1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5105/2010 [Balaji Sansthan Devulgaon Raja and one .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 29, 2011. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 and Shri J.B. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no.5. As per the Scheme, an advertisement published on 17.10.2008 by respondent no.2 – The Director of Education, atleast one college in each Tahsil was to be given grant-in-aid. Accordingly, applications 2 were invited by 31.10.2008. Admittedly, the college of the petitioners was not in existence in that year. Respondent nos.3-Society and 4 its College applied under that Scheme. The State Government received several applications including the application of respondent no. 4-college which was found lacking in some particulars and hence no grant was released in its favour. The petitioners have approached this Court pointing out that total 56 such proposals were then found not eligible and out of them, only 14 have now been selected for reconsideration, in which proposal of respondent no.4 finds place. It is further stated that as per said reconsideration, grants are to be released from the year 2010-2011. Advocate Shri Kilor, in this background, contends that the college of the petitioners has come into existence in the year 2009-2010 and in that year no advertise was published. Therefore, the petitioners could not apply in response thereto. However, it moved an 3 application directly to respondent no.1 and staked its claim for the said grant. The said claim was rejected on the ground that application has been sent directly and not through respondent no.5-University and, therefore, is arbitrary. He contends that there has to be fresh advertisement, if entitlement is to be considered in future so as to enable all eligible colleges to apply in response thereto. Learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned rejection. It is contended that as per advertisement the applications were invited till 31.10.2008 and applications so received were being processed. It is clarified that it is one time scheme initiated in 2008-2009 and is being given effect to from 2010-2011 here. As in 2008-2009 college of the petitioners was not in existence, the petitioners are not entitled to consideration at all. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no.5, adopts the argument of the learned AGP. Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent 4 no.3 - Institution and respondent no.4 college, points out that the scheme as formulated on 4.2.2008 expressly restrains all the applicants from making any correspondence with competent Authorities. The rejection or non consideration of application of respondent no.4 college was never communicated to respondent no.3 or respondent no.4 by the State Government. He further states that even in the year 2008-2009, the college was functioning and was eligible to grant-in-aid. He adopts argument of learned AGP, so far as other aspects are concerned. Advocate Shri Kilor, on the other hand, invites our attention to chart at Annexure-XI annexed with the petition to urge that in the academic year 2008-2009 there were no students in respondent no.4 college and in 2009-2010 there were 26 students. We are not, in this matter, required to consider eligibility or otherwise of respondent no.4 college and that aspect which can be looked into by the competent authority while examining rival claims. The perusal of 5 the policy decision dated 4.2.2008 reveals that the grant to the selected colleges was to be released from next academic year i.e. 2008-2009. Accordingly, advertisement was issued on 17.10.2008 and applications were invited by 31.10.2008. It is not in dispute that respondent no.4 accordingly applied in response to that advertisement through proper channel. College of the petitioners was not in existence at that time and started from 2009-2010. The grants were not released to respondent no.4 as per its application in accordance with the scheme. The college of the petitioners had not started till the year 2009-2010. Even today, the grants are not released and it appears that out of total 56 proposals then either rejected or not considered, 14 proposals have been again reconsidered by the State Government. The proposal of respondent no.4 is one, out of them and it has been favourably considered. It is also an admitted position that accordingly the grants are to be released to respondent no.4 college 6 from the year 2010-2011. Thus, as per the scheme, grants are not being released for the year 2008-2009 and grants are being released from the year 2010-2011 when the college of the present petitioners is very much in existence. The Government, therefore, ought to have looked into the claim of all eligible colleges for release of such grants in 2010-2011. Respondent no.4 College was found not entitled to grants in 2008-2009. The application then filed was disposed of. If it becomes eligible in future, it must apply again & such subsequent acquisition of eligibility does not result in reviving that disposed of application. During argument, learned AGP has stated that after publication of advertisement on 17.10.2008 the scheme had lapsed and, therefore, there is no question of fresh advertisement. It is clear that in response to that advertisement and in academic year 2008-2009, no eligible college could be found in the Tahsil and, therefore, scheme was not implemented. The scheme is being implemented for the first time in the year 7 2010-2011. In this background, as per the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to fairly achieve the object of the respondents behind the Scheme fresh advertisement is essential and there cannot be any clandestine operation. We, therefore, direct respondent no.1 to publish appropriate advertisement in so far as Devulgaon Raja Tahsil in Buldhana district is concerned and after receipt of applications in response thereto, to apply its mind to the same and to take appropriate decision. The learned AGP states that as the proposal is required to be scrutinized by respondent no.5-University and then it is to be sent to respondent no.1, the petitioners and respondent no.4 must apply again. The petitioners and respondent no.4 can take appropriate decision in this respect and apply afresh accordingly, giving their present status. In view of our findings recorded above, it is apparent that positive recommendation in favour of respondent no.4 college cannot be been given effect to 8 and grants cannot be disbursed till fresh selection process is completed. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande