RAVINDRA v. GHUGE AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ.) DATE
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:9614-DB - 1 -IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.14475 of 2023Dr.Vilas s/o Raghunath Dukare, Age-30 years, Occu-Presently pursuing PG studies at the Government Medical College,Miraj, Dist.Sangali -- PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State OF Maharashtra,Through it’s Principal Secretary,General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.2. District Collector,Chatrapati Sambhajinagar,Dist.Sambhajinagar3. Sub-Divisional Officer,Paithan-Phulambri Headquarters,Dist.Sambhajinagar4. Tahsildar, Paithan,Dist.Chatrapati Sambhajinagar5. Dr.Shantanu Keshavrao Kundgir,Age-42 years, Occu-Service,r/o Medical Officers Quarters, Rural Hospital, Virar, Tq. Virar,District Palghar6. Dr.Balaji Ashok Bhise,Age-36 years, Occu-Service,R/o Kundal, Tq.Palus,Dist.Sangali khs/April 2024/14475
Facts
- 2 -7. Common Entrance Test Cell,Through the Commissioner,Maharashtra State, Mumbai 8th floor, New Excelsior Building,A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 -- RESPONDENTSMr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr.A.B.Girase, Govt.Pleader a/w Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. Mr.S.G.Karlekar, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Mr.V.M.Thorat h/f Mr.A.N.Patale, Advocate for Respondent No.6. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ.) DATE : APRIL 26, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally bythe consent of the parties. 2.On 20.11.2023, the learned Vacation Bench of this Courtpassed an ex-parte ad-interim order with regard to the cancellation ofthe Petitioner’s Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Certificate, dated13.09.2023. The Petitioner’s eligibility was sought to be challenged byRespondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein, before the SDO, Respondent No.3herein. After hearing the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 had passed anorder on 13.09.2023, thereby cancelling the EWS certificate of thePetitioner. khs/April 2024/14475
Legal Reasoning
- 9 -10.We find that the Petitioner has not suppressed any aspect inthis matter, in the sense that the Petitioner has boldly stated that hisannual income of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lakhs) is not to beincluded and is not to be considered by the Tahsildar while issuing himan EWS certificate. The foundation of making such submission,according to the Petitioner, lays in the GR dated 12.02.2019, morespecifically clause ‘d’ (1 & 2), which reads as under :-“d- आर्थि(cid:3)कदृष्ट्यादुर्ब(cid:12)लघटकांच्याआरक्षणाच्यालाभासाठीपात्रता %&१- ज्याअर्ज(cid:12)दाराच्या@ उमेदवाराच्याकुटुंर्बाचेएकत्रित्रतवार्षि)कउत्पन्नरु- ८लाखाच्याआत असेलत्याअर्ज(cid:12)दारास@ उमेदवारासआर्थि(cid:3)कदृष्ट्यादुर्ब(cid:12)लसमर्जण्यातयेईलवया आरक्षणाच्यालाभासाठीतोपात्रराहील-२- याआरक्षणाच्यालाभासाठीकुटुंर्बम्हणर्जेअर्ज(cid:12)दाराचेउमेदवाराचेआई& वडीलव१८ व)ा(cid:12)खालीलभावंडेतसेचअर्ज(cid:12)दाराची@ उमेदवाराची१८व)ा(cid:12)खालीलमुलेवपती@पत्नी यांचासमावेशहोईल- कुटुंर्बाच्याएकत्रित्रतउत्पन्नातत्याच्याकुटुंर्बातीलसदस्यांच्यासव(cid:12) स्त्रोतांमधूनत्रिमळणा& याउत्पन्नाचासमावेशअसेलम्हणर्जेचवेतन] कृ)ीउत्पन्न]उदयोग& व्यवसाययावइतरसव(cid:12)मागा(cid:12)तूनहोणारे] अर्ज(cid:12)दाखलकरण्याच्यात्रिदनांकाच्या मागीलआर्थि(cid:3)कव)ा(cid:12)चेवार्षि)कउत्पन्नएकत्रित्रतपणेरु- ८लाखापेक्षाकमीअसावेs-”11.There have