*1* wp1771o23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2023

Areeb Hasan Ansari Najeeb Hasan Ansari

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Secretary Medical Educaiton And

Drugs Department And Others

***

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.1714 OF 2022

Mahadevi Vyankat Nandagave

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

***

AND

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3232 OF 2023

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.11629 OF 2022

Simran Rajesh Patil

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

***

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.7418 OF 2022

Kailas Yallappa Babhulkar And Others

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

***

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.9418 OF 2022

Bapurao Hari Rayghol

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

*** ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*2* wp1771o23.odt

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.8962 OF 2022

Yash Rajendra Nikalje

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

***

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.11629 OF 2022

Simran Rajesh Patil

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others

***

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.12737 OF 2022

Vaishnavi Vijay Kamore And Another

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

***

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.12799 OF 2022

Tahmeena Bano Mohammed Jabir Qureshi

VERSUS

State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretaryand Others

***

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.12800 OF 2022

Ayesha Fatema Abdul Bari Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Director Of Medical

Education And Others

*** ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*3* wp1771o23.odt

...

Mr. Taher Ali Quadri, Mr. Swapnil Deshmukh, Mr. A.N. Sabnis,

Mr. R.B. Temak, Mr. G. C. Navandar, Mr. M.S. Choudhari,

Advocates for the Petitioners in respective Petitions.

Mr.V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent-State Authorities.

Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Advocate for the Admission Regulatory

Authority (Resp.3) in WP/1771/2023, WP/9418/2022,

WP/12737/22, Respondent No.2 in WP/12799/2022, Respondent

Nos.3 and 4 in WP/1714/2022.

Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in

WP/1771/2023 and Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 in WP/8962/2022.

Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in WP/12799/2022.

Mr. S. P. Brahme, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in

WP/9418/2022, WP/11629/2022 & WP/12800/2022.

Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in

WP/7418/2022, WP/8962/2022 & Respondent No.2 in

WP/11629/2022.

Mr. A. R. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in

WP/7418/2022, WP/12737/2022.

Mr.V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. S.R. Sapkal,

Advocate for Respondent No.6 in WP/7418/2022.

Mr.A.V. Hon, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP/11629/2022.

Mr.D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in

WP/8962/2022.

Mr.V.P. Latange, Advocate for Respondent No.6 in

WP/1714/2022.

Mr. V. D. Khivesara a/w Mr. D. L. Khivesara, Advocates for

Respondent No.5- College in WP/1771/2023 & WP/12800/2022.

Shri D.S.Bagul, Advocate for Respondent 6 in WP/12737/2022

... ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*4* wp1771o23.odt

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

&

SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 13

th

April, 2023

ORAL ORDER ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. ) :-

1. In all these petitions, the admitted/undisputed factors

are as under :-

A]The Petitioners are students.

B]All are identically placed.

C]All have been admitted to the graduation courses of

BHMS/ BAMS/ BUMS/ BPTH/ B.Sc. Nursing.

D]Each of them had sought admission on the basis of

the claim of belonging to the reserved category.

E]All of them were admitted by the respective

Managements on their mere claim of belonging to the reserved

categories and none of them had validity certificates on the dates

of their admissions.

F]In all these cases, the Admission Regulating

Authority (ARA) has cancelled their admissions and the Review

Petitions have been dismissed. Despite these facts, the

Managements did not cancel the admissions of these Petitioners.

G]Each of them has received the validity certificate

after the admission cut-off date. ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*5* wp1771o23.odt

2. Considering the above, we do not find it necessary

to reproduce the entire selection process or the various dates on

which various stages of the admission process were conducted.

Suffice it to say that, none of the Petitioners had a validity

certificate prior to the cut off date of their admissions and all of

them secured validity certificates after the cut off date.

3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri V.D. Sapkal has

fairly stated, on behalf of the Management, in Writ Petition

No.7418/2022, that the Admission Rules i.e. “NEET UG-2017-

Information Brochure of Preference System for admission to

Health Science Courses in State Government/ Corporation/

Private & Minority Colleges” as prescribed by the

Commissionerate, Common Entrance Test Cell, Mumbai, more

particularly Annexure S (Undertaking) annexed to NEET UG

2017, permitted the admission of students, whose validity claims

were pending. Under the said ‘Information Brochure of NEET

UG 2017’, admission of such students was permissible.

