MOHAMMADIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. STATE NOF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All three writ petitions were heard together, since the petitioners in all three writ petitions are similarly placed and they claim identical relief.

(2.) All the petitioners are the Managements and educational institutions. They claim to be minority unaided institutions and to have been recognized as such, by the State Government. All of them are running colleges for two years diploma in teaching education (D. Ed. ) course. They have approached this Court, because rules framed by the Maharashtra State Educational Research and training Council for admissions to the said course in the academic year 2006-2007, prescribe quota of only 50 per cent seats to be filled in by the Management and 50 per cent to be filled in by the Government. Such a provision is contained more particularly in clause 3 (A) (4) of the Rules in question and hence, all the petitioners have prayed as follows: -

(3.) All five petitioners in three writ petitions, have intake capacity of 50 students each. Respondent No. 2 had published rules for admissions for earlier academic year for 2005-2006. In the said rules. Rule 14 (1) specifically provided 50 per cent Management quota and balance 50 per cent seats to be filled in by government, so far as unaided D. Ed, course is concerned. Those rules were challenged by writ petition No. 5200 of 2005. On 10-8-2005, this Court had issued rule and passed interim order, permitting petitioners to carry out admission by quota of 75 per cent students as Management quota and only 25 per cent students as Government quota. The said writ petition is still pending in the High Court. Even for ensuing academic year 2006-2007, rules published by 2nd respondent for admission to D. Ed, course again provide 50-50 quota for Management and the Government, even in case of private unaided minority institutions. This is in spite of the fact that the respondents are aware of the interim orders passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 5200 of 2005. According to the petitioners, these interim orders, probably, were following suit of orders passed by this High Court in the matter of P. A. Inamdar v. s. State of maharashtra, 2005 (3) Mh. L. J. 1067. According to the petitioners, a Bench of seven Judges of the Hon'ble the supreme Court, in the case of P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 AIR scw 3923, was pleased to overrule the scheme that was evolved in Islamic academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 AIR SCW 4240, to the extent it allowed the State to fix the quota for seats sharing between the Management and the State in the unaided private educational institutions of both, minority as well as non-minority categories and to the extent the same runs counter to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of T. M. A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 AIR SCW 4957. It is submitted that the Hon'ble the apex Court has held that private unaided educational institutions, and more particularly minority institutions, cannot be forced to have seat sharing arrangement with the State Government and, therefore, clause 3 (A) (4) of the rules framed by the 2nd respondent for admissions to D. Ed, course for academic year 2006-2007 runs counter to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble the Apex court and, therefore, is bad in law.