Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the State of Maharashtra's implementation of a one-time fee reimbursement scheme under Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019. This scheme was designed to compensate general category students who lost the opportunity to secure admission in Government or Aided medical colleges in the academic year 2019-2020 due to the introduction of reservation quotas for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) under the Maharashtra State Reservation for SEBC Act, 2018 and the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019. The petitioners, Prajwal Tukaram Kasbekar and three others, had appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and secured All India Ranks (AIR) ranging from 34,441 to 36,711. They claimed that based on their merit, they were entitled to admission in Government or Aided medical colleges, but due to the reservation quota, they were compelled to take admission in private medical colleges, incurring significantly higher fees. The petitioners alleged that they were arbitrarily excluded from the list of 106 beneficiaries under the reimbursement scheme, even though students with lower ranks were granted the benefit. They sought a direction to the State authorities to extend the benefit of reimbursement to them. The respondents contended that the petitioners would not have secured admission in Government or Aided colleges even if the reservation was not applied, and thus they were not entitled to reimbursement. The High Court, after examining the rival contentions and the voluminous record, found serious incongruity in the State's admission process and held that the denial of benefit was a clear case of 'pick and choose', which was arbitrary and unjust. Observing that the petitioners were meritorious and similarly placed as some of the beneficiaries, the court concluded that the exclusion was violative of the fundamental right to equality. The writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of reimbursement under the Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019 to the petitioners. The court underscored that the scheme was a one-time measure to remove the financial burden on students who had to opt for private colleges due to the reservation policy and must be implemented uniformly.
Headnote
A) Education Law/Administrative Law - Fee Reimbursement Scheme - Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019 - Entitlement to reimbursement for medical students who lost admission in Government/Aided colleges due to EWS/SEBC reservation - The State adopted a 'pick and choose' method while implementing the one-time beneficial scheme, excluding petitioners who were meritorious and otherwise entitled to admission; petitioners were deprived of benefit while lower-ranked students were included; Held that denial was arbitrary and violative of equality, and petitioners are entitled to reimbursement of fees paid over and above government college fees (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent authorities were justified in excluding the petitioners from the benefit of fee reimbursement under Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019, holding that the petitioners would not have secured admission in Government or Aided medical colleges even if EWS or SEBC reservation was not applied; and whether the petitioners were entitled to the said benefit.
Final Decision
The Writ Petitions were allowed. The High Court directed the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of reimbursement of fees under Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019 to the petitioners and release the amount within a reasonable period.
Law Points
- Entitlement to benefit under Government Resolution for reimbursement of fees for students who lost admission due to EWS/SEBC reservation
- arbitrary denial of benefit is violative of Article 14
- one-time scheme must be implemented uniformly
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 23
Writ Petition No. 358 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 6715 of 2020
Kishore C. Sant, Ajit B. Kadethankar
Mr. Akshay D. Kulkarni, Mr. Milind Madhukar Patil, Mr. A. R. Kale, Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Mr. A. V. Hon
Prajwal Tukaram Kasbekar, Sejal Sandip Bhale, Aishwarya Umesh Dhadwal, Sharvari Santosh Deshmukh
The State of Maharashtra, Director of Medical Education and Research, Commissioner and Competent Authority State Common Entrance Test Cell Maharashtra, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College Nashik (Respondent No.4 in WP 358/2021), Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Foundation's Medical College and Hospital Ahmednagar (Respondent No.4 in WP 6715/2020)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the denial of fee reimbursement benefit under Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019
Remedy Sought
Direction to the respondent authorities to include the petitioners in the list of beneficiaries and grant reimbursement of the difference in fees paid to private medical colleges over and above the fees payable in Government or Aided medical colleges
Filing Reason
The petitioners, who were meritorious general category students, were excluded from the reimbursement scheme despite losing admission in Government/Aided colleges due to EWS/SEBC reservation, while students with lower ranks were granted the benefit
Issues
Whether the respondent authorities were justified in holding that the petitioners could not have secured admission in any Government or Aided medical college even if EWS or SEBC reservation was not applied.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that they were entitled to admission in Government/Aided colleges as per their merit and preferences, but were forced to join private colleges due to the introduction of EWS/SEBC quota; they were arbitrarily excluded from the reimbursement list while students with lower ranks were included; they had to bear huge financial burden and some had to take bank loans; the medical course is now over and they only seek monetary compensation under the GR.
Respondents argued that even without EWS/SEBC reservation, the petitioners would not have secured admission in Government/Aided colleges due to their merit, and hence there was no occasion to miss admission; the record of seat data and merit data supports their contention; the denial of reimbursement was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The State's 'pick and choose' method in implementing a beneficial scheme is arbitrary and violative of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. A one-time fee reimbursement scheme introduced to compensate students who lost government/aided college admission due to reservation policy must be applied uniformly to all eligible meritorious students. Exclusion of petitioners who are similarly placed as some beneficiaries, merely because they took admission in private colleges, is unjustified when the very reason for such admission was the reservation quota. The court will intervene to prevent manifest injustice caused by administrative incongruity.
Judgment Excerpts
We are constrained to mark our serious displeasure against respondent State Authorities’ ‘pick and choose’ method while implementing a beneficial ‘one time scheme’.
The Petitioners are deprived of reimbursement of fees under the Government Resolution dated 20-09-2019.
They are excluded from the beneficiary list on the count that they could not have got admission in Government or aided medical college even if reservation to EWS or SEBC was not applied.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking reimbursement. The respondents filed multiple reply affidavits and a sur-rejoinder. The matters were heard together and reserved for judgment on 28.07.2026. The judgment was pronounced on 03.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for Appointments in the Public Services and Posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018:
- Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019:
