Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 1173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(N.V. Dabholkar and M.G. Gaikwad, JJ.)
MOHAMMADIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AHMEDNAGAR and others - Petitioner
V.
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Advocates appeared
W.P. No. 4437 of 2006 :
For petitioners. : V. D. Hon
For respondents: S. K. Tambe, AGP
In W. P. No. 4531 of 2006 :
For petitioners: V. D. Hon
For respondents: Dilip Bankar Patil, AGP
In W. P. No. 4629 of 2006 :
For petitioner: K. S. Bhore
For respondent: S. K. Tambe, AGP
Headnote:Education - Professional Education - Course of Diploma in teaching education (B.Ed.) is "professional education". - Applying practical test in the light of term ’profession’ or ’professional institute’ as explained by the Dictionary or the Law Lexicon, education can be a profession or occupation, and such institute can be termed as professional institute. Taking into consideration nature of training imparted there is no reason as to why course of teachers training should not be treated as "professional education". Having passed diploma, one can take a job as a teacher, which he otherwise cannot and en gage in the said activity as his main paid occupation. Private tuitions/classes, is an institute, which has come to perpetuate in the society and a person who is qualified with a diploma in teacher s education, shall be in a position to run one such coaching class of his own.
Regulations for the admission to D.Ed. course for the academic year 2006-2007 - Clause No. 3(A)(4) - Petitioners private unaided minority institutions running two years diploma in teaching education (D.Ed.) course - Petitioners are not liable to share seats in their institutions with the State Government - Clause 3(A)(4) of the Regulations quashed. 2002 AIR SCW 4957, Rel.
N.V. DABHOLKAR, J. : - All three writ petitions were heard together, since the petitioners in all three writ petitions are similarly placed and they claim identical relief.
2. All the petitioners are the Managements and educational institutions.
They claim to be minority unaided institutions and to have been recognized as such, by the State Government. All of them are running colleges for two years diploma in teaching education (D.Ed.) course. They have approached this Court, because rules framed by the Maharashtra State Educational Research and Training Council for admissions to the said course in the academic year 20062007, prescribe quota of only 50 per cent seats to be filled in by the Management and 50 per cent to be filled in by the Government. Such a provision is contained more particularly in clause 3(A)(4) of the Rules in question and hence, all the petitioners have prayed as follows : - .
"B. Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Clause No. 3(A)(4) of the Regulations for the admission to D.Ed. Course framed by the respondent No.2 for the academic year 2006 -2007 to the extent of providing 50% seats as Government quota for the admission with the petitioners institutions.
C. Issue writ of prohibition or writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from inviting applications, granting admissions to 50% seats of the intake of the petitioners as Government seats for the D.Ed. course as per the Clause 3(A)(4) of the Regulations framed by the respondent No.2 for the academic year 2006 -2007.
D. Issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to issue necessary directions, orders permitting the petitioners to fill in all the seats as per their intake without keeping any Government quota seats for the academic year 2006 -2007."
As Can be seen from the prayer clauses, the claim of the petitioners can be stated in one sentence. According to them, being private unaided and recognized as minority institutions, they have a right to admit students to their 100 per cent intake capacity without reservation/sharing of any quota with the Government.
3. All five petitioners in three writ petitions, have intake capacity of 50 students each. Respondent No.2 had published rules for admissions for earlier academic year for 2005 -2006. In the said rules, Rule 14(1) specifically provided 50 per cent Management quota and balance 50 per cent seats to be filled in by Government, So far as unaided D.Ed. course is concerned.
Those rules were challenged by writ petition No. 5200 of 2005. On 10 -82005, this Court had issued rule and passed interim order, permitting petitioners to carry out admission by quota of 75 per cent students as Management quota and only 25 per cent students as Government quota. The said writ petition is still pending in the High Court. Even for ensuing academic year 2006 -2007, rules published 2nd respondent for admission to D.Ed. course again provide 50 -50 quota for Management and the Government, even in case of private unaided minority Institutions. This is in spite of the fact that the respondents are aware of the interim orders passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 5200 of 2005. According to the petitioners, these interim orders, probably, were following suit of orders passed by this High Court in the matter of P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 1067.
According to the petitioners, a Bench of seven Judges of the Honble the Supreme Court, in the case of P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 AIR SCW 3923, was pleased to overrule the scheme that was evolved in Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 AIR sew 4240. to the extent it allows the State to fix the quota for seats sharing between the Management allowed the State in the unaided private educational institutions of both, minority as well as non -minority categories and to the extent the same
