IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY EXTRA ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [ RULE 4(e) OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION RULES, 2010] PIL Petition No. _________/2016 ASHUTOSH SHRIKANT PAIBHALE AND ANR

…….. Petitioners

Vs

W

SYNOPSIS

………. Respondent

.IN

STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ORS.

EL A

DATE __/

PARTICULARS

The admission to the Law colleges was based on aggregate marks in graduation for the Three Year

IV

Course and on the basis of the Aggregate marks in

W .L

the HSC Examinations for the Five Years Course.

17/04/2000

The Government Resolution bearing no. JEF1000/123/2000/MS/1 was published.

W W

17/08/2015

02/04/2016

THE

MAHARASHTRA

PROFESSIONAL

UNAIDED

EDUCATIONAL

PRIVATE

INSTITUTIONS

(REGULATION OF ADMISSION AND FEES) ACT came in to effect. THE

MAHARASHTRA

PROFESSIONAL

UNAIDED

EDUCATIONAL

PRIVATE

INSTITUTIONS

(REGULATION OF ADMISSION TO THE FULL TIME PROFESSIONAL UNDERGRADUATE LAW COURSES) Rules came to be notified. 18/06/2016 19/06/2016

& Common

Entrance

Test

(MH-CET

Law)

was

conducted for the Three Years Course and Five Years Course respectively.

30/06/2016

Results of the MH-CET Law were declared.

__/07/2016

The

Centralized

Admission

Process

(CAP)

Brochure was published.

1

23/08/2016

The Final Merit List pursuant to the MH-CET Law was released.

12/09/2016

The First Allocation List (Round 1) under the (CAP) was released.

14/09/2016

The Revised First Allocation List (Round 1) under the (CAP) was released with rectification of minority quota allocation.

16/09/2016

The Petitioners submitted their representation/ grievance to the Commissioner State Common Entrance Test Cell.

19/09/2016

The

Petitioners

again

approached

the

Commissioner State Common Entrance Test Cell

.IN

who in turn forwarded the petitioner’s letter dated

W

16.09.2016 of to the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation limited (MKCL). The Second Allocation List (Round 2) under the

EL A

23/09/2016

(CAP) was released. 30/09/2016

The Third Allocation List (Round 3) under the The Commissioner State Common Entrance Test

W .L

10/10/2016

IV

(CAP) was released. Cell having failed to consider the grievances raised

W W

by the Petitioners through their letter were

16/10/2016

constrained to send an E-Mail to the Maharashtra CET Cell. The Fourth Allocation List (Round 4) under the (CAP) was released.

POINTS TO BE URGED: i)

That the Allocation made under the CAP process for the Academic Year 2016-17 (Law Colleges) is in violation of the Government Resolution

(JEF-

1000/123/2000/MS/1 dated 17/04/2000) and the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission reported in (2007 ALL SCR 2425).

2

ii)

That the candidates (male) seeking admission are unduly effected due to the violations in the Admission process.

iii)

That the Admission process carried out is completely arbitrary and seriously violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.

ACTS TO BE REFERRED:

.IN

i) THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ii) THE MAHARASHTRA UNAIDED PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS

W

EDUCATIONAL

(REGULATION

OF

EL A

ADMISSION AND FEES) ACT, 2015

IV

AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED:

W W

W .L

2007 ALL SCR 2425.

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY EXTRA ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [ RULE 4(e) OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION RULES, 2010] PIL Petition No. _________/2016 Ashutosh Shrikant Paibhale,

]

aged 34, Occupation- Strategy Consultant,

]

Residing at 4 Meghalaya, NP Thakkar Rd,

]

Vile Parle E, Mumbai 57;

]

Mob: 9820716169;

]

.IN

1.

Aditya Pramod Roongta,

EL A

2.

W

Email: [email protected]

] ]

aged 22, Occupation- Law Student

]

Residing at 241/5,

]

IV

Yashodhan, Sector-3, RDP-5,

] ]

Mob: 9920348418;

]

Email:[email protected].

]

W .L

Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai -400067;

… Petitioners

W W

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra,

]

Through The Advocate-General

]

of Maharashtra, Room No.5,

]

Extension Building, PWD, 1st Floor,

]

Bombay High Court, Mumbai - 400 032.

]

2. Director of Higher Education, Central Building, Pune – 411001. 3. Commissioner & Competent Authority,

] ] ]

Maharashtra State CET Cell,

]

305, Government Polytechnic Building,

]

49, Kherwadi, Ali Yawar Jung Marg,

]

Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051.

] … Respondents.

4

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND IN

THE

MATTER

MAHARASHTRA

OF

THE

UNAIDED

PRIVATE

PROFESSIONAL

EDUCATIONAL (REGULATION

INSTITUTIONS OF

ADMISSION

AND FEES) ACT, 2015 AND THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER IN

.IN

AND

THE

MATTER

W

ADMISSIONS/

OF

THE

ALLOCATIONS

EL A

TO THE THREE YEAR AND FIVE YEAR LL.B COURSES IN THE

W W

W .L

IV

STATE OF MAHARASTRA FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2016-17. AND IN

THE

MATTER

GOVERNMENT

OF

THE

RESOLUTION

BEARING NO.

(JEF-

1000/123/2000/MS/1)

dated

17/04/2000

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHWETH 1.

The Instant Petition challenges the illegality and irregularity in the process of admissions to the Three year and Five Year LL.B courses in the State of Maharashtra, carried out under the Centralized Admission Process by the State CET cell, in the State of Maharashtra for the academic year 2016-2017, in as much as the entire admission process is carried out in grave violation of the Government Resolution bearing no. (JEF-1000/123/2000/MS/1 dated 17/04/2000) resulting in to incorrect allocation of seats under the Centralized

5

Admission Process for the Law Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. 2.

The present Petition is filed by way of a Public Interest Litigation and the petitioners have no personal interest involved in the present case. The Petitioner no.1 is a Strategy Consultant and has recently enrolled himself for the Three Year LL.B Course in the Government Law College, Mumbai. He has prior to his enrollment to the Law Course completed MBA

(Marketing)

Management

from

Studies

the

Sydenham

Research

and

Institute

of

Entrepreneurship

Education following his B.E (Electronics) from the Mumbai

The Petitioner no.1 has consistently been among the top

W

3.

.IN

University.

rankers throughout his education. He scored 100 percentile

EL A

in the MHCET- LAW, standing 2nd in the Maharashtra State. Similarly he had a score of 99.99 percentile in the Common written Test for MBA and stood at Rank 8 in the State of

IV

Maharashtra. The Petitioner is also a visiting faculty at The

W .L

Sydenham Institute of Management Studies Research and Entrepreneurship Education. He was also Invited as a judge for Mumbai University’s Business Plan competition in Zest

W W

Festival (2016). The petitioner was on the DTE panel for GDPI

of

MH-CET

Management

MBA

Studies

of

The

Research

Sydenham and

Institute

of

Entrepreneurship

Education at (2008-10). For his outstanding contribution and achievements, he was also awarded Student of the year for the outstanding contribution during two years of the MBA course. (2005-07). The Petitioner has also mentored over 2000 students pursuing MBA. 4.

The Petitioner no.2 on the other hand is a Law student and currently pursuing Three year LL.B course from the Government Law College, Mumbai, he secured a score of 99.8 percentile in the MHCET- LAW, and stood at Rank 24 in the State of Maharashtra (2016).

6

5.

The

Respondent

No.1

is

The

State

Of

Maharashtra,

Respondent no.2 is the Director of Higher Education, Government of Maharashtra which is entrusted with the responsibility

of

the

Management

of

Non‐agricultural

Universities and its Degree Colleges pertaining to Higher Education in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce, Law, Education and Non‐AICTE in the State and supervises Private Professional Educational Institution. The Respondent no.3

is

the

Competent

and

regulatory

Authority

for

conducting CET through Centralized Admission Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAP’) appointed under the Act by

6.

.IN

the Government. The Petitioners have already secured Admission in the

W

Government Law College and are in no manner going to be

EL A

affected by the outcome of the present Petition. The Petitioners while applying for the admission observed serious discrepancy vis-à-vis the allocation of seats on account of reservation

being

applied

incorrectly

by

the

IV

female

Respondent no.3. That due to the said irregularity and

W .L

illegality, thousands of candidates who were otherwise eligible could not secure an admission to the institute/

W W

college of their choice. 7.

The Petitioners state that thus despite securing admission

in the college of their preference the petitioners feel great injustice being done to other eligible candidates on account of failure on the part of the Respondents in allocating the seats to the deserving candidates by complying with the Government

Resolution

being

GR

No.

