Camp,
Amravati.
3. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society's
Dental College (B.D.S.) through
its Dean, Tapovan Wadali Road,
Camp, Amravati, Tq. And Distt. Amravati...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S.Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.M.Uke, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Shri R.D.Buibhar, Advocate for Respondent no. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 :::
3 wp8161.17.odt
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT (P.C.)
1] This petition challenges the proviso added in the Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015 declining the facilities of fee reimbursement to the students who are admitted at the institute level on the remaining vacant seats after completion of common appointment process rounds (CAP). The petition further seeks direction to the State Government to grant fee reimbursement to the petitioners who are admitted in the respondent No.3 College in the academic session 2014-15 in terms of clause 13.4 of the Information Brochure styled as "Asso CET-2014". 2] The reliance is placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered on 27.06.2016 in Writ Petition No. 4321 of 2015 (Mrudul Namdev Meshram and ors vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) along with other connected matters, which holds that the Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015 cannot be made retrospective in operation, so as to cover the admissions made during the academic session 2014-15 and therefore, denial by the State ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 ::: 4 wp8161.17.odt Government to reimburse the fees paid by the students belonging to various backward class categories cannot be sustained.
3] We are informed that the Special Leave Petition No. 8309 of 2017 is preferred by the State Government before the Apex Court and it is pending. But as on this date, no orders are passed in the said Special Leave Petition. The petitioners have moved this Court by filing Civil Application No.2630 of 2019 for final disposal of the petition in terms of the said decision.
4] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we passed an order on 04.10.2019, which is reproduced below.
"On 4/3/2019 we had passed an order directing respondents to verify as to whether the controversy involved in the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4321/2015. Thereafter, we were informed that Special Leave Petition No. 8309/2017 was already filed before Apex Court challenging the decision of this Court. Hence, the matter was kept pending.
Now, it is informed to us that the petitioners have passed B.D.S. examination and they want the documents from the Institution for admission to P.G. course, without payment of fees in terms of the decision of this Court.
In view of this, there is urgency involved in the matter. Hence, put up this matter on 7/10/2019 so as to enable the respondents to make a statement as to whether the matter is covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 :::
5 wp8161.17.odt or not. The matter shall be finally disposed of on that date."
5] Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on merits of the matter. 6] The undisputed position is that, the petitioners were admitted in the academic session 2014-15 in the course of Bachelor of Dental Surgery in the seats which remained vacant after two rounds of selection of candidates permitted to be filled in by the respective colleges at their own level on the basis of merit of Asso CET-2014. Thus, the admission of the petitioners was not through CAP round in 85% of the vacant seats to be filled in by the Government. 7] The policy of the State Government was initially reflected in the Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014, in respect of making reimbursement of the fees of the students admitted in the colleges from various categories of backward class. It applies in terms of clauses (6) and (7) of the Government Resolution, only to the students admitted in the Government quota of 85% in the colleges. The students who are admitted in the seats remaining vacant, after two rounds of selection of candidates, by the respective colleges at their own level on the basis of merit of Asso CET-2014, were ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 ::: 6 wp8161.17.odt excluded from the applicability and benefits of reimbursement of fees. The same policy was reiterated in the subsequent Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015. Both the Government Resolutions are in Marathi and we have confirmed such reading of the clauses repeatedly. 8] In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Mrudul Namdeo Meshram and others, cited supra, delivered here at Nagpur, reliance was placed upon the earlier decision of the another Division Bench delivered in Writ Petition No.4822 of 2013 (Bhupendra Ravishankar Sathawane and anr. Vrs. Union of India and ors.), along with connected matter, decided on 18.07.2014 at Nagpur. The said decision is in respect of the admission to the course of Masters in Business Administration and the Government Resolution considered was dated 03.02.2012 and 13.03.2012. The said decision was not considering the Government Resolutions dated 04.03.2014 and 30.03.2015, involved in this case.
9] In the decision in case of Mrudul Namdeo Meshram, the Division Bench holds that the policy of denial of reimbursement of fees to the students admitted from ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 ::: 7 wp8161.17.odt various categories of backward class was introduced for the first time by Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015, which could not be given retrospective effect so as to cover the admissions already made in the academic session 2014-15. The Division Bench has failed to notice that even under the Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014, such denial was specifically covered by Clauses (6) and (7), which we have read repeatedly to confirm.
10] We are also informed that Aurangabad Bench of this High Court has dismissed Writ Petition No. 6110 of 2014 on 08.01.2016. While dealing with the decision delivered at Aurangabad, this Court noted in Mrunal Namdeo Meshtram's case, that the facts therein show that the petitioner was admitted directly without CAP round in the academic year 2012-13. It is also noted that a clause which restricted benefit of reimbursement claim only to those who had secured admission through CET, was looked into. It is not in dispute that the petitioners before us were not admitted in the CAP round, but were admitted in the seats remaining vacant after the second CAP round.
11] In both the decisions of this Court, cited supra, ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 ::: 8 wp8161.17.odt and delivered at Nagpur, relied upon by Shri Patil, the challenge to said clause of denial in the Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015 on the ground of it being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, has been rejected. In both these decisions, it is clearly held that the Government is not duty bound to provide free education to all and in the absence of material on record, the decision of the State Government of not extending the benefit of tuition fee reimbursement to those who are admitted at institute level or college level can not be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12] In view of this, the Government cannot be forced to make available certain facilities to all those students admitted against the seats reserved for backward class categories. The expresse policy of the State Government contained in the earlier Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014 which was in force when the petitioners in the present petition were admitted, was not noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in Mrudul Namdeo Meshtram's case, cited supra. On the contrary, the judgment proceeds to hold that for the first time such policy of denial was introduced by Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015, is ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 ::: 9 wp8161.17.odt factually found to be incorrect.
13] In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 14] We are informed that petitioner No.8 has already deposited the entire amount in this Court. The same may, therefore, be refunded to the respondent No. 3 College. It will be open for all the petitioners to pay the requisite fees and get all the documents from the College. Needless to say that the college shall as soon as the fees are deposited immediately release the documents without any delay.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 22:28:41 :::