Shramjivi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Vishnu Laxmanrao Dhoble & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 1990
With
Civil Appeal No. 4902 of 1990
And
Civil Appeal No. 589 of 2000
Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2604 of 1991
With
Civil Appeal No. 4902 of 1990
And
Civil Appeal No. 589 of 2000
Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2604 of 1991
Petitioner: Shramjivi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Respondent: Vishnu Laxmanrao Dhoble & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 1990
With
Civil Appeal No. 4902 of 1990
And
Civil Appeal No. 589 of 2000
Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2604 of 1991
With
Civil Appeal No. 4902 of 1990
And
Civil Appeal No. 589 of 2000
Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2604 of 1991
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI, S. RAJENDRA BABU & R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 25, 2000
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Constitution
Articles 15(4), 16(4) with Marathwada University Act, 1974 – Section 43 (As replaced by Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994) – Reservation – Various institutions affiliated to University – B.Ed. Colleges also allowed but subject to condi-tions – One such condition was to allocate 20% seats to manage-ment – High Court quashing quota and directing refund of fees – Students however completing studies due to interim stay by Su-preme Court – All parties agreeing to set aside said part of or-ders. Held that law laid down in Unni Krishnan’s case would govern the matter regarding reservation of seats. Directions of High Court to refund fee is quashed. Right to continue affilia-tion to be considered under the Act of 1994.
(Paras 7,9,10)
Cases Reffered:
1. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. JT 1993 (1) SC 474
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
C.A. 4903/90
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 Univers-ity under the Marathwada University Act, 1974 (hereinafter re-ferred 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 recogni-tion to the management of the institutions. That resolution was, later on, modified and eventually the University granted recogni-tion to all the institutions in question on certain conditions.
3. Respondent No. 1. claiming to be the President of the stud-ents’ 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 allega-tion 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 re-stricted the scope of the Writ Petition as against those institu-tions only whose applications were considered by the State Gov-ernment, without having been routed through the Marathwada Uni-versity. 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 recommenda-tions 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 Com-missioner 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.
4. On 12th October, 1990, while granting leave in the Special Leave Petitions, interim stay of the operation of the judgment of the High Court was granted.
5. While respondent No. 1 though served has remained absent throughout, respondents 2 and 3 are represented and their counsel are present before us.
6. The State of Maharashtra has also put in issue the impugned judgment through Civil Appeal No. 4902 of 1990 and is, thus, in a way supporting the institutions.
7. Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that insofar as the question of reservation of 20% seats for the management quota is concerned, that issue is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (JT 1993 (1) SC 474 = 1993(1) SCC 645) and that the law laid down in that case would govern these insti-tutions also. It is further submitted by him that since the Marathwada University Act, 1974 has since been replaced by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’) w.e.f. 22nd July, 1994, the second issue also, at this point of time, becomes only of academic interest and does not merit any adjudication. It is, however, submitted by him that insofar as the direction of the High Court to refund the entire fees to the students is concerned, that direction is not sustain-able and requires to be upset because in view of the stay order granted by this Court at the time of granting leave, all the students have continued to study in the institutions and have completed their studies. Since they have completed their studies, the question, of refund of fees to them from the institutions would be most inequitable and that the position would have been different if the students had been ousted and not continued with their studies.
8. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the Univers-ity – respondent No. 3 fairly submits that they have no objection to the non-refund of fees to the students who have studied in the institutions but that the University reserves its right to con-sider the question of continuation of affiliation/recognition to the concerned institutions in the light of the provisions of the Act of 1994 unless that recognition/affiliation has already been granted to any of the institutions under the 1994 Act.
9. On behalf of the State of Maharashtra also there is no objec-tion to the quashing of the direction of the High Court with regard to the refund of fees to the students in view of the changed circumstances. The State of Maharashtra has supported the cause as put forward on behalf of the institutions as well as the right of the University to consider the question of continued affiliation or recognition under the provisions of the Act of 1994.
10. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the Uni-versity assures the Court that the University shall examine the issue with regard to the continuation or otherwise of the grant of affiliation/recognition of the respective institutions on the respective institutions approaching the University in that be-half. It is submitted that the institutions are obliged under the 1994 Act to seek affiliation from the University. Mr. Khanwilkar does not dispute this position.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the fair stand taken by the University, nothing further survives in this appeal and that it may now be consigned to record. We agree and make an order accordingly. The appellants shall take appro-priate steps as suggested by Mr. Vasdev.
C.A. 4902 of 1990
12. In view of the order made in Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 1990, no further orders are required to be made in Appeal No. 4902/90. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of.