been lengthy arguments of the learnedkhs/April 2024/14475 - 10 -advocates representing the parties before us. The Respondents insistthat the income of the candidate also has to be considered while takinginto the account the annual income of the Applicant’s family. Theparties are, however, united in submitting that the GR dated12.02.2019, is specifically for the purposes of admissions to the extentof 10% reservations in the PG courses for the EWS category and thePetitioner and similarly situated candidates are covered by the said GR.12.The issue before us is as regards the manner of computingthe income of the family of the applicant, for the purpose of issuing theEWS Certificate. The Petitioner’s contention is that while granting theEWS certificate, the income of the family of the applicant alone is to beconsidered. The income of the applicant has to be excluded and it isonly the income of his family, that is to be reckoned with.13.The learned Government Pleader has drawn our attentionto a communication by the Deputy Secretary, General AdministrationDepartment of the Government of Maharashtra, dated 06.11.2023,addressed to the District Collector of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Hehas clarified on the basis of the Government Resolution and which iskhs/April 2024/14475 - 11 -quoted in his communication, which reads as under :-“lnj ’kklu fu.kZ;krhy ifj-2(d) (2) e/;s dqVqackph O;k[;k fnysyh vkgs- R;ke/;s “dqVqacEg.kts vtZnkjkps@mesnokjkps vkbZ&ofMy o 18 oÔkZ[kkyhy HkkoaMs rlsp vtZnkjkph@mesnokjkph 18oÔkZ[kkyhy eqys o irh@iRuh ;kapk lekos’k gksbZy- dqVwackP;k ,df=r mRiUukr R;kP;kdwVwackrhy lnL;kaP;k loZ L=ksrke/kwu feG.kk&;k mRiUukpk lekos’k vlsy Eg.ktsp osru] d`fÔmRiUu] mn~;ksx& O;olk; ;k o brj loZ ekxkZrwu gks.kkjs vtZ nk[ky dj.;kP;k fnukadkP;kekxhy vkfFkZd oÔkZps mRiUu ,df=ri.ks #-8 yk[kkis{kk deh vlkos]” vls uewn vkgs- dsanz’kklukP;k fnukad 19-9-2022 e/;s LiÔ~V dsY;kizek.ks] jkT; ’kklukP;k dqVwac O;k[;sr] T;kykHkkF;kaZlkBh vtZ dsyk vkgs R;kP;k dqVwackP;k mRiUuke/;s R;kP;k “Lor%” pk lekos’k vkgs-”14.The Petitioner has relied upon a GR dated 25.03.2013,which is with regard to the Creamy Layer issue when it comes to asocial reservation. This is in connection with the various ScheduledTribes and Reserved Categories mentioned therein and he contends onthe basis of a clarification at internal Page no.11, that if a candidate’sfamily falls in the Creamy Layer or Non-Creamy Layer, the income ofthe family can be seen and not that of the applicant.15.He has adverted to certain contingencies that have beendiscussed, which read as under :-khs/April 2024/14475 - 12 - एखाद्याउमेदवाराचेआई/ वडीलया पैकीएककिंकवादोघेहीशासकीय(केंद्र किंकवाराज्यशासनातीलसेवेत) सेवेत असतीलआणिणत्यांच्याशासकीय सेवेतीलपदांचादर्जा(cid:12)त्रिनश्चिIतझाला असेलतरसदरउमेदवाराचाउन्नत/ प्रगतगट(त्रिLत्रिमलेअर) हात्याच्या स्वतःच्यास्तरानुसारकिंकवा उत्पन्नानुसारकिंकवात्याच्यापतीच्या/ पत्नीच्यास्तरानुसारकिंकवा उत्पन्नानुसारत्रिनश्चिIतनकरतात्याचा किंकवाश्चितचाउन्नत/ प्रगतगट(त्रिLत्रिमलेअर) हाकेवळत्याच्याकिंकवा श्चितच्याआईकिंकवावश्चिडल/ दोघांच्या शासकीयसेवेतीलस्तराच्या / दर्जा(cid:12)च्या (ACCORDING TO THESTATUS OF HE PARENT/S INTHE GOVERNMENTSERVICE) आधारेत्रिवत्रिहत त्रिनयमानुसारत्रिनश्चिIतकेलार्जाईल. म्हणर्जेच, - (i) एखाद्याउमेदवाराच्या( मत्रिहला/ पुरु)उमेदवार) उन्नत/ गटाचे(त्रिLत्रिमलेअर) त्रिनधा(cid:12)रण- हेकेवळत्याउमेदवाराच्याआई किंकवावडील/ दोघांच्याशासकीयसेवेतील स्तराच्या/ दर्जा(cid:12)च्याआधारेत्रिवत्रिहतत्रिनयमानुसार त्रिनश्चिIतकेलेर्जाईल. - एखाद्याउमेदवाराच्याउन्नत/ गटाचे(त्रिLत्रिमलेअर) त्रिनधा(cid:12)रणकरतांनात्याउमेदवाराचा स्वतःचादर्जा(cid:12) / उत्पन्न किंकवात्याच्यापश्चित/ पत्नीचादर्जा(cid:12)/ उत्पन्नगृत्रिहतधरलेर्जाणारनाही. - एखाद्या त्रिववात्रिहत / अत्रिववात्रिहतमत्रिहला उमेदवारार्बार्बतउन्नत/ गटाचे(त्रिLत्रिमलेअर) त्रिनधा(cid:12)रणकरतांनात्यामत्रिहलाउमेदवाराचे स्वतःचेकिंकवापतीचेकिंकवादोघांचेहीकोणत्याही मागा(cid:12)नेहोणारेउत्पन्नकिंकवातीचा/ तीच्या पतीचाशासकीयसेवेतीलदर्जा(cid:12)(STATUS) गृत्रिहतनधरताकेवळतीच्याआई/ वडीलाचा किंकवाआईआणिणवडीलयादोघांचासेवेतील दर्जा(cid:12)(STATUS) / इतरमागांZ नेहोणारेउत्पन गृत्रिहतधरलेर्जाईल. - एखादाउमेदवार(मत्रिहला/पुरु)) र्जरीस्वतः शासकीयसेवेतकोणत्याहीपदावर ( oxZ अ , र्ब , कअ Fkok ड ) dk य(cid:12)रतअसलातरीहीत्याच्या उन्नत/ गटाचे(त्रिLत्रिमलेअर) त्रिनधा(cid:12)रण करतांनात्याउमेदवाराचास्वतःचादर्जा(cid:12)/ उत्पन्नकिंकवात्याच्यापश्चित/ पत्नीचादर्जा(cid:12)/ उत्पन्नगृत्रिहतनधरलेर्जाताकेवळत्याच्या/ तीच्याआई/ वडीलाचाकिंकवाआईआणिणवडील यादोघांचासेवेतीलदर्जा(cid:12)/ इतरमागांZ नेहोणारे उत्पन्नगृत्रिहतधरलेर्जाईल. (ii) सदरत्रिनधा(cid:12)रणकरतांनाउमेदवाराच्या आई/ वडीलकिंकवाआईआणिणवडीलया दोघांचेहीशासकीयसेवेतूनवेतनाव्दारेप्राप्त होणारेउत्पन्नकिंकवाशेतर्जमीनीपासूनहोणारे उत्पन्नगृत्रिहतधरण्यातयेणारनाही. (iii) सदरत्रिनधा(cid:12)रंणकरतांनाउमेदवाराच्याkhs/April 2024/14475 - 13 -आई/ वडीलकिंकवाआईआणिणवडीलया दोघांचेहीमागीलसलगतीनव)ाOचेइतरमागा(cid:12)ने होणारेउत्पन्नग्राह्यधरलेर्जाईल. त(cid:3)ात्रिप , सदर श्चितन्हीव)ा(cid:12)च्याउत्पन्नाचेएकत्रित्रकरणक #u त्याचीप्रतीव)ा(cid:12)चीसरासरीपाडण्यातयेणारनाही . उन्नतवप्रगतगटामध्ये(त्रिLत्रिमलेअर) मोडत नसल्यार्बार्बतचेनॉन- त्रिLत्रिमलेअरप्रमाणपत्र देतांनासंर्बंश्चिधतउमेदवाराच्याआई/ वडील किंकवाआईआणिणवडीलयादोघांच्याहीमागील सलगतीनव)ाOचेइतरमागा(cid:12)नेहोणारेउत्पन्न( वेतनापासूनहोणारेउत्पन्नवशेतर्जमीनीपासून होणारेउत्पन्नवगळून) ह s # ४ . ५०लाखप्रती व)Yयापेक्षा ( किंकवाशासनानेयासंदभाOत वेळोवेळीत्रिवत्रिहतकेलेल्याप्रतीव)Yउत्पन्नमयांदेपेक्षा ) कमीअसणेआवश्यकआहे.16.The learned Advocate Mr. Thorat, representingRespondent no.6, submits that the Petitioner has made an attempt toconfuse 2 aspects, viz. (a) the social status of the parents and, (b) theissue with regard to the Creamy Layer/ Non-Creamy Layer. These havenothing to do with the special reservation for the EWS category. Thelearned Government Pleader joins him in submitting that the EWScategory has nothing to do with the Creamy Layer issue and both theissues are distinct and different.CONCLUSION ON THE AMBIT OF THE EWS CERTIFICATE17.We, having given a deep thought to the provisions of theGR dated 12.02.2019 and considering the language used in the clauseskhs/April 2024/14475 - 14 -2-d (1&2) read with the explanation of the State Governmentconveyed vide the communication dated 06.11.2023, it is apparent thatan EWS certificate is for a candidate to take advantage of the familybeing economically weak. The ceiling is of Rs. 8,00,000/- per year.When the Petitioner himself is drawing Rs. 12,00,000/- per annum,falling back upon the income of the family, excluding his income andcontending that the family earns less than Rs.8,00,000/- and, therefore,he belongs to the EWS category, is a fallacious contention, which is notpalatable.18.The object is to grant admission to the PG course to acandidate who belongs to an EWS category. The Petitioner himselfdraws thrice of the income of his parents and prays that his income tobe excluded and only the income of his parents be taken into account, isbound to create an anomaly. We would have been impressed by hissubmissions that if any GR or decision of the Government with regardto the EWS would have unequivocally said so that, if a candidatedesires to acquire an EWS certificate, his income shall be excluded andthe income of his parents should be considered. We do not find anysuch GR or any such policy decision of the Government which is placedkhs/April 2024/14475 - 15 -before us which may project or substantiate the contention of thePetitioner that the Applicant’s income will have to be excluded.19.The communication dated 06.11.2023, specifically refers tothis GR dated 12.02.2019 and clarifies (from the reproduced portion asabove) that the family of the Petitioner shall include the Petitioner’sparents and other close relatives and the income of the family shallmean the total income of the family members, except those who areexcluded from all sources of income put together. Sources of incomealso include agricultural activities, business, industries, etc. When theincome of close relatives is also to be considered, it is beyondimagination to think that the income of the Candidate, who is to deriveadvantage of the Certificate, should be excluded. As such, we find thatthe contention of the Government that the income of the candidate hasto be considered while issuing the EWS Certificate, is well placed.WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS TO RESIGN IF ADMISSION TO THEPG COURSE IS SECURED20.The Petitioner has canvassed before us that his incomeneeds to be excluded because, no sooner he secures admission to thekhs/April 2024/14475 - 16 -PG course as an in service candidate, having drawn salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month, he has to quit the employment and he isrendered unemployed. With this, his income comes down to NIL andtherefore, it must be accepted that the Petitioner’s income, whileconsidering the issuance of the EWS certificate, has to be excluded.21.The above issue raised by the Petitioner of quitting his jobas a Medical Officer, if he secures admission to the PG course, has astraightforward answer in clause 4.6 of the GR dated 19.07.2023,which reads thus :-“४. ६वाचाL. १३ये(cid:3)ीलत्रिद.१९.०३. २०१९रोर्जीच्याशासनत्रिनण(cid:12)यातीलवत्यामध्ये वेळोवेळीकरण्यातआलेल्यासुधारणेसहअश्चितदुग(cid:12)म( Remote), दुग(cid:12)म(Difficult) व ग्रामीण(Rural) भागातीलघोत्रि)तआरोग्यसंस्(cid:3)ांमध्येत्रिकमान०३व)_सेवात्रिदलेल्या तसेचउपरोक्त४. १ते४. ५मधीलअटीपूण(cid:12)करणाऱ्यासेवांतग(cid:12)तवैद्यकीयअश्चिधकारीयांना वैद्यकीयणिशक्षणवऔ)धीद्रव्येत्रिवभागाच्यावाचाL. १५ये(cid:3)ीलशासनत्रिनण(cid:12)यान्वये पदव्युत्तरअभ्यासLमाकरीताराखीवठेवण्यातआलेल्याराज्यकोव्यातील२०टक्के र्जागांवरप्राधान्यानेप्रवेशदेण्यातयेईल. घोत्रि)तआरोग्यसंस्(cid:3)ांमधीलसव(cid:12)पात्रसेवांतग(cid:12)त उमेदवारांनाप्रवेशत्रिदल्यानंतरराखीव२०टक्केकोट्यातीलणिशल्लक/ रिरक्तराहणाऱ्या र्जागांवरज्यावैद्यकीयअश्चिधकाऱ्यांचीअघोत्रि)तसंस्(cid:3)ांमधीलत्रिनयत्रिमतसेवाहीत्रिकमान०३ व)_किंकवात्याहूनअश्चिधकअसेलअशावैद्यकीयअश्चिधकाऱ्यांनात्यांच्याNEET PG याkhs/April 2024/14475 - 17 - पदव्युत्तरप्रवेशपरीक्षेतीलगुणवत्तेनुसारप्रवेशदेण्यातयेईल. सदरसव(cid:12)तैद्यकीयअश्चिधकारी प्रश्चितत्रिनयुक्तीसपात्रराहतील.”22.It is, thus, apparent from the above reproduced portionthat no ‘in-service’ candidate like the Petitioner, upon being selected forthe PG course on the basis of the EWS certificate, is required to resign.He can continue on deputation since he has an option for deputation.The clause actually means that all the Medical Officers would beeligible for deputation. The learned Government Pleader submits thatwith such deputation, the income of the Petitioner is not reduced.IMPUGNED ORDER23.The Petitioner is before us on the ground that Respondent-No. 6 had wrongly made an application to the S.D.O. for cancellation ofthe EWS certificate of the Petitioner. According to him, there is noscope for Respondent No. 6 to approach the S.D.O. with such anapplication. The learned Advocate representing Respondent No. 6, aswell as, the learned Government Pleader have drawn our attention tothe GR dated 12.02.2019, more specifically Clause 2-M (2)(i). Forclarity, we are reproducing Clause 2-M as well as the sub clauses hereunder :-khs/April 2024/14475 - 18 -“२) आर्थि(cid:3)कदृष्ट्यादुर्ब(cid:12)लघटकासाठीआवश्यकपात्रताप्रमाणपत्रत्रिमळण्यासाठी लाभधारकाकडूनआवश्यककागदपत्रांसहअर्ज(cid:12)प्राप्तझाल्याचात्रिदनांकापासूनएका मत्रिहन्यात( ३०त्रिदवसांच्याआत) लाभधारकासपात्रताप्रमाणपत्रदेणेर्बंधनकारकराहील. तेदेण्यासनकारत्रिदल्यासअ(cid:3)वाचुकीचेत्रिदल्यासत्यात्रिवरुध्दअत्रिपलदाखलकरण्याची काय(cid:12)पध्दत्तीखालीलप्रमाणेत्रिवत्रिहतकरण्यातयेतआहे.(I) सक्षमप्राश्चिधकाऱ्याच्यात्रिनण(cid:12)यात्रिवरुध्दअत्रिपलिलयअश्चिधकारीम्हणूनत्यांच्याकाय(cid:12)क्षेत्राचे उपजिर्जल्हाश्चिधकारीकिंकवाजिर्जल्हाश्चिधकारीयांनीनामत्रिनद_णिशतकेलेलाउपजिर्जल्हाश्चिधकारी पदापेक्षाकमीदर्जा(cid:12)चानाहीअसाअश्चिधकारीहेराहतील.(ii) वर(i) माध्येनमूदकेलेल्याअत्रिपलिलयअश्चिधकाऱ्याच्यात्रिनण(cid:12)यात्रिवरुध्दअत्रिपलिलय अश्चिधकारीम्हणूनत्यांच्याकाय(cid:12)क्षेत्राचेजिर्जल्हाश्चिधकारीहेराहतील.(iii) वरीलअत्रिपलिलयअश्चिधकारीयांनाअत्रिपलप्राप्तझाल्याच्यात्रिदनांकापासूनएकामत्रिहन्यात( ३०त्रिदवसांच्याआत) त्रिनण(cid:12)यदेणेर्बंधनकारकराहील.”24.We have considered the strenuous submissions of thelearned Advocates on the interpretation of these clauses. The clauserelevant to this case with regard to the submission of the Petitioner,would be Clause 2 which permits an Applicant to move an applicationfor receiving an EWS certificate. The competent authority, which is theTahsildar, is placed under an obligation that he would issue such acertificate, of course after being convinced, within 30 days. If hekhs/April 2024/14475 - 19 -refuses to give such a certificate, the Applicant can assail the same bymoving an appeal before the S.D.O.25.The bone of contention before us is with regard to thefollowing words in the sub clause, “ चुकीचेत्रिदल्यासत्यात्रिवरुध्दअत्रिपलदाखल ”करण्याचीकाय(cid:12)पध्दत्तीखालीलप्रमाणेत्रिवत्रिहतकरण्यातयेतआहे. Clause (i)prescribes that the Appellate Authority should be an Officer not belowthe rank of a Deputy Collector. It is further provided that the decisionof the Appellate Authority can be challenged before the DistrictCollector who is also duty bound to deliver an order within 30 days.26.Considering the rival contentions of the parties, especiallythe Petitioner contending that Respondent No. 6 had no scope to movean appeal and the Respondents contending that Clause (2) does notrestrain any aggrieved person from moving such an appeal, we find thatthe said Clause (2) reproduced above, cannot be said to be totallyunambiguous or very clear. Nevertheless, it does convey a meaningthat if a ‘wrong certificate’ is issued, which could also mean that a‘certificate is wrongly’ issued, an appeal can be preferred forchallenging such a decision.khs/April 2024/14475 - 20 -27.Considering the language as is used in the said Clause, inorder to ensure that it is not rendered nugatory, we deem it appropriateto hold that an aggrieved