SHRAMJIVI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL Vs. VISHNU LAXMANRAO DHOBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The intervention applications are rejected.

(2.) Taking note of the growing need of trained teachers in the State of Maharashtra in general and in the Marathwada region in particular, the Government of Maharashtra granted approval to about 16 institutions to be affiliated to the Marathwada University under the Marathwada University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Executive Council of the Marathwada University considered the matter in its meeting and through a resolution, prescribed certain conditions for granting recognition to the management of the institutions. That resolution was, later on, modified and eventually the University granted recognition to all the institutions in question on certain conditions.

(3.) Respondent No. 1. claiming to be the President of the students' association, filed a Writ Petition in public interest. The challenge primarily was to the conditions upon which permission to start the B. Ed. Colleges (non-grant) was accorded. The grievance projected by respondent No. 1 in his writ petition in the High Court revolved around the right of the management of the institutions to allocate 20% of the seats to the candidates of their choice-popularly known as against the management quota. The other ground on which the Writ Petition was based was on allegation that the grant of permission by the State Government in favour of the institutions in question was illegal on the ground that the applications of the institutions had not been routed through the University as required by Section 43 of the Act. The other issues raised in the, Writ Petition do not appear to have been canvassed and the order of the learned Division Bench of the High Court specifically records that respondent No. 1 had restricted the scope of the Writ Petition as against those institutions only whose applications were considered by the State Government, without having been routed through the Marathwada University. The writ petition was resisted. The stand of the State Government was that no illegality had been committed in granting permission to the 16 institutions to open new B. Ed. Colleges in Marathwada area. The State Government relied upon the recommendations of the Expert Committee of the University which had found the need for starting such institutions in support of its stand. The High Court, however, after a detailed discussion, by its judgment and order dated 20th/21st September, 1990 allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1. The High Court quashed and set aside the permission granted by the State Government to new B. Ed. Colleges for the year 1990-91 on non-grant basis. The High Court restrained the institutions from conducting classes of B. Ed. Courses. The High Court also held that the allocation of 20% seats to the management for admitting students of its choice was violative of Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution as it amounted to reservation in favour of the management. The High Court then directed the refund of the entire amount of fees recovered from the students of those institutions and opined that in case any of the students is not refunded the fees in its entirety, he would be at liberty to approach Joint Charity Commissioner or Deputy Charity Commissioner or Assistant Charity Commissioner or any other competent authority in the Charity Organisation to get back the entire amount paid by him from the concerned management. The institutions have filed this appeal by special leave against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.