The University College Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate admission disputes under Section 66 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994, and the High Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in such cases unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

Headnote:
ADMISSION DISPUTE - UNIVERSITY COLLEGE TRIBUNAL JURISDICTION - MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY ACT, 1994 - SECTION 66 - ADMISSION TO M.S. (OPHTHALMOLOGY) COURSE - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABILITY - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE - DISCRETION OF HIGH COURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION - TRANSFER OF WRIT PETITION TO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the admission of respondent No. 18 to the M.S. (Ophthalmology) course for the January 1997 batch at Government Medical College, Aurangabad, alleging mala fide practices and lack of jurisdiction by the admission committee. The petitioner argued that the University College Tribunal was not functioning at the time of filing the writ petition and that the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the University College Tribunal was the appropriate forum for adjudicating admission disputes under Section 66 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994. The court noted that the petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions seeking directions to the authorities to consider the question of admission to the course but had not sought admission for herself. The court also observed that the Supreme Court had held that the High Court may use its discretion to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 even if an alternative remedy is available, but this discretion should be exercised based on the specific facts of each case.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition challenging the admission of respondent No. 18 to the M.S. (Ophthalmology) course was maintainable in the High Court. 2. Whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative remedy before the University College Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the University College Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate admission disputes under Section 66 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994. The tribunal was the first court of law for exercising jurisdiction regarding admission to colleges affiliated with the University. 2. The court observed that the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 even if an alternative remedy was available, but this discretion should be exercised based on the specific facts of each case. However, in the present case, the court found no compelling reasons to exercise its jurisdiction as the tribunal was functioning at the time the cause of action arose and the petitioner could have filed a petition before the tribunal.
Final Decision: The court transferred the writ petition to the University College Tribunal for B.A.M.U., Aurangabad, directing the parties to appear before the tribunal on a specified date. The court also vacated the interim relief granted earlier, leaving it to the discretion of the tribunal to consider the question of interim relief afresh on merits.

JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. The respondents Nos. 1 to 18 have raised a preliminary issue regarding admissibility of this petition and that point is being considered as to whether the writ petition be entertained or not.

2. The petitioner has challenged the enrolment given to the respondent No. 18 for the 1997 January Batch for M.S. (Opthalmology) in Government Medical College, Aurangabad. The challenge is based on the ground that while giving this admission mala fide practice was there on the part of the authorities who gave admission. Firstly, when the seat became vacant in June, 1998, no action was taken to fill in the seat till 17th December, 1998. It is further contended that the respondent No. 18 is the son of the respondent No. 14 and the respondent No. 14 participated in the committee meeting which considered the question of admission for M.S. (Opthalmology) course for January, 1997 Batch. It is contended that not only the action is with mala fide but, it is also void ab-initio. The order ought to have been considered for admission to that course instead of the respondent No. 18.

3. Various arguments are advanced by both sides regarding merits of these contentions raised by the petitioner and the reply given by the respondents No. 1 to 17 to those contentions. However, basically the fact remains whether this writ petition for admission to M.S. (Opthalmology) course for January, 1997 batch is maintainable or not. The learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 18 have placed reliance on the provisions of section 66 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 which reads :---

"The Tribunal or Tribunals constituted under sub-section (1) of section 58 for every University shall also be the Tribunal or Tribunals for any such University for adjudication of all the disputes relating to admissions to affiliated colleges or recognised institutions of such University. Such Tribunal or Tribunals shall adjudicate admission disputes as provided hereinafter."

4. There is no dispute that the date on which this petition was filed in the High Court, i.e. 31-12-1998 the University College Tribunal was functioning for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the B.A.M.U.). So considering the provisions of section 66 this petition very well could have been filed before the tribunal for the reliefs sought.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as it is alleged that the admission was given to the respondent No. 18 with mala fide intentions and without jurisdiction of the committee, these points could be raised only by filing the writ petition in the High Court. However, on going through the provisions of section 66 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) all questions arising with respect to the admission are to be considered by the tribunal. It means that the questions whether the committee which gave admission had jurisdiction or not, whether the Rules prescribed for giving admissions are followed or not, are to be considered by the said tribunal.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner is seeking relief under Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is the fundamental right of the petitioner to take higher education and that right is being violated by the actions of the respondents Nos. 1 to 18. However, even that aspect of the case can be considered by the tribunal which is functioning as per the provisions of the said Act. There is no bar to consider this aspect of the case. So it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner is contending that her fundamental right under Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India are violated, the tribunal appointed under the said Act, is not having jurisdiction to consider such matters. If the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the admission given to the respondent No. 18 is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Bom) 158

Cases Referred (1)