person can file an appeal if a wrong certificateis issued, which would further mean even a ‘certificate wrongly issued’to the Applicant. No doubt this Clause needs fine tuning by the StateGovernment in order to convey a clear and unambiguous meaning, inthe face of an argument before the Court that the said Clause does notpermit any aggrieved party to move an application for challenging thedecision of the Tahsildar. With the language used in the Clause 2, as itstands before us today, we are interpreting it in the larger interest of thesociety, to mean that aggrieved person would include, a person whosegrievance is as regards a ‘wrong certificate’ or a ‘Certificate wronglyissued’, to enable him to file an appeal for challenging the Certificate onbeing directly affected by the issuance of such a certificate.ALLEGATION OF VICTIMIZATION BY THE PETITIONER28.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has canvassed thatthere are not less than 13 such candidates, who are in-servicecandidates, who are identically placed as like the Petitioner, who havekhs/April 2024/14475 - 21 -also been working as Medical Officers and who have secured admissionto the PG Course after obtaining similar EWS Certificates. We hadcalled upon the learned Government Pleader to give us a list of the said13 candidates. It appears that the Government Pleader’s Office has notbeen able to place these names before us on the spacious plea that theyhave written to the CET cell to deal with such candidates. We areafraid that this submission cannot be appreciated since it is the Courtwhich is calling upon the Office of the Government Pleader to place thenames before us. 29.The learned Government Pleader informs us that a loosedocument (3 pages), dated 12.10.2023, is filed, which is thecommunication by the Deputy Director of Economic Administration.Same is marked as ‘X-1’ for identification. The Commissioner, MedicalServices, Mumbai had written to the State CET Cell setting out thenames of 11 persons, including the Petitioner, who all are working asMedical Officers, drawing Rs.1,00,000/- salary per month and all havesecured admission to the PG course on the basis of such EWScertificate. The learned Advocate Mr.Karlekar has tendered acompilation of 7 pages before us. The same is taken on record andkhs/April 2024/14475 - 22 -marked as ‘X-2’ for identification. He indicates from page No.4 of ‘X-2’ ,that the 13 in-service candidates who have been selected from thecategory of EWS, are Medical Officers working in different GovernmentMedical Colleges and Hospitals in Maharashtra. 30.It is shocking that various Tahsildars in Maharashtra haveissued such EWS Certificates, which are illegal and unsustainable. Itdoes appears from the above that, the contention of Mr.Thombre is trueand sustainable, that he alone has been singled out for cancellation ofEWS certificate and all other 12 candidates have safely secured theirmedical admissions to the PG Course.31.Mr.Thorat, the learned Advocate draws our attention to theorder passed by this Court at the Principal Seat, dated 31.10.2023, inWP No.13402/2023 filed by Respondent No.6 herein namely BalajiAshok Bhise and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, whereinthis Court disposed off the Petition by allowing the Petitioner to file acomplaint to the concerned Authorities for seeking admission in placeof the present Petitioner before us, namely Vilas Raghunath Dukare,who according to him, was not qualified. The learned Governmentkhs/April 2024/14475 - 23 -Pleader submits that it is in this backdrop that the communication X-1has been forwarded to the State CET Cell to verify the EWS certificatesof 10 other candidates, as per the list enclosed to X-1. 