AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr. No,Programme,Schedule
1,"Individual Colleges to start granting provisional admission(s)
against the vacant seats strictly in accordance with inter-se-
merit from amongst the students applying to each of the
Colleges directly.",12/09/12
2,"Published the details notification along with (i) category-wise
vacancy position and (ii) specimen format of Application Form
in widely circulated local as well as State Level News Papers,
Notice Board and website specifying the (a) date for submitting
the Application to the respective Colleges for seeking admission,
(b) the dates for declaring the merit list and (c) the dates for
reporting to the College.",13.09.2012
3,Last date for Applications through the Registered Post.,17.09.2012
4,Display the merit list on the Notice Boards and website.,18.09.2012
5,"Personal counselling and/or display the selection list on the
Notice Board and website.",19 or 20.09.2012
6,"Individual Colleges to submit the list of such provisional
admissions to the Samiti.",20.09.2012
7,"Verification process to be conducted by the Committee for
admissions.",28.09.2012
8,"Last date for grant of admission at College level in case of only
M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Course.",30.09.2012
No,Point,Finding
I,"Whether after CAP round it was open to the
management to follow its own time schedule to fill the
vacant seats ?",No
II,"Whether the petitioner management had power to change
the time schedule which was published by PNS on 15-9-
2012 so far as the process after CAP round is concerned
?",No
III,"Whether it needs to be presumed that the change in time
schedule was communicated to the management ?",Yes
IV,"Whether it was practicable for the management to follow
the change in time schedule made by PNS for filling
vacant seats after CAP round ?",Yes
V,"Whether it was binding on the management to follow the
changed time schedule ?",Yes
VI,"Whether due to not following the changed time schedule
the admissions given by the management could not have
been approved by PNS ?",Yes
VII,"Whether the students were required to follow the time
schedule given by PNS only ?",Yes
VIII,"Whether this Court has the power to regularise the
admissions given by the management in breach of the
aforesaid time schedule after CAP rounds ?",No
IX,"Whether the act of the management to give admission
after CAP round in the present matter was in breach of
the time schedule fixed by PNS and it amounts to
contempt of the directions given by the Supreme Court ?",Yes
X,"Whether the petitioner-student of Writ Petition
No.1130/2013 is entitled to get admission now on the
ground that she was illegally prevented by the
management to take admission in the course ?",No
XI,"Whether other relief like compensation needs to be given
to the petitioner student ?",Yes
Sr. No.,Programme,Schedule
1,"Individual Colleges to start granting provisional admission(s)
against the vacant seats strictly in accordance with inter-se-merit
from amongst the students applying to each of the Colleges
directly.",15th September 2012
2,"Published the details notification along with (i) category-wise
vacancy position and (ii) specimen format of Application Form in
widely circulated local as well as State Level News Papers,
Notice Board and website specifying the (a) date for submitting
the Application to the respective Colleges for seeking admission,
(b) the dates for declaring the merit list and (c) the dates for
reporting to the College.",16th September 2012
3,Last date for Applications through the Registered Post.,20th September 2012
4,Display the merit list on the Notice Boards and website.,21st September 2012
5,"Personal counselling and/or display the selection list on the Notice
Board and website.","22nd or 23rd September
2012
6,"Individual Colleges to submit the list of such provisional admissions
to the Samiti.",24th September 2012
7,"Verification process to be conducted by the Committee for
admissions.",28th September 2012
8,"Last date for grant of admission at College level in case of only
M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Course.",30th September 2012
were followed by Institutions.,,
21) The submissions and the record show that it is the main contention of the petitioner management that the time schedule prepared by PNS in the,,
past which was communicated on 14-8-2012 was adhered to and on that basis the admissions were given. This contention was considered by PNS,,
and decision was taken which was as under :,,
Contentions of the College/Institute are not acceptable for the following reasons:-",,
Contention that the schedule of Samiti dated 14/08/2012 was followed is not acceptable, since it remains the fact that the College did not follow the",,
subsequent schedule. Subsequent Schedule was approved by the Samiti in a meeting of 28th September 2012. The schedule was subsequent and thus,,
a revised one. The said subsequent schedule was followed by other colleges also. College did not follow the said schedule and resultantly did not,,
follow the subsequent procedures as per the said schedule. This resulted in desiring students being denied the opportunity of seeking admissions leave,,
aside the non meritorious students being admitted in the College.,,
Samiti therefore confirms the findings of Enquiry Committee as under :,,
a) PNS Schedule was not followed.,,
The admission process was thus not fair, transparent & merit based. Samiti therefore disapproves all the admissions i.e. 19 done by the",,
College/Institute after the last ""Common Admission Process"" (CAP) round of Asso-CET-2012 for the Academic Year 2012-13. Samiti recommends",,
to Government of Maharashtra to direct the said College/Institute to cancel the admission after last CAP round of Asso-CET-2012.,,
Considering the large number of resultant vacancies, Samiti decided to suggest Government of Maharashtra to consider moving the Hon'ble",,
Supreme Court of India,New Delhi for permission to fill in the resultant vacancies, extension of cut- ff-date and also praying their in that all admission",,
even after CAP rounds be brought under Common Admission Process"" only.""",,
22) Though in the aforesaid report there is mention of date of approval of PNS of the subsequent schedule as 28-9-2012, admittedly the new time",,
