Akash Keshav Munde Since Minor Thr His Guardian Keshav Kishanrao Munde vs the Consortium of National Law Universities Thr Its Secretary and Another

consider and grant admission to the petitioner in respondent No.2 University under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category, either in B.B.A. LL.B. course or in B.A. LL.B. course in accordance with his merits.

¶13

2 Heard learned Advocate for petitioner. It is not even necessary to issue notice to respondents.

¶14

2

¶15

911_WP_1240_2026

¶16

3 The petitioner contends that he passed the 10^th Examination from CBSE Board in the year 2004 by securing 86% and is appearing for the H.S.C. Examination from Maharashtra State Board in the month of May, 2026. The petitioner is desirous of pursuing Law as a career and had applied for the Common Law Admission Test conducted by respondent No.1 from the Other Backward Class category by submitting all the necessary documents on the website. He actually appeared for the examination on 07.12.2025. The results of the Common Law Admission Test examination were declared on 16.12.2025. The petitioner has secured 61 marks out of 120 in the examination and his All India Rank is 17493 and All India OBC rank is 3287. Respondent No.1 declared the counselling schedule for admission in various National Law Universities and the registration was between 17.12.2025 to 27.12.2025. He filled the counselling form and gave preference to respondent No.2. The first allotment list was published on 07.01.2026, in which the petitioner was allotted the Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. The petitioner, however, floated the University and reserved his seat with the intention to get either respondent No.2 University or other better University. The second allotment list was published on 22.01.2026, in which there was no change. The petitioner’s seat in Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur was reserved / floated. The petitioner contends that after going through the second allotment list issued by respondent No.1 that

¶17

3 911_WP_1240_2026

¶18

petitioner being from the OBC category another candidate from OBC category with lesser mark is listed in the allotment list in respondent No.2 University, but the petitioner was not selected. When he visited respondent No.2, the clarification that was given was the petitioner is considered under NT (D) category and not from OBC category. Petitioner, therefore, submits that the reservation policy for OBC candidate mandates that the allotment should be strictly on the basis of merits within the category and, therefore, he ought to have been given the seat in respondent No.2 University.

¶19

4 Learned Advocate for petitioner has taken us through the documents and he submits that petitioner had made application for the Common Law Admission Test of 2026 from OBC category. Though he had caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Parali stating that when he belongs to Vanjari Caste, it is then recognized as Nomadic Tribes (D) at Sr.No.30 under Government Resolution CBC-1291-222-Mvk-5 dated 23.03.1994 as amended from time to time. However, the Sub Divisional Officer, Parali by certificate dated 06.10.2025 has issued the caste certificate under Rule 5(6) on behalf of the Government of India stating that Vanjari caste / community is at Sr. No.146, which is recognized as a backward class and the Government Resolutions have been mentioned and, therefore, when he is recognized as OBC by the Government of India, then that should have

¶20

4

¶21

911_WP_1240_2026

¶22

been considered by the respondent authorities for the purpose of admission.

¶23

5 Upon the query, as to what is the provision that has been made under the Maharashtra National Law University Act, 2014, the learned Advocate for petitioner has made available the said Act and submits that Section 6 of the Act runs thus -

¶24

“6. (1) The university shall adopt the policy of the State Government and orders issued, from time to time, in regard to the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes for appointment to different posts of teachers and non-teaching officers and employees and for the purpose of admission of students and fees structure.

¶25

(2) The university shall adopt the general policy of the State Government in regard to the welfare of various categories of weaker sections of the society and minorities as directed by the State Government from time to time.”

¶26

6 When there is a special enactment, then for all the purposes i.e. for admission as well as the appointment to the different posts with the National University would be governed under this Act. The University is duty bound to adopt the policy of the State Government and not of the Central Government. Now, when the particular caste to which the petitioner belong

¶27

5 911_WP_1240_2026

¶28

has been placed at Sr.No.30, in view of the aforesaid Government Resolution under the Nomadic Tribes (D), then the respondents are duty bound to consider the said category only being the State policy. In that case the caste certificate issued on behalf of Central Government will not be helpful to the petitioner. Section 6 of the Act of 2014 specifically makes a provision regarding the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, D- notified Tribes (Vimukt Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes for the purpose of admission of students and the fees structure also and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the present petition. It deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition at the threshold.

¶29

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶30

agd

Akash Keshav Munde Since Minor Thr His Guardian Keshav Kishanrao Munde v. the Consortium of National Law Universities Thr Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Keshav Munde Since Minor Thr His Guardian Keshav Kishanrao Munde v. the Consortium of National Law Universities Thr Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Bhimaji Walunj vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Mohadi through Its Secretary President and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Shivajirao Chaudhari English Medium and Jr College vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Anand Ramji Kirtane vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratik Sanjay Joshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rastrapal Davidrao Tupe and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others