-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.279 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.279 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.279 OF 2007 Miss Urmila Suresh Gorekar & Anr. ...Appellants vs. The Trustees of the Oriental Educational Trust and others ...Respondents WITH WITH WITH SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.243 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.243 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.243 OF 2007 The Trustees of the Oriental Educational Trust and others ...Appellants vs. The State of Maharashtra & others ...Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh for the Appellants in S.A.No.279/2007 Mr.Hitesh Buch a/w Mr.S.K.More for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 10 Mr.B.H.Mehta,A.G.P. for Respondent No.3 in S.A.No.279/2007 Ms Deepa Chavan i/b M/s.Little & Co. for Respondent no.8. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 27, 2008. : MARCH 27, 2008. : MARCH 27, 2008. P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. These Appeals can be disposed of by a common Judgment and Order as the same arise out of same suit. 2. Second Appeal No.279 of 2007 is preferred by the original Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. Second Appeal No.243 of 2007 is preferred by the original Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff No.1 is a trust running a college known as National Adhyapak Vidyalaya. The said college is conducting D.Ed. course. The -2- intake capacity of the said college was 40. Since the academic year 2000-2001, the admissions of aided and non-aided D.Ed. colleges were made by the first Respondent-State of Maharashtra through a centralised admission system. The State level selection committee has been constituted for that purpose. There is a Government Resolution dated 18th July 2001 laying down the procedure for centralised admissions. The said Government Resolution provides that a cut off date will be fixed for giving admission to D.Ed. colleges through centralised admission. Till the cut off date, the admissions are to be granted through the centralised admission process and after the cut off date, the right has been given to the management of the college to fill in the balance vacancies subject to certain terms and conditions. 3. According to the case of the plaintiffs, the cut-off date fixed for the academic year 2002-2003 was 29th September 2002. According to the plaintiffs, 31 candidates were selected through the centralised system till 29th September 2002. The said 31 students were admitted to the college. After 29th September 2002, State Legal Selection Committee forwarded to the management the names of the following four selected candidates: 1. Ravindra Genu Mengale 2. Neelima Pralhad Bhatkar -3- 3. Miss Sarika Appasaheb Jagtap 4. Shri Sunil Borse . The names of the said candidates were forwarded along with the letter dated 2nd October 2002. 4. According to the first and second plaintiffs, the first candidate Shri Mengale could not submit caste validity certificate. According to them, the other candidate Neelima had secured lesser marks than the requisite marks. It was found that though the third candidate Sarika claimed in the category of widow, her marriage was void and she had become widow during her minority. According to the case made out by the plaintiffs, the names of the three candidates were returned as they were not found to be eligible. The fourth candidate Sunil was admitted in college after due verification. On 8th October 2002, the second plaintiff received a telephone call from the third defendant making allegations against her. By a letter dated 9th October 2002, the second plaintiff communicated to the second Respondent (second defendant) the reasons for coming to the conclusion that the said three candidates were not eligible. On 18th October 2002, the Principal of the District Institute for Education and Training organized a Camp for spot admissions. In the said camp, two candidates were selected and their names -4- were forwarded to the second plaintiff. According to the case made out by the plaintiffs, on 18th October 2002, The District Institute for Education and Training under the instructions of the Defendant No.2 directed the second plaintiff to fill in the remaining six seats after advertising in local Newspapers. Accordingly, the second plaintiff completed the admission process on 21st October 2002. Six candidates were admitted including the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs. On 22nd and 23rd October 2002, the first and second plaintiffs received letters from fourth and fifth defendants directing to admit the other three candidates whose names were earlier returned by the management on the ground that they were ineligible. As intake capacity was completely filled, the second plaintiff made a representation to the fifth defendant on 25th October 2002. Out of the three candidates, who were found to be ineligible, one candidate viz. Neelima was accommodated in another college. On 1st November 2002, a proposal was sent by the second plaintiff for approval to the admission of 40 candidates. There was a show cause notice issued on 1st November 2002 by the fifth Respondent alleging that the second plaintiff has admitted the candidates in place of three candidates whose names were forwarded by the second defendant. There was a prolonged correspondence and ultimately by communication dated 15th October 2003, second and third defendants refused to grant an approval to the admission of the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, a suit for declaration -5- and injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. An Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs before the District Court has been dismissed. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant in Second Appeal No.279 of 2007 is that the Appellants in the said Appeal i.e. plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 were admitted after the cut off date i.e. 29th September 2002. He submitted that on the date on which the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 were admitted, there were six vacancies available and the second plaintiff was entitled to fill up the six vacancies as per the G.R.dated 18th July 2001 and accordingly, the vacancies were filled in in terms of the G.R. He pointed out the correspondence made by the first and second plaintiffs with the defendants. He stated that in the letter dated 9th October 2002, the second plaintiff had informed the second defendant the reasons why the three candidates whose names were sent under the centralised admission system were ineligible. He pointed out that the authorities kept quiet till 8th October 2002 and for the first time on 8th October 2002, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the second plaintiff to show cause as to why the recognition of the second plaintiff should not be withdrawn. He submitted that the three candidates allegedly selected through the centralised admission process reported after the cut off date was over and in any case they were ineligible. He submitted that the third and fourth plaintiffs -6- should not suffer after having secured admission after the cut off date. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants (first and second plaintiffs) in Second Appeal No.243 of 2007 submitted that in view of G.R.Dated 18th July 2001, after the cut off date, six candidates have been lawfully admitted by the first and second plaintiffs. He pointed out the instructions issued by the fifth defendant to the Principals of D.Ed. colleges. The said instructions record that if the candidate forwarded by the second Respondent is ineligible, the said candidate should not be admitted. He submitted that admittedly the third and fourth plaintiffs were admitted after the cut off date and therefore none of the defendants have any right to raise any objection to their admission. He, therefore, submitted that the courts below have committed illegality by holding that the admission given to the third and fourth plaintiffs were not valid. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions. The courts below have held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the admission given to the third and fourth plaintiffs was legal and proper. The courts below have held that there was illegality committed while giving the admission to the third and fourth plaintiffs. -7- 8. I have perused the G.R.dated 18th July 2001. The G.R. enjoins the management to the D.Ed. colleges to admit the students through the centralised admission process. The said G.R. records that in the case of the the candidates who are admitted by the management after the expiry of cut off date, approval to the admission is required to be taken. Though according to the case of the first and second Plaintiffs, the names of the four candidates were received after the cut off date, one of the four candidates was admitted by them. Moreover, the first and second Plaintiffs denied admission to the other three not on the ground that their names were forwarded after the cut off date, but because the said candidates were allegedly ineligible. As regards ineligibility of the three out of four candidates, the first communication by the second plaintiff was made on 9th October 2002 addressed to the second respondent. Till 21st October 2002, there was no response to the communication dated 9th October 2002 which is referred to above. When an advertisement was published by the second plaintiff on 21st October 2002, on the very date the six candidates were directly filled in by the second plaintiff. On that date, the first and second plaintiffs were fully aware that the issue regarding the eligibility of the said three candidates raised by the plaintiffs was not resolved. Knowing fully well that the said issue was not resolved, the first and second plaintiffs proceeded to fill in all the six seats on the very -8- same day on which the advertisement was issued. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that a stand was taken by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs that after the cut off date, only the Management has a right to fill in all vacant seats. On the contrary, the first and second Plaintiffs admitted one of the four candidates after 29th September 2002. Without waiting for the outcome of the representation made by them as regards the eligibility of the three the candidates, the first and second plaintiffs filled in all the vacancies on the very date on which they published the advertisement. At least on that date, the decision of the second Respondent on the representation of the ineligibility of the three candidates was not known to the first and second plaintiffs. The admission of the plaintiffs Nos.3 and 4 was never approved by the authorities. 9. In the circumstances, both the courts were fully justified in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the admission granted to the third and fourth plaintiffs were legal and valid. 10. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, Civil Application No.52 of 2007 and 518 of 2007 do not survive and the same are -9- disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE