:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8144 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 8144 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 8144 OF 2007. Praphul R. Rane & others. ..Petitioners. V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. --- Mr. Nitin Pradhan i/b Ms. S. D. Khot for the petitioner. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.S.SHINDE, JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.S.SHINDE, JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : March 31, 2008. DATE : March 31, 2008. DATE : March 31, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. Petitioner has challenged the Government Resolution dated 12th March 2007, wherein the Government has prescribed that 50% fees of the OBC students will be borne by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by the Government Resolution dated 20th November 2005, the Government has accepted the liability to pay the full fees of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe students, however, the Government Resolution applicable to the OBC provides that 50% of the fees to be paid by the government. Thus, he tried to persuade this Court that the government cannot discriminate between the backward classes. He submitted that Article 15(5) of :2: :2: :2: the Constitution requires that the same law to be made applicable to the SC & ST and other backward communities. Mr. S.R.Nargolkar, learned AGP opposed the petition. What we find is that the Government has power to make a law to provide additional educational benefits in view of Article 15(5). However, the SC & ST students are on a different footing and are a class as such, while the OBC students stand on a different footing and class. These categories form separate classes as such and for these categories / classes the Government can provide different educational benefits under Article 15. If within the same class the Government tries to discriminate then there may be a case for interference by this Court. However, when the different classes are differently treated by the government, it is not a case to be interfered by this Court by invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus applied the test, there is no case for the petitioner. Petition is rejected. (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) :2008/sss/...