AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6999 OF 2006 Manjusha Rajendra Kale & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for the petitioners. Mrs. Prabha Badadare for respondent 6. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the State. Mr. S.K. Solomon, Chairman, Marathi Mission, present in the court. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED : MARCH 19, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. AJN 2 2. The petitioners are the students of Mary B. Harding College, Solapur (for convenience, “the said college”). They are aggrieved, inter alia, by letter dated 15/6/2006 issued by the Deputy Director (Education), Pune to the said college, cancelling their admissions. 3. The petitioners' grievance is that they had applied for admission for first year D.Ed. course in the said college for the Academic Year 2005-06. They were admitted in the minority quota. After securing admission, they were regularly attending the lectures and were participating in prescribed training programme. To their surprise, they were informed by the then principal - Ms. B.B. Kulkarni that they could not appear for the examination to be held in October, 2006. The petitioners made enquiries and they have learned that their application forms were not sent within the prescribed time for approval to the Government and the Government has cancelled their admission. 4. In the circumstances, the instant petition has been filed by them praying that letter dated 15/6/2006 issued by the Deputy Director (Education), Pune, be quashed and the respondent- authorities be directed to accept the admission forms and AJN 3 regularize admission of the petitioners in the said college for the first year D.Ed course for Academic Year 2005-06. 5. It appears that on 19/10/2006, notice before admission was issued to respondents 1 to 4 and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e) was granted. Prayer clause (e) reads thus : “Pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased direct Respondent authorities to allow Petitioners to appear in examination for 1st year D.Ed course for academic year 2005-06, to be held on 28.10.2006 on terms and conditions as this Hon' ble Court may deem fit.” 6. Pursuant to this order, the petitioners appeared for the examination for first year D.Ed course for the Academic Year 2005- 06. However, their results are withheld. The petitioners have, therefore, taken out Civil Application No.562 of 2008 praying that respondent 7 i.e. the Commissioner, Maharashtra State Examination Board, Pune, be directed to declare the results of first year D.Ed course examination held in November, 2006. It is further prayed that respondent 7 be directed to accept examination forms of the petitioners by a form fee for examination for the AJN 4 second year D.Ed course to be held in March, 2008 and declare the results. 7. We have heard Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Looking to the nature of the dispute involved, we had requested Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Associate Advocate General to assist us in the matter. Accordingly, learned Associate Advocate General has assisted us. 8. Mr. Arjunwadkar has reiterated the averments made in the petition as well as in the civil applications. He submitted that in the interest of students, this court may pass appropriate orders directing respondent 7 to declare the results of the first year D.Ed course and accept the forms of the petitioners for the second year D.Ed course. 9. We have also heard Ms. Badadare, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6. She denied that any irregularities have been committed by respondents 5 and 6. She drew our attention to the affidavit in reply filed by respondent 5 - Devan Govind Bhambal and the written submissions tendered by AJN 5 her in this court. Learned counsel has reiterated the said submissions in the court. 10. We have heard, at considerable length, Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Associate Advocate General appearing for the State. Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that the said college conducts D.Ed courses in two mediums viz. Marathi and English since the year 2002-03. The approved strength/intake capacity of the said college in this regard as under : (a) Marathi Medium – One Division - 30 (This Division is aided). (b) English Medium - One Division - 30 (This Division is un-aided). 11. Mr. Kumbhakoni points out that in terms of the orders issued by this court in Writ Petition No.6352 of 2005, the allocation of seats for Management Quota, the balance being Government quota are as under : (i) English Medium (un-aided) 75% (22 seats) Minority Quota 25% (8 seats) State Government Quota AJN 6 through Centralized Admission Process. (ii) Marathi Medium (aided) 50% (15 seats) Minority Quota. 50% (15 seats) State Government Quota through Centralized Admission Process. 12. He further submitted that while conducting the admissions to the aforesaid Minority/Management Quota, the said college has committed following illegalities : “(a) It was mandatorily necessary for the Management to get the time table for effecting admissions to the Minority/Management Quota approved from District Education Officer. This was not done. (b) The said college did not maintain register for making therein entries in respect of demand made for applications, seeking admissions though it was necessary for the said college to do so. AJN 7 (c) The said college did not maintain register in respect of applications received for seeking admissions though it was necessary for the said college to do so. (d) The Principal along with the proposal sent by the said college for approval of admissions, did not produce along with the proposal the aforesaid two registers and even the basic and most important thing i.e. merit list of the applicants who had applied to the said college seeking admission. (e) The Government had granted admissions to 21 students to the aided Marathi medium Division having 30 intake capacity. The said college thus could have admitted only 9 