S.L.P..(C) No. 2604 of 1991.
13. Leave granted.
14. Mr. S .C. Birla, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the fact that the Marathwada University Act, 1974 has been repealed and Maharashtra Universities’ Act, 1994 has come into force w.e.f. 22nd July, 1994, the appellant shall approach the University for consideration of its applica-tion for grant of affiliation afresh under the 1994 Act and in that view of the matter nothing further is required to be consid-ered in this appeal.
15. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the Uni-versity submits that as and when such an application is filed by the appellant, the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Act uninfluenced by the earlier order made by the High Court which was based on the provisions of the 1974 Act. We record the statement of the learned counsel for the parties and dispose of the appeal as settled and requiring no further action. No costs.
C.A. 4903/90
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 Univers-ity under the Marathwada University Act, 1974 (hereinafter re-ferred 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 recogni-tion to the management of the institutions. That resolution was, later on, modified and eventually the University granted recogni-tion to all the institutions in question on certain conditions.
3. Respondent No. 1. claiming to be the President of the stud-ents’ 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 allega-tion 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 re-stricted the scope of the Writ Petition as against those institu-tions only whose applications were considered by the State Gov-ernment, without having been routed through the Marathwada Uni-versity. 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 recommenda-tions 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 Com-missioner 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.
4. On 12th October, 1990, while granting leave in the Special Leave Petitions, interim stay of the operation of the judgment of the High Court was granted.
5. While respondent No. 1 though served has remained absent throughout, respondents 2 and 3 are represented and their counsel are present before us.
6. The State of Maharashtra has also put in issue the impugned judgment through Civil Appeal No. 4902 of 1990 and is, thus, in a way supporting the institutions.
7. Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that insofar as the question of reservation of 20% seats for the management quota is concerned, that issue is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (JT 1993 (1) SC 474 = 1993(1) SCC 645) and that the law laid down in that case would govern these insti-tutions also. It is further submitted by him that since the Marathwada University Act, 1974 has since been replaced by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’) w.e.f. 22nd July, 1994, the second issue also, at this point of time, becomes only of academic interest and does not merit any adjudication. It is, however, submitted by him that insofar as the direction of the High Court to refund the entire fees to the students is concerned, that direction is not sustain-able and requires to be upset because in view of the stay order granted by this Court at the time of granting leave, all the students have continued to study in the institutions and have completed their studies. Since they have completed their studies, the question, of refund of fees to them from the institutions would be most inequitable and that the position would have been different if the students had been ousted and not continued with their studies.
8. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the Univers-ity – respondent No. 3 fairly submits that they have no objection to the non-refund of fees to the students who have studied in the institutions but that the University reserves its right to con-sider the question of continuation of affiliation/recognition to the concerned institutions in the light of the provisions of the Act of 1994 unless that recognition/affiliation has already been granted to any of the institutions under the 1994 Act.
9. On behalf of the State of Maharashtra also there is no objec-tion to the quashing of the direction of the High Court with regard to the refund of fees to the students in view of the changed circumstances. The State of Maharashtra has supported the cause as put forward on behalf of the institutions as well as the right of the University to consider the question of continued affiliation or recognition under the provisions of the Act of 1994.
10. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the Uni-versity assures the Court that the University shall examine the issue with regard to the continuation or otherwise of the grant of affiliation/recognition of the respective institutions on the respective institutions approaching the University in that be-half. It is submitted that the institutions are obliged under the 1994 Act to seek affiliation from the University. Mr. Khanwilkar does not dispute this position.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the fair stand taken by the University, nothing further survives in this appeal and that it may now be consigned to record. We agree and make an order accordingly. The appellants shall take appro-priate steps as suggested by Mr. Vasdev.
C.A. 4902 of 1990
12. In view of the order made in Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 1990, no further orders are required to be made in Appeal No. 4902/90. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of.
S.L.P..(C) No. 2604 of 1991.
13. Leave granted.
14. Mr. S .C. Birla, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the fact that the Marathwada University Act, 1974 has been repealed and Maharashtra Universities’ Act, 1994 has come into force w.e.f. 22nd July, 1994, the appellant shall approach the University for consideration of its applica-tion for grant of affiliation afresh under the 1994 Act and in that view of the matter nothing further is required to be consid-ered in this appeal.
15. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the Uni-versity submits that as and when such an application is filed by the appellant, the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Act uninfluenced by the earlier order made by the High Court which was based on the provisions of the 1974 Act. We record the statement of the learned counsel for the parties and dispose of the appeal as settled and requiring no further action. No costs.
