1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4897 OF 2008 Pravara Rural Education Society at Pravaranagar, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, through its Secretary Dr. Sampat Ramkrushna Walunj, Age 52 years, Occ. Service, R/o Loni (Bk.), Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director, Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Near Metro Theater, Mumbai. 3. The Joint Director of Technical Education, Regional Office, Near Government Polytechnic, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 9th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER N.D. DESHPANDE, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent 2 of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the communication of Director of Technical Education (respondent No.2), dated 9.8.2006 and the notification issued by the respondent No.3 – Joint Director of Technical Education for M. Pharmacy Admission, dated 23.8.2006 and for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the M. Pharmacy Admission notification dated 13.8.2008 issued by respondent No.2 – Director of Technical Eduction and also for writ of mandamus to implement and carry out the process of admission or provisional M. Pharmacy Course as per the Government of Maharashtra Notification dated 16.4.2003 for admission to postgraduate M. Pharmacy course for the academic year 2008-2009 of the total intake of the institution and further prohibit respondents not to carry out the admission process for M. Pharmacy course on the basis of “Single window system”. 3. By way of an interim relief, this Court, vide its order dated 21.7.2009, directed the respondents not to fill in four posts of M. Pharmacy in the college of the petitioner. 4. The factum as to whether petitioner is allowed to fill in some seats as management quota in such course, is no longer res- integra in view of the order of this Court in Civil Application No.7197 of 3 2009, dated 22.7.2010 in this petition, wherein this Court, upon 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 4927 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 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 fillin seats by management in the management quota. 5. Thus, according to the petitioner, the act of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner 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 Assistant Government 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-Government, unaided colleges to follow the “Single window system” of admission and to fill up the seats either from the Government Central Administrative Process (CAP for short) or through association of non- Government Colleges (Association CAP) and hence, prayed for rejection of petitions. 4 6. This Court, in Civil Application No.7197 of 2009 has already taken stock of all these aspects and has held that it is incumbent upon the State Government 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 in management quota by the management, must have passed the common entrance test held by the management or by the State. Undisputedly, the earlier judgments are not challenged by the respondents. 7. In that view of the matter, we hereby hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled to fill in 20% seats in the 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 Government or by the Association CAP. 8. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)