JEF-

1000/123/2000/MS/1. The Petitioners having noticed the illegality in the entire process have chosen to file the present petition as and by way of public Interest litigation and the petitioners do not have any personal interest in the matter. The petition is being filed in the interest of students pursuing 3 year and 5 Year LLB as well as any other course where such discrepancy has been noted.

7

8.

Brief Facts leading to the filing of the present petition is mentioned herein below: a)

That the Respondent 3 i.e. a body setup by the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 and appointed under section 10 of the Act, is having the sole responsibility to conduct and administer Common Entrance Tests(CET) for admission to college of various technical and professional courses in the State of Maharashtra.

b)

That in pursuance to the aforesaid, the Respondent no.

.IN

3 conducted MH Law CET for admission to Law colleges in Maharashtra conducting 3 year and 5 year LLB

W

courses. The said CET was held on June 18, 2016 for 5

EL A

year LLB and on June 19, 2016 for 3 year LLB. The results of the same were declared on June 30, 2016. Both Petitioners appeared for the 3 Year CET. Petitioner

c)

W .L

IV

1 scored 121/150 whereas Petitioner 2 scored 113/150. That due to various delays on account of petitions filed in this Hon’ble court as well as before the Hon’ble

W W

Bench

at

Aurangabad,

the

Final

Merit

List

was

published only on 23rd August, 2016. The Petitioner no.1 secured 2nd Rank and Petitioner no.2 secured 24th Rank in the said merit list in the Maharashtra state category.

d)

That the students seeking admissions were required to then furnish to the CET Cell a list of Colleges in the preferred order where they desired admission. Pursuant the above process, the CET Cell declared the First List of Seat Allotment on 14th September, 2016.

e)

The CET Cell published an information brochure to inform

the

students

reservations/eligibility

about conditions/

the

various

documents/

candidature type etc. as applied and required during

8

admissions. A copy of the said Brochure is hereto annexed and marked Exhibit A to the present Petition. f)

That Clause 14.4 of the said Brochure provided that for Women Reservation 30% of the seats in all institutes are required to be reserved for female candidates as per the provision in Government of Maharashtra’s GR.No.JEF1000/123/2000/MS-1, Dated 17th April 2000. The said Government Resolution is explicit in mentioning that the female reservation is to be applied horizontally. A copy

of

the

said

Government

Resolution

dated

17/04/2000 bearing no. JEF-1000/123/2000/MS-1 is

.IN

hereto annexed and marked Exhibit B to the present

That

after

viewing

the

aforementioned

Brochure,

EL A

g)

W

petition.

Government Resolution and the First List of Seat Allotments of the Government Law College, Mumbai, the account

IV

Petitioners observed that the allotment is wrong on of

the

female

reservation

being

applied

W .L

incorrectly, i.e. vertically, instead of horizontally as provided in the aforementioned GR, due to which at

W W

least a dozen meritorious male students were denied a place in the Government Law College alone. This mistake was found in the allotment list of all colleges and all caste reservation categories i.e., SC, ST, OBC, DT/VJ, NT1, NT2, NT3 etc. This has resulted in thousands of more meritorious and eligible male students being denied admission in the college of their preference.

h)

That the Petitioners then met the State CET Cell Commissioner i.e. the Respondent no.3 herein on 16th September, 2016 and brought this discrepancy to his notice. Further, the petitioners submitted a written application to halt the admission process and rectify the same. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit C to the

9

present

petition

is

the

Petitioners

letter

dated

16.09.2016 addressed to the Respondent no.3. i)

That despite bringing the aforesaid illegality to the notice of the Respondent no.3, the Respondents in clear violation of the Government Resolution continued the further allocation of seats. That having failed to allot the seats under CAP in accordance with the Government Resolution the entire process of allocation of seats is completely vitiated and is required to be set-aside. The Respondent no.3 not only failed to comply with the GR but further failed to appreciate the Law laid down in the

.IN

landmark case decided by the Hon’ble Apex court and reported in 2007 ALL SCR 2425. The Hon’ble Apex

W

Court in its judgment has observed and clearly outlined

EL A

the treatment of horizontal reservations as follows: “If 19 posts are reserved for SCs

