1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5254 OF 2009 PRAVARA RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY’S PRAVARA RURAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT PRAVATA NAGAR, TQ. RAHATA DIST. : AHMEDNAGAR THRUGH ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AND PRINCIPAL SAU.VIDYA PANDURANG WAJE AGE :48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O : LONI, TQ. RAHATA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI . 2. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (HIGHER EDUCATION ) MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare Govt. Pleaders for State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 07/05/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petition impugns the admission rules for B.Ed. course for the year 2009 – 2010, more particularly, Rule 1.2, by which no seats are kept to be filled in as management quota by the management for the B.Ed. course. 3. By way of an interim relief, this Court vide its order dated 12/8/2009, directed the respondents not to fill in 20 % of the seats reserved as management quota. 4. The factum as to whether the petitioners are allowed to fill in some seats as management quota in such courses, is no longer res-integra in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No. 7197 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 4897 of 2008, wherein this Court while considering the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others V/s State of Karnataka and others reported in 2002 AIR SCW 4957 and the another case of Islamic Academy of Education and another V/s State of Karnataka and others reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4240, so also, the 3 Judgment of the Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar and others V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3923 has held that the institutions like petitioners are entitled to fill in seats by management in the management quota. 5. According to the petitioners, the act of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to fill in the seats as management quota is violative of their rights and is against the dictum of the Apex Court in the cases referred supra. The learned Govt. Pleader, on the other hand, contended that the object of filling in 100 % seats through ‘ single window system’ is to facilitate transparency, fairness and non exploitation in the admission process. The Rules have made it mandatory for all the non Govt., unaided colleges to follow the ‘ single window system ’ of admission and to fill up the seats either from the Govt. Central Administrative Process ( For short, CAP ) or through association of non Govt. colleges (Association CAP) and hence prayed for rejection of petitions. 6. This Court in Civil Application No. 7197 of 2009 has taken stock of all these aspects and has held that it is incumbent upon the State Govt. to keep certain percentage of seats which can be called as ‘ Management quota ’ to be filled in by the management while rest of the seats are to be filled in on the basis of merit. It was further held that it is, however, necessary that the students who are to be admitted 4 in management quota by the management, must have passed the common entrance test held by the management or by the State. 7. In view of the above, we hereby hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled to fill in 20 % seats as management quota and we further direct that the said students admitted in the management quota shall only be from the students, who have passed common entrance test conducted by the State Govt. or by the association CAP. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 5254.09 ( J )