1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6631 OF 2009 Tompatrick Institute of Computer & Information Technology, Through it's Director Dr. Syed Mohiuddin s/o Syed Habibuddin, Age-66 years, Occu:Service Dr. Rafiq Zakeria Campus, Rauzabagh, Aurangabad R/o-Budhilane, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) Director of Technical Education, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No.1967, Mumbai 400 001, 3) Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (Higher & Technical Education), 3, Mahapalika Marg, Opposite Metro Cinema, Mumbai- 400 001, 4) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.P.G. Deshmukh Advocate i/b. Shri Darshan Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. M.V. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7039 OF 2009 West Khandesh Bhagini Seva Mandal, Dr. Suryakanta R., Ajmera MCA College For Womens, through its President, Dr. Suryakanta w/o Ranesh Ajmera Age-58 years, Occ:Service, R/o-Ashish, Saraswati Colony, Deopur, Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) Director of Technical Education, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No.1967, Mumbai 400 001, 3) Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (Higher & Technical Education), 350, Third Floor, Govt. Polytechnic Building, 49, Kherwadi, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-51, 3 4) Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey University, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.P.G. Deshmukh Advocate i/b. Shri D.D. Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. M.V. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. ORDER RESERVED ON : 10TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 15TH DECEMBER, 2009 ORDER (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) : 1. The Petitioners in these two Writ Petitions raise and challenge identical issues before this Court, therefore, both the Petitions are decided by this Common Order. 2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2009 is an institution run by Maulana Azad Educational Trust. The Petitioner institution 4 provides for education in Master of Computer Application (M.C.A.) Course. The institution is approved by All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.), New Delhi and is affiliated to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. 3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7039 of 2009 imparts education in respect of computer application. The Institution is run by West Khandesh Bhagini Seva Mandal. The Institute provides for education in M.C.A. Course. The said institute is approved by A.I.C.T.E., New Delhi and is affiliated to Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey University, Mumbai. The Petitioner institute received approval from A.I.C.T.E., New Delhi to start M.C.A. Course on 15th June, 2009. 4. According to the Petitioners the examinations for the M.C.A. Course are conducted by the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State (MAH MCA CET). In the academic year of 2009-2010, 5 through the Central Admission Process (C.A.P.) some seats were filled in against the intake capacity of the respective institutions. If, after admitting the students under the Central Admission Process, some seats are lying vacant, then the institutions , under the rules, are entitled to apply to Admission Regulation Committee (Pravesh Niyantran Samiti)/ Director, Education Department, Mumbai for obtaining approval for filling in the remaining seats. 5. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2009 states that according to the admission procedure brochure, on 25th August, 2009, they applied to the Chairman of Admission Regulation Committee, Mumbai and Director, Technical Education, Mumbai for obtaining permission to conduct additional Common Entrance Test (CET) for admission to M.C.A. Course for the academic year 2009-2010. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7039 of 2009 applied to the Admission Regulation Committee accordingly on 20th August, 2009. By 6 communication dated 17th August, 2009 and 26th August, 2009 Dr. S.K. Mahajan, In-charge Director, Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai addressed to Principal, Sadhana Shikshan Mandal's Saraswati College, Shegaon, communicated that by taking permission/ approval of the Admission Regulation Committee, 8 institutions listed in the communication and the Tompatrick Institute of Computer & Information Technology (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2009) may hold additional CET. 6. By communication dated 28th August, 2009, the Respondent No.2 - Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, intimated to the Principal, Sadhana Shikshan Mandal's Saraswati College, Shegaon, in clear terms that no students shall be admitted without holding CET by obtaining prior permission of the Admission Regulation Committee. The Admission Regulation Committee held its meeting on 5th September, 2009 and discussed the request made by some of the 7 institutions including Tompatrick Institute of Computer and Information Technology, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2009, for conducting additional CET. The Admission Regulation Committee rejected the request made by the Institutions for conducting additional CET for the academic year 2009-2010. 7. In the case of Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7039 of 2009 - West Khandesh Bhagini Seva Mandal, Dhule, the Admission Regulation Committee held its meeting on 26th September, 2009. At item No.5 of the minutes of the meeting, the issue in respect of request made by the Petitioner was considered and the same came to be rejected. The Admission Regulation Committee observed that West Khandesh Bhagini Seva Mandal, despite disapproval of the Committee, proceeded to conduct CET on its own and granted admission to 10 students, which was highly objectionable. 8. In the case of Tompatrick Institute of 8 Computer and Information Technology - Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6631 of 2009 the Admission Regulation Committee decided not to grant permission to the colleges to conduct additional CET for filling in the vacancies for M.C.A. Course. 9. In consequence to the notices issued by this Court, on behalf of the Respondent No.2 - the Director of Technical Education, Mumbai, affidavit in reply was filed by Dr. Ajit Ramrao Thete, the In-charge Joint Director of Technical Education, Aurangabad. The deponent referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3724 and the Judgment of the Apex Court delivered in the case of P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3226. In Para 4, 5 and 6 the deponent contends that: 9 "4. I say that the Petitioner can admit students either from the CET conducted by the Respondents herein and/or by an Association formed by such educational institutions from the same faculty. As a matter off act, the Respondent No.2 had conducted Common Entrance Test not only for the State-run colleges but also for the private unaided educational institutions, including for the petitioner institution for two rounds. I say that despite conduction two rounds of admission, since seats remained vacant, the Respondents, by the invoking the power referred to in Rule-4 of the MAH-MCA-CET 2009 regulations, permitted 8 unaided educational institutions, who had formed an Association, to conduct additional round of admission. 