1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3994 OF 2010 (Shivshakti Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JUNE 29, 2011. Heard Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Manohar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. The challenge is to the order dated 05.08.2010 by which the State Government has released 100% grant-in- aid in favour of Respondent No. 3 from the year 2010-11. Today itself this Court has considered similar challenge in Writ Petition No. 5105 of 2010 and found that for such grant in favour of Respondent No. 3 therein, fresh advertisement ought to have have been issued. According to learned Senior Advocate, the proposal of Respondent No. 3 submitted in response to advertisement dated 17.10.2008 was not 2 recommended positively by the Task Force as per its report dated 02.08.2009. Thereafter in reconsideration in the meeting of Task Force conducted on 26.05.2010, the relaxed condition of two years experience in place of three years experience was applied to Respondent No. 3 and, therefore, Task Force recommended his proposal for disbursement of such grant. Accordingly, by impugned order, grants have been released. Our attention has been invited to Government decision dated 14.05.2009 which is issued on the subject of prescription of procedure for the purposes of bringing a College on grant in each Taluka. It is stated that for deciding merit and competency, the procedure to be followed is to be formulated by such Task Force. Our attention is drawn to clause 2.3 thereof. The learned Senior Advocate contends that thus, this is the matter in which Respondent No. 3 is not found eligible since 2008-09 for grants. Hence, if his subsequent eligibility is to be considered and that too as per revised norms, all eligible Colleges then available needed to be given such opportunity and hence issuance of fresh advertisement was necessary. Shri Fulzele, learned AGP is supporting the order and decision of Government. He contends that as Respondent No. 3 is found to satisfy the 3 norms, the grants have been sanctioned. Shri Manohar, learned counsel, on the other hand, contends that there is no requirement of having three years experience or then for that purpose possessing any experience. The negative recommendations on 02.08.2009 by Task Force itself is bad on that ground. He contends that, therefore, it is erroneous to urge that a relaxed norm has been used in the case of present Respondent No. 3. According to him, though the grant has been sanctioned by applying relaxed norms, that does not stop Respondent No. 3 from demonstrating that the norm of experience either of three years or two years as used by Respondents No. 1 & 2 itself is bad. He points out that as per advertisement issued as one time measure, Respondent No. 3 was qualified since 2008-09 and hence the error which occurred then in 2009 has now been corrected and grants have been sanctioned to present Respondent No.3 prospectively i.e. from 2010-11. The grants to be sanctioned and the norms to be used thereafter have been decided by respondents No. 1 & 2. It is not the case of Respondent No. 1 before this Court that norm of three years was wrongfully employed on Respondent No. 3. On the contrary, after relaxed norm of two years on 26.05.2010, Respondent No. 3 is held to be 4 qualified. In view of this recommendation which is based upon relaxed norm, Respondent No. 1 has again considered the entitlement of Respondent No. 3 and released grants in his favour. It is not the case of Respondents No. 1 & 2 that earlier there was any error and that error has been corrected by them by releasing grants now. Respondent No. 3 has now challenged negative recommendation in his favour by the Task Force on 02.08.2009. He is getting benefits of grants because of application of relaxed norms by respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Manohar, learned counsel at this stage requests to ignore his arguments about the incompetency of the Task Force to prescribe norms for judging merit and competency of the institution and to keep issue open. We accordingly do not pronounce upon it. We, therefore, find that in case of Respondent No. 3, a revised norm not in existence in 2008-09 has been applied. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have nowhere found him eligible for grant in 2008- 09, hence, it was obligatory for Respondents No. 1 & 2 to publish fresh advertisement if such revised norm was to be used and was to be applied to find out institution's eligibility for grant as one time measure in view of Government Resolution dated 04.02.2008. The impugned order dated 05.08.2010 is, therefore, 5 quashed and set aside. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to issue fresh advertisement in accordance with law for inviting proposals and then proceed further in the matter. Writ Petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.