Subsequently, the rules were amended with the introduction of

the ‘NEET UG 2018 Information Brochure’, and the reserved

category validity certificate was made mandatory. With the

changed Rules under the ‘NEET UG 2018 Information

Brochure’, the Managements were restrained from admitting ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*6* wp1771o23.odt

students claiming to be from the reserved categories, unless the

validity certificates were obtained.

4. He refers to Section 4(A) of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special

Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)

Caste Certificate Act, 2000, (for short “the Caste Certificate

Verification Act, 2000”), which permits production of proof to

the effect that the student has made an application for issuance of

a validity certificate. However, he fairly states that Section 4(A)

(2)(ii) mandates that the candidate should produce his validity

certificate to the Admission Authorities, on or before such date as

may be specified by the ARA.

5. He, therefore, submits that the Management has not

intentionally or deliberately granted admissions to students who

did not have the validity certificates. Ulterior or oblique motives

or laches are not attributable to the conduct of the Management.

He refers to the judgment delivered by this Court at Nagpur in

Kuldeep s/o Sanjay Deshmukh vs. The State of Maharashtra,

Writ Petition No.326/2020 decided on 13.07.2022, wherein, this

Court concluded that as the candidate had moved an application

for issuance of a validity certificate to the Scrutiny Committee

prior to the specified date and was thereafter, admitted to a ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*7* wp1771o23.odt

professional course, his admission was not liable to be cancelled

by relying upon Section 4(A)(2)(ii) and that Section 4(A)(3) and

(4) would not be attracted.

6. Shri Sapkal then refers to an order passed by this

Court at the Principal Seat dated 19.12.2022 in Writ Petition

No.10361/2018, filed by Hridaya Manoj Ingale vs. Director of

Technical Education and others. In this order, it was concluded

that the cancellation of admission was only on account of the

reason of delay in submission of the validity certificate and,

hence, the admission was validated.

7. All the learned Advocates representing the other

Petitioners, have adopted the submissions of the learned Senior

Advocate and in addition, submit that none of these Petitioners,

who are innocent students, could be blamed. They secured their

admissions on their own merits. Not a single admission is illegal.

There is no deviation from the admission norms. The

Managements have not indulged in picking and choosing

candidates for admission. No malafides can be attributed to these

Petitioners.

8. The learned Advocates Shri S.G. Karlekar and Shri

M.B. Narwadkar, have put forth extensive submissions, so also,

their written notes. Their submissions can be summarized as

under:- ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*8* wp1771o23.odt

(a)These Petitioners are seeking regularization/

approval of the admissions granted for the various professional

courses from the academic year 2018-19.

(b)The reason in not approving the admissions of all

the petitioners is on the count that, they did not submit the

validity certificates before the cut-off date as prescribed in the

schedule/ notice/ brochure for admission as formulated and

implemented by the Admission Regulating Authority established

pursuant to enactment of the Maharashtra Unaided Private

Professional Educational Institutions (Regularization of

Admission and Fees) Act, 2015, (in short “the Act of 2015”).

(c)Chapter- 2 of the Act of 2015 deals with the

regularization of admissions, wherein the registration and

manner of admission is provided. Section 5 categorically

provides that any admission made in contravention of the

provisions of the said Act and or rules/ regulations made there

under, shall be void. It is further submitted that, section 5 of the

said Act refers to functions/ powers of the Admission Regulating

Authority to verify the admission proposals and to grant the

approval.

(d)In the process of admission being regulated by the

Admission Regulating Authority for the professional courses to

which the petitioners claim to have been admitted for academic ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*9* wp1771o23.odt

year 2018-19, submission of documents for verification after the

completion of the admission process by the respective

managements, is required.

(e) The necessary documents of all the students

admitted in the Institutions and which are to be considered by the

Admission Regulating Authority in terms of the stipulation as

contained in the admission brochure and notices issued from time

to time during the admission process, have to be filed before the

cut-off date.