10 5. I say that not only 8 Institutions, named in the above referred letter, but vide letter dated 26th August, 2009, the association so formed by the private unaided institutes were directed to conduct additional CET for the seats which have remained vacant in R.C. Patel Education Trust's Institute of Management research and Development Shirpur, District-Dhule. Copy of letter dated 26th August, 2009 is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT"II". Similar letter on 26th August, 2009 itself was issued to the Association by the Respondent No.2 for filling up the vacant seats of the petitioner-institute and they copy of that letter is alr5eady issued by hand to representative of the Petitioner institute on 26th 11 August, 2009. 6. I say that however, it appears that contrary to the directions issued by the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 26-8-2009 and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner purportedly conducted a Common Entrance Test on 30-8-2009 in the garb of additional CET and admitted some 10 students for the alleged vacant seats that remained in the petitioner-institution. I submit that this course adopted by the Petitioner was and is not permissible in law and runs counter to the law in force. The contentions raised by the Petitioner in paragraph-6 that they were awaiting the response of the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti on the proposal 12 submitted by them for conducting additional CET are untenable in law." 10. In substance, the Director of Technical Education disapproved the stand of the Petitioners by observing that they were not entitled to admit the students in absence of permission/ approval of the Admission Regulation Committee. 11. The learned counsel Shri. Deshmukh appearing for the Petitioners in both the Petitions, submitted that there is ambiguity in the Rules/ Guidelines framed for the admission process by the State Government. Rule 4 of the General Notes, which forms part of Annexure III Guidelines for the Admission Process to be carried out by Un- aided Institutes, Higher & Technical Education Department, MAH-MCA-CET 2009, annexed to the Writ Petition reads thus: "4. After admitting the MAH-MCA-CET 13 2009 and AIMCET 2009 qualified candidates, if seats still remains vacant then the institutions has to apply to the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti/ Director, Technical Education, M.S., Mumbai for obtaining approval for the conduct of additional CET." 12. Based on the said rules, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Director, Technical Education was approached by the Petitioners and as the Director granted permission, the Common Entrance Test (CET) was held and the students were admitted. The CET was held on 30th August, 2009 as the cut-off date for admission was 31st August, 2009. 10 students each were admitted by both the Petitioners according to the learned counsel for the Petitioners. In the submissions of the learned counsel, it should be endeavour of the State and the Admission Regulation Committee that the seat do not go 14 vacant in any institute and every effort should be made to permit the institutes to fill in the vacancies before the cut off date. It was further submitted that the Director, Technical Education has adopted reverse stand now. Whereas under the intimation given by the In-charge Director, Technical Education, the institutes had reason to believe that they were entitled to hold additional CET and admit the students. The counsel submitted that the examinations of the courses to which these students have been admitted, are to commence from 18th December, 2009 and therefore in the interest of justice and looking to the careers of the students, the counsel prays for direction to the Respondents to allow the students to appear in the examination and to regulate their admissions. 13. Shri Murar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the Admission Regulation Committee, submitted that the Admission Regulation Committee had discharged its functions and with reasons rejected the request made by the 8 institutes 15 including the Petitioners for permitting them to hold additional CET. Inspite of the same, under the garb of purported permission sought from the Director, Technical Education, the Petitioners admitted the students by holding additional CET on their own, which is highly objectionable and is contrary to the Rules and spirit of the Judgment in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra) delivered by the Apex Court. It is further submitted that Deputy Director, Technical Education, Mumbai was present in the meeting held by the Admission Regulation Committee when the issues were considered and request was rejected for holding additional CET. 14. We have perused the Government Resolution dated 24th September, 2003 and the Annexure III and the Guidelines and the Notes annexed to the Petition in respect of holding of CET/ Additional CET. At the first instance, we are of the firm opinion that the State must make the General Note No.4 forming part of Annexure III annexed to the 16 Petition, more clear in respect of the powers of the Admission Regulation Committee and the Director, Technical Education in respect of obtaining approval for conduct of additional CET. 15. Even otherwise, we do not find that the Petitioners were permitted to hold additional CET by the Director, Technical Education, on their own. The communication addressed to by the Director, Technical Education, clearly mentions that in case the institutes wanted to hold additional CET, the same could be done by taking prior approval of the Admission Regulation Committee. We do not find that the Petitioners, who run several institutes, were not aware of the powers of the Admission Regulation Committee. The Admission Regulation Committee disapproved and objected to the manner in which the seats were filled in inspite of rejection of request made by the Petitioners. We will have to consider the powers of the Admission Regulation Committee. In the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the 17 case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra), the State constituted the Admission Regulation Committee which is headed by a retired High Court Judge. It is necessary to follow strict discipline in holding CET and admitting the students purely based on merits and the admission procedure approved by the Admission Regulation Committee. Any dilution of the powers of the Admission Regulation Committee on this count would frustrate the purpose behind constituting the Admission Regulation Committee. 16. We do find that the Director, Technical Education, Mumbai ought to have communicated the Petitioners about its opinion in more clear terms than what it appears from the communication placed on record. 17. From the facts of these cases and the challenge raised, we direct that the State Government and its authorities shall clarify the Rules of admission more clearly in its Guidelines/ 18 General Notes by specifying that no institution would be permitted to hold CET/ additional CET on its own unless prior permission/ approval is sought from the Admission Regulation Committee. 18. In the light of the observations made above by us, we do not find any merit in the Petitions. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. . The Registry to forward copy of this order to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC09/wp6631.09