schedule was received by the petitioner management on 15-9-2012. It is already observed that all other managements from the State had followed the,,
new time schedule and it is only the present management which did not follow the time schedule. In para 5 of the reply of the petitioner management,,
the communication is admitted and it is as under :,,
I say that, in the meanwhile we received the revised schedule for admission of vacant seat by Pravesh Niyantran Samiti in the evening of",,
15.09.2012 and on 16.09.2012 being Sunday, we informed respondent no.2 on 17.09.2012 that we have already initiated the process of filling the",,
vacant seats, round on 14.09.2012 and informed them of the schedule adopted, as directed by them in their meeting dated 14.08.2012. Thereafter no",,
instructions received to us from respondent no.2 regarding our process. I say that, we have prepared the Schedule as per instruction of respondent",,
no.2, who had taken the guidelines as per the Judgment and order of the Hon'ble High Court in Review Petition No.120/2006 and Writ Petition",,
No.7799/2010 already approved this schedule. ..""",,
23) The aforesaid circumstances show that petitioner management refused to follow the time schedule prepared by PNS for giving admission after,,
CAP round. It followed its own schedule and it cannot be said the previous schedule of PNS was followed. It is already observed that it was,,
practicable for the petitioner management to follow the schedule as before publishing the list and before actually giving admission by accepting fees,",,
the new time schedule was received by the petitioner management. As per the authority vested in PNS and as the same time schedule was there for,,
all the managements it was not binding on PNS to respond to each and every such communication made by the management. The management was,,
bound to follow the new time schedule and for that there were reasons. When other managements were following the time schedule and Association,,
had accepted it, the petitioner management could not have claimed special treatment. Thus, we need to read between the lines and it needs to be",,
inferred that a modus operandi was adopted by the petitioner management and by using that modus operandi, the petitioner management had given",,
admissions to less meritorious students. It is already observed that all the students who were admitted after CAP round were less meritorious than the,,
petitioner and also other students who were entitled to get admissions as per the list published by the management on 19-9-2012. The petitioner,,
management committed breach of the time schedule prepared by PNS when it was bound to follow it. The students were expected to follow the time,,
schedule prepared by PNS and not by present management. Only the time schedule prepared by PNS could have been published by the management.,,
24) Learned Senior Counsel for the management relied on one more circumstance. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the management had,,
advertised 4 vacant open seats in news paper dated 26-9-2012 and the students were expected to take admission. Learned Senior Counsel submitted,,
that the present petitioner student could have taken admission by giving response to said advertisement. It is already observed that the students were,,
following the time schedule fixed by PNS for taking admission after CAP round. It can be said from the advertisement that the management had,,
taken care to see that the advertisement is not noticed by anybody. Further, there was no such power to the management to publish such",,
advertisement and to create one more time schedule for giving admission. When there was no such time schedule of PNS, ordinarily the petitioner-",,
student could not have been expected to give response to the advertisement published on 26-9-2012. It can said that the management did everything in,,
flagrant violation of the procedure given by PNS and it used peculiar modus operandi to create complications and everything was done to make money,,
for profiteering.,,
25) In the case of Priya Gupta (cited supra) the Apex Court has laid down that the time schedule prepared as per the direction of the Supreme Court,,
needs to be strictly followed as the time schedule has the force of law in as much as they form part of the judgment of the Apex Court. In the present,,
matter also it needs to be presumed that the time schedule prepared by PNS for filling the vacant seats after CAP rounds, was as per the direction of",,
the Apex Court as those seats were to be filled before 30 September. Thus the time schedule prepared by PNS was required to be followed by the,,
present management. The time schedule cannot be modulated to suit the convenience of some economic or other interests of any institution and if,,
there is a breach of it, the breach amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta. The Apex",,
Court has further laid down that for such breaches action can be taken by High Court.,,
26) If the methodology adopted and the manner in which the admissions are given in the present matter is considered that shows that the procedure,,
adopted by the management after CAP rounds was illegal. Inference is easy that such modus operandi was used with the object to give admission to,,
less meritorious candidates and ultimate aim was of profiteering. In such case, the Court can draw further inference that the students, who got",,
admission due to aforesaid procedure are benefited due to illegality and they are also not innocent. Such observation are also made by the Apex Court,,
in the case of Priya Gupta. Due to such admissions candidates of higher merit have been denied admission in medical course.,,
27) In the case of Priya Gupta the Apex court used the power given under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed the petitioners students,,
of that case to pay Rs. 5 lakh to Government Medical College and allowed them to complete the course. That power was exercised by the Apex,,
Court but such power is not there with this Court. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case by the Apex Court shows that the,,
admissions made without following the procedure are illegal and they cannot be regularized. The Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India,,
and the directions given by the Apex Court in the aforesaid reported cases show that admission in this courses can be solely on merit basis. In the,,