(f)Considering the said provisions, requiring respective

managements to submit documents, so as to seek approval from

the Admission Regulating Authority, the students like the

petitioners, who are admitted, either in the cap round or the

institutional round, are required to be admitted only pursuant to

the fulfillment of the necessary requirements of the eligibility

criteria as prescribed in the admission brochure and the

notification issued from time to time by the Admission

Regulating Authority, which are binding on the students as well

as the institutions.

(g)With reference to the requirement of the certificate

of validity at the time of admission, in the backdrop of the

admissions granted to students under the interim orders of this

Court in absence of certificates of validity, the Hon’ble Supreme ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*10* wp1771o23.odt

Court, in Civil Appeal No.11234-48/2017 (Dilip Vitthal Bambale

V/s Vinitkumar Toltod and others), vide order dated 06.09.2017,

has observed that, the admissions cannot be granted under ad-

interim orders without certificate of validity. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has also clearly observed that the candidates who

have certificates of validity are only to be admitted.

(h)Considering the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Dilip Vitthal Bambale (supra), the admission brochure and the

notices, so also notifications issued by the Admission Regulating

Authority after academic year 2017-18, providing for submission

of the validity before the cut off date of admission for the

respective academic years, is sustainable.

(i)In the academic year 2018-19, Section 4A was

introduced in the Caste Certificate Verification Act, 2000 with a

view to permit registration/participation in the admission process

for such students whose caste claims were pending before the

respective Scrutiny Committees and with a further provision

requiring submission of a validity certificate before the date as

may be specified by the Admission Regulating Authority.

(j)The purpose behind introducing the said temporary

provision was considering the fact that the duration of admission

process, from the date of registration and till the last date of

admission, on an average, was in between 2 and ½ months, ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*11* wp1771o23.odt

whereby considering the temporary provision, the students could

initially participate in the admission process on the basis of

pendency of validation proceedings and would get breathing

time, during which, they could pursue the Scrutiny Committee

and obtain validity certificates before the specified date as

prescribed by the Admission Regulating Authority.

(k)The said temporary provision provided for

participation in the admission process by producing proof of

pendency of validation proceedings and requiring submissions of

validity certificates before the cut-off date.

(l)The said amended Section 4A of the Caste

Certificate Verification Act, 2000, was considered by this Court

at the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.326/2020 filed by

Kuldeep s/o Sanjay Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra and

others and it was held that Section 4A(2)(i) requiring submission

of proofs of pendency of validity proceedings will have to be

read individually vis-à-vis Section 4A(2)(ii) with requirement of

submission of validity before the specified date as prescribed by

the Admission Regulating Authority. It was in such premises, that

this Court proceeded to regularize the admission of the

petitioner therein.

(m)The order in Kuldeep Sanjay Deshmukh (supra)

delivered by this Court at the Nagpur Bench was carried to the ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*12* wp1771o23.odt

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal

(C) No.17291/2022 filed by the Commissioner, State Common

Entrance Test Cell vs. Kuldeep and others. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court, although did not interfere with the order, has kept the

point of law open for adjudication.

(n)The temporary provision of Section 4A(2) (ii) is a

non-obstante clause, specifically provided for students

possessing the caste certificate and whose applications for

verification and issuance of validity certificate are pending

before the Scrutiny Committee. It is in such contingency, such

students, who are eligible to participate on the basis of their caste

certificates, were permitted to participate in the admission

process, subject to the condition as mentioned in sub- clause (i)

and sub clause (ii) further providing that such participation in the

admission process would be subject to submission of validity

certificates, before the date, as specified by the Admission

Regulating Authority.

(o)Section 4A(2)(ii) further provides that the date to be

specified by the Admission Regulating Authority shall be before

the date of closure of admission process for the respective

academic years.

(p)Section 4A(3) provides that failure to submit the

validity as provided under sub-section 4A(2)), will mean that the ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*13* wp1771o23.odt

provisional admission against the reservation seat, shall be

deemed to be cancelled.

(q)In such circumstances, on failure of the petitioners

in these Writ Petitions, to submit the validity certificate, on or

before completion of admission process for the respective

academic years, has clearly resulted in deemed cancellation, for

which reason, the claim of the petitioners seeking regularization

of the admission should not be considered by this Court.

(r)In absence of challenge to Section 4A of the Caste

Certificate Verification Act, 2000, the claim of the petitioners

seeking regularization of admissions, does not deserve

consideration.

