Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a challenge to a Government Resolution (GR) dated 27.02.2013 issued by the State of Maharashtra, which restricted fee reimbursement benefits for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Class (OBC) students to only those who secured admission through the Centralised Admission Process (CAP). Twenty-six students, all from SC/ST/OBC categories, had been admitted to the second respondent college, a Gujarati Linguistic Minority non-aided professional institution, through its own admission procedure approved by the Pravesh Niyantran Committee, without participating in CAP. The petitioners sought to quash the GR and direct the State to reimburse their education and examination fees. The GR allowed 100 per cent reimbursement for SC, ST, DT, NT, VJNT, and SBC students, and 50 per cent for OBC students, studying in State-recognised private unaided and permanently non-aided professional institutions, but made it contingent upon admission under the Government Quota through CAP. Students admitted to Deemed Universities were expressly excluded. Similar earlier GRs for previous academic years had also contained the CAP-linked condition. On 27 March 2019, a Division Bench of the High Court noticed a judicial cleavage among coequal Benches. A Nagpur Bench in Bhupendra v. Union of India had upheld the scheme but applied it prospectively, refusing to impose restrictions on students already admitted. Later, two coequal Benches at Bombay, in Association of Management of Unaided Engineering Colleges v. State of Maharashtra and Bapu Supadu Thorat v. State of Maharashtra, had taken contrary stands, with the latter holding the impugned GR as patently discriminatory. As these earlier decisions were not uniformly considered, the Division Bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench, leading to the present Full Bench hearing to resolve the precedential tangle. The court’s analysis and final decision are not contained in the provided excerpt, which ends during the narration of facts. The petition sought to establish that the restriction created an artificial classification without any rational basis, discriminating between students who otherwise shared identical socio-economic vulnerabilities solely based on the mode of admission, and thus violated constitutional guarantees of equality and access to education.
Issue of Consideration
Constitutional validity of Government Resolution dated 27.02.2013 restricting fee reimbursement to SC/ST/OBC students only to those admitted through the Centralised Admission Process (CAP), thereby excluding students admitted through a minority institution's own admission procedure.
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (05) 23
Writ Petition No. 775 of 2014
A.A. Sayed, Dama Seshadri Naidu, P.D. Naik
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Mr. Aseem S. Naphade, Ms. Farhana Khan, Mr. Kalpesh J. Nansi; Mr. Girish Godbole, Milind More, Ms. Shruti Tulpule, Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay, Mr. Rahul Soman; Mr. S.K. Srivastav, Ms. Manoramma Mohanty, Ms. Ambika P. Singh, Ms. Kavita Srivastav Sharan
Yash Pramesh Rana & Others
State of Maharashtra and Shree Vileparle Kelvani Mandal’s Dwarkadas J. Sanghvi College of Engineering
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a Government Resolution restricting fee reimbursement benefits to SC/ST/OBC students admitted through Centralised Admission Process (CAP), excluding those admitted through minority institution's own admission procedure.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2013 and direct the Government to reimburse education fees and examination fees to the petitioners.
Filing Reason
The Government restricted fee reimbursement only to students admitted through CAP, thereby excluding petitioners who were admitted to a minority institution through its own admission procedure, despite being SC/ST/OBC and qualifying in CET.
Previous Decisions
Earlier Division Bench noticed conflicting decisions from coequal Benches: a Nagpur Bench in Bhupendra v. Union of India upheld the scheme but applied it prospectively; two Bombay Benches, in Association of Management of Unaided Engineering Colleges v. State of Maharashtra and Bapu Supadu Thorat v. State of Maharashtra, took contrary stands on the validity of the GR. The Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench to resolve the precedential conflict.
Issues
Whether the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2013 restricting fee reimbursement to SC/ST/OBC students admitted under CAP is discriminatory and violates constitutional provisions.
Judgment Excerpts
But the battle has not ceased, it seems. It continues in one form or another—in the arena of courts, though.
To have this precedential tangle resolved, the Division Bench requested the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to place it before a Bench of appropriate strength.
The students taking admissions in Deemed Universities are not eligible for this Scheme.
This benefit for Diploma/Degree and P.G. Degree shall be given to the students who are admitted under the Government Centralised Admission Process (CAP);
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed assailing the GR dated 27.02.2013. On 27 March 2019, a Division Bench noticed conflicting decisions of coequal Benches: Bhupendra v. Union of India (Nagpur) upheld the scheme prospectively; while two Bombay Benches in Association of Management of Unaided Engineering Colleges and Bapu Supadu Thorat took contrary views on the GR's validity. The Division Bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. The Full Bench was constituted accordingly.