IV

(of which the quota for women

W .L

is four), 19 SC candidates shall have

to

be

first

listed

in

W W

accordance with merit, from out of

the

successful

eligible

candidates. If such list of 19 candidates

contains

four

SC

women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains

only

two

woman

candidates, then the next two SC

woman

accordance

candidates with

merit,

in will

have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such

list

shall

have

to

be

10

deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain

four

women

SC

candidates. [But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting

the

excess

women

candidate on the ground that ’SC-women’ have been selected excess

of

the

prescribed

.IN

in

That the allocation and admissions were not done in

EL A

j)

W

internal quota of four.]”

accordance with the Government Resolution and in violation of the guidelines enumerated in the aforesaid in

W .L

evident

IV

authority pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court is Government 24121003).

the

First

Law Out

List

College, of

32

of

Seat

Mumbai

General

Allocation (Choice

Seats,

4

of

CodeFemale

W W

Candidates at Serial No. 2, 3, 7 and 15 have been allotted Seat Type “General”. In addition to this, 10 female candidates at Sr no. 23-32 have been allotted Seat Type “General_Female”. To fulfil the 30% female reservation as per the guidelines in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), only 6 female reserved seats were required. However, due to the reservation being treated as vertical, 4 additional Female Reserved seats were provided, thereby denying those seats to meritorious male candidates. A copy of the First List of Seat Allocation is hereto annexed and marked Exhibit D to the present petition.

k)

This is just one example in one category of one choice code of one college. Similar discrepancies exist in over 100 colleges across the state of Maharashtra affecting

11

nearly ten thousand students pursuing both 3 year and 5 year LLB. Additionally, this being compartmental reservation, the affected parties are present across caste reservations, i.e. SC, ST, OBC, DT/VJ, NT1, NT2, NT3. l)

The CET Cell Commissioner upon the representation made to it by the Petitioners, assured them of suitable action/steps in the above matter, however as no notification was issued by the CET Cell in the next 2 days, the petitioners again visited the CET Cell office on 19th September to apprise them of the situation. The matter was then forwarded to Maharashtra Knowledge

.IN

Corporation Ltd. (MKCL) which maintains and operates

The Second List of Seat Allotment was released on 23rd

EL A

m)

W

the online system of the Centralized Admission Process.

September, 2016 and Third List of Seat allotment was released on 30th September, in the said lists too the

IV

female reservation was treated vertically, compounding

W .L

the already present problem. The Petitioners therefore communicated via e-mail to the the CET Cell on 10th October

about

the

continuous

irregularity

being

W W

committed in the process of allocation of seats, however no reply was received thereto. A copy of the Petitioners E-mail sent to the Respondent no.3 is hereto annexed and collectively marked Exhibit E to the present petition.

9.

The Petitioners state that due to the aforesaid illegality and irregularity on the part of the Respondents thousands of innocent students have been made to suffer. Many students being ignorant of the aforesaid facts and the position of law have accepted the allocation despite the same being not only arbitrary but completely illegal. The Respondents have thus exceeded the powers given to them under the Act and have made allocations of seats in the Law stream contrary to the object and purpose of the legislation as more particularly mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 17.04.2000.

12

10. The Petitioners state that thus the entire purpose of the admissions through the CAP is been defeated as the allocations are made in complete contravention thereto. That due to the non application of mind on the part of the Respondents, thousands of innocent students are made to face the hardships and are having to settle for the colleges other than that of their own preference. 11. The Petitioners thus find the action of the Respondents violative of the fundamental rights provided under the Constitution. That the glaring defect in the entire process of

.IN

the allocation of seats has already adversely affected thousands of students from all over Maharashtra and the Respondents

communications.

vide

EL A

the

W

same is continued despite it being brought to the notice of the

Petitioners

several

IV

12. The Petitioner thus state that the Respondents are not

W .L

willing to acknowledge and cure the defect rather are proceeding to arbitrarily allot the seats thereby seriously prejudicing

the

meritorious

students

entitled

to

have

W W

admissions in the college of their preference. That the entire admission

process

being

vitiated

by

the

illegality

as

mentioned hereinabove is required to be struck down and set-aside and necessary directions are required to be issued to allot the seats in accordance with Government GR.