(s)This Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, till this

date, has not struck down the requirement of certificate of

validity to be submitted before the last date of admission to the

professional course of the respective academic years and as such,

all earlier orders passed by this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme

Court were only considering equities.

(t)Considering the fact that the Admission Regulating

Authority is a statutory body empowered to regulate the

admission with requirement of validity before the cut off date, by

virtue of the powers conferred by the Act, 2015 and after due

consideration of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*14* wp1771o23.odt

Dilip Vitthal Bambale (supra), the Authority has rightly

cancelled the admission of students, for not possessing validity

certificate prior to the cut-off date.

(u)Some petitioners in these petitions were admitted in

the academic years 2018-19 and and some were in 2021-22.

(v)As such, the rejection of approval to the admission

of the petitioners was intimated to the Institution as earlier as in

January, 2019. It is thus evident that in all the petitions, the

rejection of their admission is communicated to the respective

institutions within 3-4 months of the admissions.

(w)It is evident that, despite having knowledge about

rejection of the admissions, the students pursued their course

under the assurance of the management that on completion of

their course, they could seek regularization of admission by

approaching this Court.

(x)A few of the Institutions on initial rejection of

approval, have approached the Admission Regulating Authority

seeking review of the admission and submission of caste validity

certificate, either at the time of filing of the review or before the

decision on the review applications.

(y)The power of review by the Admission Regulating

Authority cannot be extended to mean that the Admission

Regulating Authority can exercise it’s power of review to ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*15* wp1771o23.odt

condone and remove the deficiency, which is otherwise incurable

considering the mandatory provisions.

(z)The claim of the petitioners to consider the case for

regularization of admissions, having obtained caste validity

certificate much after the cut off date as prescribed by the

Admission Regulating Authority for the respective academic

years, also does not deserve consideration on the spacious plea of

having completed their course.

(aa)The claim of the petitioners that the respective

institutions did not inform the rejection of approval to their

admission, also cannot be considered, in light of the fact that the

petitioners, while getting themselves admitted for the respective

reserved category, were absolutely aware that, they had no

rightful claim for admission against the reserved category, in the

absence of caste validity certificates before the date specified by

the Admission Regulating Authority.

(bb)The Division Bench of this Court at the Principal

Seat, in the recent judgment in Dr.Pallavi Manohar Dalvi and

others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2022 SCC Online

(Bom) 981 : 2022 (5) Mh.L.J.674, has held that jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be

exercised to uphold the course of action that is not in accordance

with the prescribed legal procedure. The Division Bench has ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*16* wp1771o23.odt

even considered the situation that the petitioners had completed

their course and refused to regularize admission and has further

saddled exemplary cost on the Management and further directed

refund of 50% fees to the petitioner therein.

(cc)The Division Bench of this Court at the Principal

Seat in the case of Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India, Writ

Petition (L) No.26135/2021 decided on 12.11.2021, 2022 (1)

BCR 122, has held that, the rules as formulated by the competent

authority are binding and as such, any direction cannot be issued

resulting in the authority being required to violate its own rules

and regulations.

(dd)The petitioners, by their own conduct of seeking

admission in violation of the regulations, have put their career at

stake and as such, now they are not entitled to seek equitable

relief from this Court. Considering the sympathetic view of this

Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on an earlier occasion, has

emboldened the Managements and the students like the

petitioners to continue to seek admission in violation of the

regulations and for which reason, the respective institutions in

this group of petitions, deserve to be saddled with exemplary cost

so as to ensure that the Managements do not indulge themselves

in such illegal admissions hereinafter. ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*17* wp1771o23.odt

(ee)Lastly, it is stated that, this Court should saddle

exemplary costs on the respective institutions, which would serve

as a deterrence to all institutions, which otherwise are continuing

to indulge in such illegal admissions.

9. In Dilip Vitthal Bambale and others vs. Vinitkumar

Motiram Totlod and others, Civil Appeal Nos.11234-48 of 2017,

the Honourable Supreme Court has delivered an order on

06.09.2017 by noting that the Petitioners’ admissions were

protected by the interim orders of the High Court. The

Honourable Court, on considering that 11 students were validity

holders, though after the cut-off date, the Institution was directed

to admit the students in order of merit. It was further observed

that “Before parting with the case, we are obliged to say that the

Division Bench of the High Court has been absolutely ill-advised

to pass such an interim order. The same is hereby set aside.”

