Allowed

Dhanwantari Shikshan and Samajik Pratisthans through Its President H R Jadhavar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 May 2016WP/1744/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since a previous Division Bench declared clause (9) of the Government Resolution of 21.3.2005 illegal, the State cannot withhold fee reimbursement. The State was directed to verify eligibility and consider the petition for fee reimbursement for S.C. students of ANM/GNM courses for FYs 2011-14.

What did the court decide?

Respondent State directed to consider the prayer for reimbursement of tuition/examination fees for S.C. students of ANM/GNM course for years 2011-14 and verify entitlement.

Dhanwantari Shikshan and Samajik Pratisthans through… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

(1)W.P. No. 1744 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 1744 of 2016

¶4

District : Latur

¶5

Dhanwantari Shikshan &
Samajik Pratisthan's
Saint Tukaram Institute of Nursing
Education, Ahmedpur,
Lecture Colony, Thodga Road,
Ahmedpur, Taluka : Ahmedpur,
District : Latur,
Through its President,
Dr. Hanumant s/o. Rambhau Jadhavar,
Age : 57 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Jadhavar Building,
Near Trimurti Hospital,
Pune - 64.

¶6

.. Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶9

2. The Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶10

3. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶11

4.The Director,
V.J.N.T., O.B.C. & S.B.C.,
Social Welfare Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune - 1... Respondents.

¶12

(2)W.P. No. 1744 of 2016

¶13

............

¶14

Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. S.K. Kadam, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶16

............

¶17

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &

¶18

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶19

DATE : 6TH MAY 2016

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.S. Shinde, J.) :

¶21

Heard.

¶22

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶23

petitioner submits that the court-fees which will be
calculated by the concerned Section of the Registry
will be deposited by the petitioners within a period

¶24

of three weeks from today.

¶25

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the
consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
final hearing.

¶26

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on

¶27

written instructions received by him from the

¶28

(3)W.P. No. 1744 of 2016

¶29

petitioner, submits that in all there are 55 students
for which the petitioner is seeking reimbursement of
fees from the State Government for the academic years
2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. He further states that
all the students belong to Scheduled Caste category
and relief claimed in the petition is also restricted
to the said category.

¶30

5.We have heard Mr.Bade-Patil, learned counsel

¶31

for the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner
is that for the period prior to 2010-2011, the
petitioner was granted reimbursement of the tuition

¶32

fees and other fees of S.C. and S.T. category
candidates in respect of ANM and GNM course. According
to the learned counsel, reimbursement of the fee for
the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 has been
illegally withheld and the petitioner is entitled for
the same.

¶33

6.Mr. Kadam, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader submits that in view of clause (9) of the
Government Resolution dated 21st March, 2005, as the

¶34

(4)W.P. No. 1744 of 2016
petitioner had not obtained permission of the
Government, the reimbursement of the fees was not
granted.

¶35

7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Clause (9) of the Government Resolution dated 21^st March, 2005 has been held to be ultra virus and illegal by the Division Bench of this Court in P.I.L. No. 72 of 2013. When the said clause itself has been set aside and held to be illegal and not in consonance with the statute, only because the said P.I.L. was pending, the State would not be entitled to withhold reimbursement of the fees. The condition of suitability certificate is imposed vide Government Resolution dated 27.3.2014. The prayer of the petitioner with regard to reimbursement of fees is for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The State is at liberty to verify the entitlement of the present petitioner keeping in view the Government policy, for reimbursement of the fees and other factual particulars. We have not expressed any opinion on

¶36

(5)W.P. No. 1744 of 2016

¶37

merit of the petition.

¶38

8.In light of the above, the respondent – State
is directed to consider the prayer for reimbursement
of the tuition fees/examination fees of the approved
students of the petitioner – Institute for Scheduled
Caste category students of ANM/GNM course admitted for
the academic years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14,
expeditiously, preferably within three (03) months
from today.

¶39

9.Rule accordingly made absolute in above

¶40

terms. No costs.

¶41

 puranik / WP1744.16

Dhanwantari Shikshan and Samajik Pratisthans through Its President H R Jadhavar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanwantari Shikshan and Samajik Pratisthans through Its President H R Jadhavar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijau Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Bokangaon Dist Latur through Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anand Pratishthan Latur Dist Latur through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Al Raheman Education and Welfare Foundation Latur through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanwantari Shikshan and Samajik Pratisthans through Its President H R Jadhavar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shree Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Mandal through Vice President Mahendra Sonu Prabhakar Mande and Anr. Vs Prashant Nago Badgujar and Others

Santosh Dnyanoba Chavan Vs The State of Maharashtra and others