students whereas the said college has granted admissions to 21 students. Even if the said college is assumed to have 50% Quota at the highest, it could have admitted AJN 8 only 15 students. Instead of 15 students, the said college has admitted six additional students i.e. total 21. Thus, the said college has committed blatant and violent breach of even an order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.6352 of 2005. (f) The final date for closure of admission was prescribed as 15/11/2005. Even then, the said college granted admission to one Ms. Trambake Sharmila Shashikant on 28/2/2006. Thus, the said college granted excess admission to the extent of 21 plus 1 i.e. 22 as against permissible 9, at the highest 15. (g) Inasmuch as Minority Quota is concerned, the said college has granted admission to 3 students from Minority Quota though admittedly they did not belong to the minority AJN 9 viz. Christian community. It is pertinent to note that merit list of these 3 candidates has not been produced which appears to be an attempt not to disclose the Relative Merit Position of these 3 candidates, giving rise to assumption that they must be very low in merit. (h) Purposely, along with the proposal sent by the said college for approval of admissions so granted, requisite documents are not sent, making it highly suspicious. Some of these documents are as under :- Register showing sale of admission forms; Register showing receipt of admission forms, prescribed time table, copy of public advertisement, merit list, etc.” AJN 10 13. Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that it is, therefore, clear that the said college has conducted the entire admission process in respect of its Quota in a most illegal and irresponsible manner. It has caused serious prejudice to innocent students and has endangered their careers. He submitted that the management responsible for the same will have to be dealt with iron hands. We find substance in Mr. Kumbhakoni's submissions. However, there appears to be some dispute as to who is in the management of the said college. We are sure that after the responsibility is finally located, those responsible for the irregularities will be penalised in accordance with law. In order to protect the interest of innocent students, learned Associate Advocate General has suggested a course of action which appears to us to be proper. 14. Mr. Solomon – the intervenor, who claims to be the Chairman, Marathi Mission Trust, is present in the court. We have heard him also. He submitted that he has no objection if the results of the first year D.Ed course qua the petitioners are declared and the petitioners are permitted to appear for the second year D.Ed examination. He submitted that this would be in the AJN 11 interest of the students. He submitted that he is making this statement purely because the students should not suffer. He submitted that, however, there are irregularities committed by the persons who are responsible for the admissions and that they must be penalised for their action. 15. We must note, at this stage, that there is a serious dispute about the question as to who is in the management of the said college. Whereas learned counsel for respondent 6 states that her clients are in the management of the said college, the intervenor seriously disputes this fact. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that we should keep the question as to who is in the management of the said college open to be decided by the Competent Authority in the appropriate proceedings. However, for the present purpose, we direct respondent 6, who claims to be in the management and who has given admission to the petitioners, to submit an undertaking duly sworn in by the Chairman/President of the Trust, supported by a resolution passed by the Trust to the effect that for the next three Academic Years, respondent 6 shall not claim any Management/Minority Quota in the admission process. AJN 12 16. We direct that for the Academic Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the entire admission to each and every seat of the said college shall be granted by the State Government through its Centralized Admission Process and respondent 6 shall not grant a single admission from their Management/Minority Quota. The undertaking will be filed in the court within one week from today i.e. on or before 25/03/2008. We make it clear that the admissions illegally granted by the management are directed to be regularized only if the management files the above undertaking and only after the same is accepted by this court. 17. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 has, on instructions from her clients, made a statement that respondents 5 and 6 will abide by the terms and conditions noted hereinabove. 18. We make it clear that all objections raised by the intervenor as regards who is in the management are kept open. Needless to say that the Competent Authority shall decide the same in the appropriate proceedings. As and when those who are responsible for the irregularities are located, they may be penalised in AJN 13 accordance with law. 19. We were of the opinion that some fine should be imposed on respondent 6. However, we are informed that the State Government has already imposed fine of approximately Rs.2,42,000/-. Hence, we feel that it is not necessary to impose further fine at this stage. It is also made clear that if there is any delay in accepting the application forms of the petitioners, since the delay has occurred because of the pendency of this petition, the State Government shall accept the forms of the petitioners from respondent 6 without imposing any fine. 20. Learned counsel are agreed that in view of our above order, nothing survives in this petition. Hence writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. However, the petition be placed before us after one week only for accepting the undertaking. 21. All connected civil applications are also disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] AJN 14 [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]