Finally, the Honourable Supreme Court recorded that “The

candidates who have got the certificate of validity by virtue of

the High Court order shall be admitted and vacant seats can be

filled up from amongst the students who have got the certificate

of validity. The Medical Council of India shall intimate this order

to the concerned Educational Institution.” ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*18* wp1771o23.odt

10. We have no doubt that a candidate, who has already

acquired a validity certificate, has to produce the same before the

Competent Committee regulating the admissions as per the

schedule meant for producing the documents/ verification of

documents. However, a candidate who does not possess the

validity certificate, has to furnish proof of having applied for the

validation of his claim and is mandated to produce the validity

certificate prior to the cut off date.

11. In Dr.Pallavi Manohar Dalvi (supra), this Court at

the Principal Seat, has concluded in paragraph Nos.21, 22 and 23

as under:-

“21. It is not in dispute that the ad-interim relief

granted on 25th July 2017 in Writ Petition (st)

No.19278/2017 ceased to operate on 17th June

2019 with the unconditional withdrawal of the

aforesaid writ petition. Similarly, the reliance

placed on the decision in Maharashtra Medical

Education and Research Centre (supra) is also

misplaced for the reason that the facts therein

indicate that this Court considered the position

as prevailing in the academic year 2015-16 and

not in the academic year with which we are

concerned in these writ petitions. We,

therefore, find that there is no ground made out

whatsoever to accept the contentions of the

Petitioners that their admissions to the

Postgraduate course as made in the year 2016-

17 are liable to be regularised. The order

passed by the Authority on 3rd July 2019 also

does not deserve to be interfered with for the

reason that it has been found that the

Petitioners’ admissions were not pursuant to

PGA-CET 2016. ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*19* wp1771o23.odt

22.It is well settled that jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India cannot be

exercised to uphold any course of action that is

not in accordance with the prescribed legal

procedure. Granting relief to the Petitioners in

these facts would result in condoning the illegal

admissions granted by the Colleges and

validating the admissions of the Petitioners

who were not eligible to seek admission in

accordance with PGA-CET 2016. Having

found that the admissions of the Petitioners

have been made in a manner contrary to the Act

of 2015, the Rules of 2016 and PGA-CET

2016, the Petitioners would not be entitled to

any discretionary relief. Mandatory statutory

provisions referred to herein above cannot be

bypassed. Morever, there are no equities in

favour of the Petitioners to grant them relief in

these facts.

23.Having found that the admissions of the

Petitioners are not liable to be approved, the

alternate prayer made by the students for grant

of compensation as well as refund of tuition

fees deserves consideration. We find that the

respective Colleges disregarding the Act of

2015, the Rules of 2016 and PGA-CET 2016

proceeded to admit the students by issuing an

advertisement at their level. Such course was

not permissible in law. The justification sought

to be put forth by the Colleges is that on

account of financial constrains, they did not

deem it proper to permit the seats to remain

vacant. This can hardly be a justification for

by-passing the mandatory statutory provisions.

If such plea is permitted to be accepted, it

would result in grave consequences thereby

diluting prescribed minimum standards in the

field of education. Under the garb of financial

constraints, the Colleges cannot be permitted to

disregard statutory provisions as well as the

procedure prescribed and make admissions.

The aspect of public law damages has been

considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Krina Ajay Shah and others, Saraswati

Educational Charitable Trust & another and ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*20* wp1771o23.odt

Firdos Vahajuddin Ansari (Supra). In the

present case there is no question of saddling

any damages on the State or the University. It

is only the Colleges who have transgressed the

statutory provisions and have made admissions

in breach of the provisions of law. We, thus,

find that in these facts, Petitioners would be

entitled to compensatory relief that would have

to be saddled on the Colleges.”

