Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by six Ayurved colleges and their managements challenging a letter dated 6 June 2017 and an order dated 18 August 2017 issued by the State of Maharashtra, which allegedly interfered with their right to recruit teaching staff by prescribing a selection committee composed of government officers. The petitioners contended that despite the State’s earlier resolutions sanctioning posts, the government had been reluctant to permit recruitment and had, through an executive fiat, imposed a selection committee that was not impartial. The management claimed that their autonomy in recruitment, protected under the Constitution, was being violated. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, specifically Sections 5(dd), 9(3) and 61(3), empowered the State to issue directions to the University and to prescribe the mode of appointment and composition of the selection committee for aided posts in private colleges. They pointed out that the Direction No.2 of 2018 and the Government Resolutions dated 28 August 2017 and 22 January 2018, which were not challenged by the petitioners, clearly laid down the composition. Respondents also raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, including lack of challenge to the vires of the statutory provisions, failure to seek permission to file a representative suit, and territorial jurisdiction issues concerning colleges from districts beyond the Bench’s jurisdiction. The court, after hearing arguments, examined the statutory scheme and the distinction between aided and unaided colleges. It noted that the State had framed the direction in exercise of its statutory power and that the petitioners had not shown any fundamental right that was infringed. The court further distinguished the Supreme Court decisions in Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Sk. Mohd. Rafique, observing that those cases did not deal with a similarly worded statute. The judgment, however, was not fully excerpted; the text provided ends during the respondents’ submissions, and the concluding portion containing the court’s final holding and directions is not available.
Headnote
A) Education Law – Private Aided Colleges – Selection Committee Composition – Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, Sections 5(dd), 9(3), 61(3) – Petitioners contended that State’s prescription of a selection committee dominated by government employees violates management rights; Respondents argued the Act empowers such prescription for aided posts – Issue remained to be determined (Paras 12-15). B) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Challenge Maintainability – Constitution of India, Art.226 – Petitioners sought to quash government communication and direction but did not challenge the underlying statutes or the Direction No.2 of 2018 and Government Resolutions dated 28.08.2017 and 22.01.2018 – Maintainability of the petition therefore was questioned (Paras 16, 20, 23). C) Precedent – Application of Ratio – Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 6 SCC 224, and Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, (2020) 6 SCC 689 – Court was invited to distinguish these cases on the ground that the present case is governed by a specific statutory framework empowering State to prescribe mode of appointment for aided colleges (Paras 10, 11, 21). D) Civil Procedure – Representative Suit – Non‑compliance – Petitioners claimed to file in representative capacity but did not seek permission of court or comply with procedural requirements; added petitioners from different districts lacked proper authorization and territorial jurisdiction was questioned (Paras 16, 17, 22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government can interfere with the recruitment process of teaching staff in private aided Ayurved colleges by prescribing composition of the Selection Committee under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998?
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Management of private aided colleges must follow state-prescribed composition of selection committee as per enabling Act
- State has power to direct university and colleges regarding mode of appointment under Section 61(3) read with Sections 5(dd) and 9(3) of MHUHS Act
- 1998
- failure to challenge statutory directions defeats petition
