SWAMI RAMANAND SHIKSHAN PRASARAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is to decision of the Government and/or of Respondent 5 - Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, to establish the Model College at Ghansavangi in Jalna District at "Exhibit- F" with the petition. Said document is dated 16.3.2011 and a proposal to that effect appears to have been placed before the Management Council of Respondent 5 - University through it. Resolution of the Management Council also of same date, forms part of this exhibit. State of Maharashtra is respondent 1 while the Union of India is respondent 2 in petition. University Grants Commission (UGC) is respondent 3 while the Hon. Minister for Higher & Technical Education is joined in his personal capacity as respondent 4. On 21.11.2011, this Court did not grant any interim relief to the Petitioner educational institute as admissions in the subject college were already over in July, 2011 & opening of the Model College had no adverse effect on it. This Court opined that those students in Model College could have been adversely affected by interim order. It was felt necessary to decide the petition itself finally at admission stage. Petition has not been amended thereafter. Matter was then taken up on 16.4.2012 and respondent 5 was directed to make statement whether any permission as contemplated by S. 82 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (1994 Act-hereafter) was granted for setting up the Model College in question. The State Government was directed to furnish information/documents in terms of the clauses (vii), (viii), (x) and (xi) of the communication dated 8th August, 2011. Copies are directed to be supplied in advance. Accordingly, in this background & with consent, we have heard respective Counsel by issuing Rule & making it returnable forthwith. Adv. Talekar for petitioner has at the outset pointed out that this order has not been complied with so far by either of the respondents. These respondents have not prayed for any time & have not shown their inclination to comply with that order.

(2.) Petitioner is running several educational institutes including a senior college, a D.Ed. College & a junior college at Ghansavangi, another junior college at Shahagad, High Schools at Shahagad, Doregaon & Panegaon, Primary Schools at Ambad & Jalna. It challenges the establishment of Model College at Ghansavangi as politically influenced, malafide, in violation of norms & procedure prescribed and also contrary to basic scheme itself. The scheme is being implemented by the UGC and is to be funded by Central as also State Governments. The scheme aims at achieving national average of gross enrollment ratio (GER) and has been prepared by an expert committee constituted by UOI to prepare a project report on modalities of its execution. UGC approved it and prepared a detailed project report (DPR) for setting up 374 new colleges in educationally backward districts with less GER. Ministry of Human Resources, UOI decided to extend financial assistance through UGC for establishment of such Model College. Petitioner has produced list of educationally backward districts (EBD) which also includes district Jalna. Guide lines for implementing the scheme for providing financial assistance to new Model Colleges in EBD are also being relied upon. UGC then invited proposals from concerned universities with undertaking of State, both in format prescribed by it. The Joint Secretary of State then asked respondent 5 University to submit proposal to UGC for establishment of Model College.

(3.) Adv. Talekar for petitioner states that the Deputy Registrar (Planning & Statistics) of the University Shri G.R. Manza received phone-call from respondent 4 Hon. Minister to process papers to establish Model school at Ghansavangi. Shri Manza accordingly prepared a note/endorsement in his handwriting that its establishment at Ghansavangi was principally acceptable & same be approved by Management Council of the University and its copy be sent to Secretary, Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. It was addressed to Shri Bharad, Assistant Secretary. A proposal is then shown to be prepared on 16.3.2011 which is signed by Shri Manza, Shri Bharad, Director of colleges & university and one Kachole, secretary of the University. The term of the elected representatives on Management Council had already come to end & only ex-officio members were functioning. These ex-officio members on 16.3.2011 itself claim to have cleared the proposal vide resolution on subject No. 32. It only records that one Committee has been constituted for starting Model College in Jalna district and proposal as mentioned in its report be forwarded to State Government. The affidavit in reply filed by Shri Manza for respondent 5 denies phone call but handwritten endorsement is accepted. Adv. Talekar argues that because proposal for Ghansavangi region was already forwarded, remark was put to get it approved from Management Council & then to process/forward it further. Shri Manza also justified his action by pointing out inclusion of Ghansavangi region in perspective plan of University.