12. In Amardeep Singh Sahota vs. State of Punjab and

others, (1993) 4 SLR 673 (FB), the learned Full Bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded in paragraph Nos.22,

29 and 30 as under:-

“22. It may at this stage further be stated that the

Notification dated July 13, 1992 goes contrary

to the policy which was laid down for

admission in the Notification dated May 20,

1992 on the basis of which the Prospectus had

been issued to the students and the students

appeared for test on the basis of the policy laid

down in the prospectus: The Prospectus cannot

subsequently be changed by the State

Government to the detriment of the students to

benefit certain other students. In Ravdeep Kaur

v. The State of Punjab, Division Bench of this

Court had an occasion to consider the value of

a Prospectus issued for admission to an

entrance examination. It was held that the

eligibility for admission to a course has be seen

according to the prospectus issued before the

entrance examination and that the admission

has to be made on the basis of instructions

given in the prospectus as the instructions

issued have the force of law. We agree with the

view taken by the Division Bench. Since the

Prospectus issued for admission to the 1992-

1993 course in the medical college has the

force of law and the students appeared in the

examination on the basis of the instructions laid ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*21* wp1771o23.odt

down in the said Prospectus, it was not open to

the State Government to issue contrary

instructions and as such also the Notification

dated July 13 1992 issued by the State

Government is invalid in law.”

“29. We have now to consider the question in regard

to those students who though they are not

entitled to be admitted within the principles

laid down by us but have been granted

provisional admission due to orders passed by

this Court. In regard to these students also since

the law was wholly unsettled and there were

different decision by different Benches of this

Court in regard to the principles of admission,

they should not be made to suffer in the

interests of justice and they be also permitted to

continue their course in the Medical Colleges

as regular students.

30. We have held that it is the jurisdiction of the

State Government to lay down the policy for

admission to the sports quota in the Medical

Colleges but in our opinion the State

Government should not change the policy

every year and in one year change it many time

as has been done in this year. We expect the

State Government that any policy which it

determines in regard to the sports quota for the

next year, shall be permitted to continue for

atleast three years so that students who are

eligible in the sports quota may be aware of the

said policy.”

13. In Prince Jaibir Singh vs. Union of India, Writ

Petition (L) No.26135/2021 decided on 12.11.2021, this Court at

the Principal Seat, recorded in paragraph No.24 and 25 as under:-

“24.…….. The Petitioner having failed to follow

the rules despite being aware of the same now

cannot be heard to say that he be allowed to

continue his admission and be allowed to make

payment of the Seat Acceptance Fee or that he

be allotted another seat after the closure of the ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*22* wp1771o23.odt

process of admission as provided for in the

Rules. The said Rules are binding on all the

participants as the candidates have entered the

process by submitting to the said Rules.

Though, we are aware that

computerization/digitization is not to harass the

citizens, but to assist them in going about their

activities in a more efficient, convenient and

hassle free manner, the Petitioner by not

availing of the Grievance Redressal in time, as

provided for in the Rules, has entailed the

consequence of rejection from the process and

has been unfortunately ousted from the

process.”

25.It is trite that the Rules of business being

formulated by the competent authority, in this

case JoSAA, are binding on the petitioner. This

Court is also fully conscious of the principle

highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case

of Maharashi Dayanand University (Supra) and

followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of

Pallavi Sharma (Supra) that a direction of this

Court cannot result in an authority violating its

own rules and regulations. We therefore cannot

and are not issuing any such directions. True

also that Petitioner is a poor but meritorious

student having secured a merit rank in the JEE

Advance and a seat for B.Tech (Civil) course at

the prestigious IIT Bombay and we fully

sympathise with his situation. However, in

view of what we have discussed and observed

above we find it difficult to issue any directions

to the Respondents as prayed for in this

Petition or otherwise.

14. Shri Karlekar, therefore, submits that all these

Petitioners are not as innocent as it is tried to be made out. So

also, the Managements are not naive so as to be oblivious of the

fact that the students cannot be admitted even by way of a

provisional admission, until they have validity certificates. In the ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*23* wp1771o23.odt

absence of validity certificates, they cannot be admitted and

hence, their admissions would be patently illegal. The ARA has

rightly cancelled their admissions. He relies upon the recent

order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in National

Medical Commission and another vs. Annasaheb Chudaman

Patil Memorial Medical College and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC)

113 : Civil Appeal No.966 & 967/2023 decided on 10.02.2023,

wherein, the conduct of the Management was noted and cost of

Rs.2.5 crores was imposed. It was further directed that the said

amount shall not be recovered from the students and the

Management would be duty bound to deposit the said amount.

