Vinod Motiram Gadade And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9651 OF 2016 1.

Vinod s/o Motiram Gadade age 21 years, occ. Education r/o Bodhegaon, Tq. Parali Dist. Beed.

2.

Yagnik s/o Dhananjay Rankhamb age 22 years, occ. Education r/o Saraf Line, Ranaji Chowk, Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

3.

Shantanu s/o Deepakrao Tayade age 20 years, occ. Education r/o Sarvadnya, Shayma Nagar Amravati, Tq. And Dist. Amravati Apurva d/o Wamanrao Dhote age 22 years, occ. Education r/o KGN Society, Near Fire Engineering College Katole Road, Nagpur Tq. & Dist. Nagpur Sonali d/o Suryakantrao Jaybhaye age 20 years, occ. Education r/o Dhanlaxmi, Nagar-Jintur Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist Parbhani Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.

The Assistant Commissioner Social Welfare, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur.

{2} 3.

The Regional Deputy Commissioner Social Welfare, Latur Tq. & dist. Latur Maharashtra Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Medical College Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur Through its Dean Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik Through its Registrar Respondents Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioners.

Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. V.B. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 4. CORAM : R.M.BORDE & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 1st AUGUST, 2017 JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. ) 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

3.

The issue raised in the instant petition is covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 4321/2015 and other companion matters decided on 27th June, 2016. In identical set of facts, the Division Bench has held that the policy adopted by the Government in terms of Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015 would not be applicable in case of petitioners and, the policy adopted by the

{3} State in terms of Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014 shall have applicability. Since petitioners have been admitted to medical course during the academic year 2014-2015, the policy decision of the State Government dated 30.03.2015 shall have no applicability. For the reasons recorded while disposing of the writ petitions referred to above, instant petition also deserves to be allowed. Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014 shall have applicability in the matter of reimbursement of fees of petitioners who have been admitted to medical course as against reserved category. The rider added to Government Resolution dated 30.03.2015 shall not be attracted in respect of petitioners and, their admissions shall be regulated by Government Resolution dated 04.03.2014. Demand for tuition fees, if any, by the institution, shall not be insisted upon the petitioners and it would be the responsibility of the Government to re-imburse the fees in terms of the policy decision referred to above.

Rule made absolute to the extent as specified above. ( A.M. DHAVALE ) ( R.M.BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb