Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, G.S. PATEL, JJ.
Noopura Vishwajit Kulkarni - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No. 2016 of 2019, 2022 of 2019
Decided On : 11-07-2019
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018 – Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Admission – Appointments in public services – Challenge in these two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Constitutional validity and vires of a 25th June 2019 amendment to the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018 – Amendment in question was effected by Maharashtra Act No. III of 2013 and is entitled the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Held, Court is of the firm view that where the language of a statute is plain and clear from its literal reading then no process of convoluted reasoning is permissible to arrive at some totally different result. – Court see no ambiguity at all in the newly introduced sub-clause (ia). – It may be a distinct type of entrance test but it is clearly a specified entrance test. – It applies to the State quota seats and nothing else. – The non obstante provisions cannot be ignored and these non obstante provisions set it apart from all entrance tests covered by sub-clause (1). – The phrase is notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) above. – The mere use of the words notwithstanding any order, judgment or direction of any Court does not mean that the State legislature has tried to overrule or render void or nullify by legislature any judgment of any Court. – Court is of the view that there was nothing in that there was no decision that came in the way of the State Legislature simply because in Dr Sameer Rajendra Deshmukh, the substantive challenge to the amending Ordinance, since replaced by an amending Act, failed. – That decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court. – There is, therefore, no question of the State Government attempting to nullify any decision. – Court need not enter into any further debate to draw any nicer distinctions about the meaning of the words "admission process". – Specifically, since the NEET last date for filling in application forms was delayed to 7th December 2018 and the SEBC Act came into force, it is Mr Thorats submission that even without the amendment, the petitioners would be out of Court since the admission process could not really he said to have started until all the application forms were received. – Prior to that date there was only the preliminary gathering of forms. – Court note the submission but see no reason to delve any further into it because in our view this is hardly determinative. – Court may only note the following. All challenges before the Nagpur Bench of this court and before the Supreme Court were only in relation to postgraduate courses. – The Dr. Sanjana Narendra Wadewale decision was in relation to a notification of March 2019 and was prior to the SEBC Amendment Act or even the SEBC Amendment Ordinance. – The findings therein, therefore, cannot form the basis of a challenge to the SEBC Amendment Act applied to undergraduate admissions. – This is all the more so when we find that the Nagpur Division Bench dismissed a later challenge in Dr. Sameer Rajendra Deshmukh to the SEBC Amendment Ordinance – Court is of the view that there is no merit to the challenge in the petitions. – Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Patel, J.
1. The challenge in these two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Constitutional validity and vires of a 25th June 2019 amendment to the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act 2018 ("the SEBC Act"). The amendment in question was effected by Maharashtra Act No. III of 2013 and is entitled the Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) (Amendment) Act, 2019 ("the SEBC Amendment Act").
2. Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2016 of 2019 are all aspiring undergraduate medical (MBBS) and dental (BDS) course students. Petitioner No.4 is represented by his father. The Petition claims to espouse the cause on behalf of all students similarly placed. The two Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 2022 of 2019 are both students who seek admission to the MBBS course. Petitioner No. 2 in the second petition is represented by his father.
3. Respondent No.1 in both petitions is the State. The other respondents are the Commissioner, the State Common Entrance Test and the Director of Medical Education and Research in Mumbai.
4. The gravamen of both Petitions is essentially that the SEBC Amendment Act 2019 attempts to nullify and render void decisions of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court and of the Supreme Court. There is also an argument that the amendment is constitutionally invalid as it purports to be retrospective. The challenge is therefore to the constitutional validity of the SEBC Amendment Act.
5. Given the nature of the challenge, on 8th July 2019 we caused notice to be issued to the learned Advocate General. This was accepted by Mr. Kakade on behalf of the State. We were informed that Mr. Thorat and Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel, would appear as Special Counsel on behalf of the State. In view of the urgency, since undergraduate medical course are at an advanced stage, with the online preference filling process for MBBS and BDS closing today, and the select list for the first round scheduled for being posted tomorrow, 12th July 2019, we gave the matter the utmost priority. We heard Mr. Vashi for the Petitioner at length yesterday and took up the matter first this morning, when he concluded his arguments. Mr. Thorat for the State also concluded his arguments this morning. We immediately pronounced our decision to dismiss both petitions, and said reasons would follow. We are accordingly rendering this judgment with our reasons in the shortest possible time. At the forefront, we thank both Mr. Vashi and Mr. Thorat for the admirable economy, precision and compactness with which they have presented their respective cases.
6. Only a few dates are necessary. Admissions to the undergraduate medical (MBBS) and dental (BDS) courses are by placement through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test ("NEET") conducted annually. We are not concerned with admissions to postgraduate courses for which there is a separate process. The undergraduate NEET or NEET-UG for the academic year 2019-2020 commenced with the release of an information bulletin from 1st November 2018. That information bulletin said that the last date for filing online application forms was 30th November 2018.
7. In the meantime, there were certain legal challenges regarding post-graduate admissions that resulted ultimately in a order of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 14320 of 2018 (and connected matters) dated 29th November 2018. By a public notice of that date, the National Testing Agency extended the last date for filling online applications for NEET-UG by one week to 7th December 2018. A copy of this public notice is at Exhibit "A" to the Petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