13. The Petitioners Submit that the citizens of Maharashtra particularly the meritorious male students in the State of Maharashtra are being denied a rightful place in their preferred choice of colleges affecting their future career prospects as well as a chance to get admission in Government Aided colleges thereby denying them benefit of crucial government funds. 14. The Students aspiring to be lawyers stand to suffer grave harm, loss and injury owing to the arbitrary and capricious

13

conduct of the Respondents responsible for the admissions to

the

various

institutes/

colleges

in

the

State

of

Maharashtra. This Petition is therefore being filed in the larger public interest as the public has been grievously injured and affected by the unfair allotment. 15. The Petitioners submit that the Respondent No. 3 has already allotted seats in colleges across the State of Maharashtra in gross violation of the Government resolution and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2007 ALL SCR 2425. That pursuant to the said allotment, students are being admitted to various colleges

.IN

across Maharashtra, while the deserving candidates are being deprived an admission to their preferred colleges due

W

to the neglect on part of the Respondent no. 3. It is

EL A

submitted that thus there is extreme urgency as the said allocation under the CAP process is about to be completed and if necessary directions are not issued against the 10,000

students

and

the

public

at

large.

W .L

nearly

IV

respondents, great harm and prejudice will be caused to

16. All the information sourced for this petition has been

W W

obtained from the websites of the relevant Government authorities such as the State CET Cell (llb3.mhpravesh.in) and

Government

of

Maharashtra

(https://www.maharashtra.gov.in/site/common/governmen tresolutions.aspx).

The

relevant

judgments

have

been

obtained from judis.nic.in. 17. The balance of convenience is in favor of the Public at large. No loss or prejudice will be caused to the Respondents should the reliefs as prayed for be granted; on the contrary, the public at large will suffer grave and irreparable loss should the relief be refused, including by way of violation of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

14

18. The petitioners thus have no other remedy but to pray to this court to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus to stop the admission process and reallocate the seats as per the ratio decidendi in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra). 19. It is therefore fit, right and convenient, in the interests of justice and equity and in public interest that the relief as prayed for in the present petition is granted and the petition is made absolute. 20. The Petitioners crave leave to add, omit or amend any facts,

.IN

grounds or relief as may be required, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court.

The petitioners are pleading party-in-person and that the

W

21.

EL A

entire litigation costs, including the court's fee and other charges are being borne by the petitioners.

IV

22. That a thorough research has been conducted in the matter raised through the petition and all the relevant material in

W .L

respect of such research has been annexed with the petition.

W W

23. That to the best of the petitioners’ knowledge and research, the issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier by them.

24. That the petitioners have understood that in the course of hearing of this petition the Court may require any security to be furnished towards costs or any other charges and the petitioners/petitioners shall have to comply with such requirements. 25. That there has been no delay in filling of the petition, and the same is not barred by the law of Limitation. 26. That the Petitioners have paid the requisite court fee of INR_______/-

15

27. The Petitioners therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:a)

Admit the petition.

b)

That the Allocation of seats for the year 2016-17 in the LLB 3 year and 5 year course done by the Respondent no.3 be declared invalid and void-ab-intio and same be ordered to be set-aside by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of similar nature.

c)

That the allocation of seats under the Centralized Admission Process for admission to colleges of the 3

.IN

year and 5 year LLB course for the academic year 20162017 be redone in accordance with the Government 1000/123/2000/MS/1

W

Resolution GR dated 17/04/2000 bearing no. JEFand

in

conformity

to

the

EL A

principles of law laid down in the Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra).

That pending the admission and final hearing of the

IV

d)

W .L

present petition the Respondent no.3 be directed to put on hold the further allocation of seats to the law colleges and be further directed to re do the entire process in

W W

compliance of the Government GR dated 17.04. 2000 bearing no. JEF-1000/123/2000/MS/1.

e)

That urgent interim and ad-interim reliefs be granted in terms of prayer clause (d) above.

f)

For Such further and other relief as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and as the circumstances of the case may require.

Place.................... Dated ................. (ASHUTOSH SHRIKANT PAIBHALE) Petitioner No.1

(ADITYA PRAMOD ROONGTA) Petitioner No. 2

16

VERIFICATION

I, Ashutosh Shrikant Paibhale, adult Indian Inhabitant, aged 34 years, being the Petitioner, residing at 4 Meghalaya, NP Thakkar Rd, Vile Parle E, Mumbai 57, Mob. : 9820716169, do hereby state and declare on solemn affirmation that whatever is stated in paras 1 to 27 of the Petition are based on personal information and that what is stated in the remaining paras is

)

EL A

Solemnly declared at Mumbai

W

I believe all of it to be true and correct.

.IN

partly based on information and partly based on legal advice and

)

(Ashutosh Shrikant Paibhale) (Petitioner No. 1)

W W

W .L

IV

This ……….. day October 2016

17