He, therefore, prays that if this Court comes to a conclusion, to

regularise the admissions of these Petitioners as a one time

arrangement, exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs each, be imposed on

the Management for the reason that such admissions have

become a ‘modus operandi’ of the Managements so as to fill in

the seats/ vacancies illegally and collect huge amounts from the

candidates. This has become a business for such private

managements.

15. Section 4A(2)(ii) of the Caste Certificate

Verification Act, 2000, has not been challenged and is not held

to be arbitrary by any Court. Clause 9.1.5.1 of the Information

Brochure issued by the Common Entrance Test Cell, which is the ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*24* wp1771o23.odt

authority empowered to regulate admissions to Health Science

Courses in the State Government/ Corporation/ Private and

Minority Colleges, mandates that a student cannot be admitted to

the college without a validity certificate.

16. It is apparent that the admissions were de-hors the

rules. It also cannot be lost sight of the fact that the

Managements made the parents believe that the admissions

would be regularized after the validity certificates are granted by

the Scrutiny Committee. In some of the cases, it is clear that the

cancellation of the admissions by the ARA, was not even

communicated to the students by the Management. It was only

after the University declined permission to the students to appear

for the examination, that these Managements had no option, but

to confess to the students that their admissions have been

cancelled.

17. It also cannot be ignored that these admissions of the

Petitioners are from the Institutional Quota. We are unaware as to

whether, the Managements have collected donations. The fact

remains that, with the admission of these candidates, they are

exempted from the payment of regular fees and such fees are

reimbursed by the State Government. It cannot be ruled out that

there could be some candidates, who had validity certificates and

who were below the ranks in merit vis-a-vis the Petitioners. They ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*25* wp1771o23.odt

may have lost their admissions as these Petitioners were admitted

without validity certificates. These factors are to be considered as

being sufficient reasons to impose heavy costs on the

Managements for admitting the students, de-hors the rules.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances in these cases,

we are not inclined to impose costs on the students.

18. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly

allowed. The impugned orders cancelling the admissions of these

Petitioners are quashed and set aside and their admissions shall

stand regularized, as a onetime measure.

19. By way of costs, the Managements of the Colleges

in which these students have been admitted, shall deposit an

amount of Rs.50,000/- per student, within thirty days, in this

Court. After the amount as directed above is deposited, the

Registry of this Court shall transmit the same to the following

Institutions as under:-

Sr.No.Name of Institution Bank DetailsAmount to be

Transmitted

1. NAAM Foundation,

1132-3, 2nd Floor,

Vishnu Darshan, Above

Rahul Medical, Behind

Hotel Lalit Mahal,

Fergusson College Rd,

Shivajinagar, Pune,

Maharashtra 411016.

(Mobile: 9881041354.)

Account No.

35226127148

IFS Code:

SBIN0007339

State Bank of

India,

University

Road, Pune.

Rs.2,00,000/-

2. Infant India, Anandwan,Canara Bank Rs.2,00,000/- ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::

*26* wp1771o23.odt

659/Infant Hill, Infront

of Bindusara Dam, N.H.

211, Pali, Beed-431122.

Mobile-9422693585/

9822456411.

A/c No.

3773201000011

IFS Code:

CNRB0003773

3. Orphanage home i.e.

“Shantivan”, Arvi,

Tq.Shirur Kasar, District

Beed.

“Bhavani Vidhyarthi

Kalyan Pratishthan,

Arvi”,

State Bank of

India, Branch

Shirur (Kasar),

Account No.

33446000963

IFSC Code :

SBIN0005995

Rs.2,00,000/-

4. The Day Care Center,

High Court of Bombay,

Bench at Aurangabad.

Rs.1,00,000/-

20. We caution the Managements that they shall not

recover the amounts, directly or indirectly, from the students

under any pretext, including for the purposes of gathering/

development fund etc., failing which, the Health University

would be at liberty to initiate strict action against the

Managements by following the due procedure laid down in law.

21. The pending Civil Application does not survive and

stands disposed off.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

kps ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:50:07 :::