Bombay High Court Allows Educational Institutions to Continue Admissions Under Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015 — State's Circular Restricting Admissions to Government Quota Set Aside. The court held that the circular was contrary to the Act and the institutions' right to admit students under their own quota.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: KOLHAPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 95
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, educational institutions running professional courses, challenged a circular issued by the State of Maharashtra that directed them to conduct admissions only for government quota seats for the academic year 2026-27. The institutions argued that the circular was contrary to the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015, which allows them to admit students under both government quota and institutional quota. The court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 10 and 12, and found that the circular was not in consonance with the statutory scheme. The court noted that the institutions had already been granted approval and were entitled to admit students as per the Act. The court set aside the circular and allowed the institutions to proceed with admissions in accordance with the Act and earlier government resolutions. The judgment emphasized that the Act provides a comprehensive framework for admissions and the government cannot override it through executive instructions.

Headnote

A) Education Law - Admission Process - Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions - Sections 10, 12 of Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015 - Petitioners challenged a circular directing that admissions be conducted only for government quota seats - Court held that the circular was contrary to the Act and the institutions' right to admit students under their own quota - Held that the institutions could proceed with admissions as per the Act and earlier government resolutions (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Government's circular restricting admissions to unaided private professional educational institutions to only government quota seats is valid under the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned circular, and directed that the petitioners may proceed with admissions in accordance with the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015 and earlier government resolutions.

Law Points

  • Admission process
  • Professional educational institutions
  • Unaided private institutions
  • Government quota
  • Circular validity
  • Section 10 of Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act
  • 2015
  • Section 12 of Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 142

Writ Petition No. 1932 of 2026 and connected matters

0000-00-00

Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha, Sawarde Thr. Secretary And Anr; Yashodeep Shikshan Khadi Gramodyog Va Bahu-uddeshiya Pratishthan Thr. Secretary And Anr.

The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary And Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging a circular issued by the State of Maharashtra restricting admissions to government quota seats in unaided private professional educational institutions.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the circular and permission to conduct admissions as per the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015.

Filing Reason

The State issued a circular directing that admissions for the academic year 2026-27 be conducted only for government quota seats, which the petitioners argued was contrary to the Act.

Issues

Whether the circular issued by the State Government restricting admissions to government quota seats is valid under the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the circular was contrary to Sections 10 and 12 of the Act, which allow admissions under both government and institutional quotas. Respondent State argued that the circular was issued to streamline admissions and ensure compliance with government policies.

Ratio Decidendi

The State Government cannot issue a circular that overrides the provisions of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015. The Act provides a comprehensive framework for admissions in unaided private professional educational institutions, and the institutions have the right to admit students under both government quota and institutional quota as per the Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned circular is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015. The petitioners are entitled to proceed with admissions in accordance with the Act and the earlier government resolutions.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the circular. The court heard the matter and delivered the judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015: 10, 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Partnership Dispute Over Country Liquor License — Minister's Order Quashed for Violation of Natural Justice. The Minister under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, deleted the appellant's name fr...
Related Judgement
High Court Joining a Member of a Housing Society as a Party in Unauthorized Construction Dispute. A cooperative society member has a locus standi to challenge unauthorized construction by another member if it impacts common rights.