case of Islamic Academy (cited supra) the Apex Court has considered the other consequences when merit is not followed. It is observed that only by,,
following the merit profiteering / capitation fees can be prevented. In this case the Apex Court has laid down that if any admission is given de-hors,,
merit, even penalty can be imposed on that institution and steps like withdrawal of recognition and affiliation can also be taken. In the present matter",,
also there was flagrant violation of the procedure given by the Apex Court and the object behind it was of profiteering. This Court has no power to,,
regularize these things and for aforesaid reasons, the relief claimed in the petition file by the management cannot be granted.",,
28) It appears that due to interim relief granted by the Principal seat the student who are illegally admitted by the petitioner management could appear,,
for examination. That interim relief cannot be a ground for regularization. In Civil Appeal No.4305-06/2011 (Abhyudya Sanstha vs. Union of India and,,
others) decided on 12-5-2011 [reported as (2011) 6 SCC 145)] the Apex Court has laid down that if interim relief is granted by the Court and due to,,
that students are allowed to appear for examination of a course and if ultimately it is found that the admission could not have been given, regularization",,
of such student by Court on the basis of interim orders is not possible. In that case the Apex Court refused to regularize those admissions. Though the,,
facts were little bit different but this Court is expected to follow the observation in respect of the effect of interim orders made by this Court. Thus,,
only due to circumstance like passing some interim orders at the Principal Seat in favour of the students illegally admitted, it is not possible to",,
regularize their admissions.,,
29) It is submitted for the State Government that PNS itself has the power to cancel admissions. accordingly, PNS did cancel the admissions and that",,
decision is challenge by filing separate proceeding at Principal Seat by management though in Writ Petition No.3610/2013 itself such relief could have,,
been claimed. Thus decision of PNS cannot be interfered with for the reasons already given and the reliefs claimed in Writ Petition No.3610/2013,,
cannot be granted.,,
30) In the present matters, learned counsels for the students are heard. The rights of such students are also discussed by the Apex Court in Priya",,
Gupta's case. Necessary observations with regard to their involvement in the matter of illegality are already made. Only due to change of date which,,
was inconsistent with the time schedule prepared by PNS, respondents from Writ Petition No.1130/2013 for whom the relief is claimed in Writ",,
Petition No.3610/2013, got admission. To such students, directly or indirectly no relief can be given by this Court.",,
31) In the case of Krina Ajay Shah (cited supra) in the name of public law damages an amount of Rs.20 lakh was given by the Supreme Court to,,
similar aspirants. In that case direction was given to the State to make payment of that compensation. In the present matter due to peculiar modus,,
operandi used by the management and as there is more material against the management, and students illegally admitted this Court holds that the",,
management needs to be made to pay Rs.20 lakh to the petitioner-student of Writ Petition No.1130/2013. It needs to be kept in mind that in Krina,,
Ajah Shah case the relief of cancellation of admission was not pressed but the Apex Court has given direction to see that action is taken against the,,
officers for non compliance of the direction of PNS. Now PNS has taken decision of cancellation of those admissions. To create fear in the mind of,,
persons indulging in such illegal activities and that too by flagrant violations of the directions given by the Apex Court, this Court holds that the action",,
mentioned by the Apex Court in Priya Gupta's case and Islamic Academy Case cited supra needs to be taken against the management of the present,,
matter. Contempt proceedings need to be started against them by this Court and further action needs to be taken by the authorities like withdrawal of,,
recognition and affiliation. In the result, all the points are answered accordingly and following order is made.",,
32) Writ Petition No.1130/2013 is partly allowed.,,
(a) Respondent management is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20 lakh (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) as compensation to the petitioner. The amount,,
needs to be paid within 45 days from the date of the order.,,
(b) Pravesh Niyantran Samiti has already taken decision of cancellation of admission of respondents students of Writ Petition No.1130/2013 and so no,,
separate relief in that regard needs to be given.,,
(c) Writ Petition No.3610/2013 stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged in that matter.,,
(d) Respondent State and other authorities are expected to take steps for withdrawal of recognition and affiliation of respondent-management from,,
Writ Petition No.1130 of 2013 and for that copies of this decision are to be sent to the State Government and other authorities including the University.,,
(e) Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is to collect names of persons involved in the management, persons who are responsible for conducting the",,
business of the institution. Names are to be supplied by Dr. Narayan Arvikar who has filed reply affidavit in the matter for the institution within 15,,
days from today. This information can be supplied by petitioner of Writ Petition No.1130/2013 also.,,
(f) Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is to see that after receipt of the names of the persons who are responsible for conducting the business of the,,
management, matter is prepared for suo moto contempt proceeding. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in Writ Petition No.1130/2013.",,
(g) All pending civil applications stand disposed of.,,
33) After declaring the decision, the learned counsel for the management requested for stay to the present decision as he wants to challenge the",,
decision of this Court. Other side has strong objection to it. Time of 45 days is given and for that period, the present decision is not to be executed.",,