32.The learned Government Pleader submits that consideringthe controversy emerging from this Writ Petition and in the light of thefirm and consistent statement made by the Petitioner that the 12persons mentioned in the list at Page No.4 of the document ‘X-2’, itwould be scrutinized by the Government by initiating appropriate stepsand by ensuring that the principles of natural justice are followed andall the stake holders are given adequate opportunity of explaining theircase as against such EWS Certificates.33.For the reasons and our conclusions recorded above and byrecording the above statement of the Government, this Writ Petition isdismissed. Rule is discharged. The pending Civil Applications wouldnot survive and disposed off. Needless to state, the State Government aswell as Respondent no.7 shall initiate legal and appropriate steps toscrutinize and verify the EWS Certificates issued to the other in-servicecandidates who have secured admission to the PG course, immediately. khs/April 2024/14475 - 24 -34.At this juncture, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.6submits that he had approached this Court at the Principal Seat in WritPetition No.13402/2023, much prior to the cut off date, which is30.10.2023. In fact, his Petition was filed on 19.09.2023 which is 41days prior to the cut off date. Before he could secure his admission,the present Petitioner approached this Court before the cut off date, on20.11.2023 and the Vacation Court passed an order on 20.11.2023thereby protecting the present Petitioner. This has stalled the admissionprocess and the he is not at fault. He prays that his admission may besecured.35.The learned Advocate for the State CET Cell draws ourattention to the fact that the cut off date 30.11.2023, is already over. 36.We are of the view that the act of the Court or an order ofthe Court should not cause any prejudice to any litigant. The latinphrase "Actus Curiae neminem gravabit" would mean that though thisCourt has passed an ad-interim order, which is now vacated with thedismissal of this Petition, the right of Respondent No.6 or any otherkhs/April 2024/14475 - 25 -eligible candidate, should not be affected. Respondent No.6 has reliedupon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National MedicalCommission Vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and Others [(2021) 14SCC 805] to support his contention that if a person is illegally deniedadmission and is held entitled to the admission for a PG Course, suchadmission cannot be denied. 37.The learned Advocate representing the State CET Cellplaces reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inAshish Ranjan and others Vs. Union of India and Others [2016(11) SCC225] and the guidelines of the National Medical Commission (NMC).He submits, in addition to his contention that the cut off date is over,that there are at least 2 candidates who have scored more marks thanRespondent No.6, from the open category to which he belongs, in thesame subject, at Sr.No.14 and 64 of the list X-2. The Petitioner is atSr.No.164 and Respondent No.6 is at Sr.No.187. A list of the meritstudents, category wise, is placed before us which is marked as ‘X-3’ foridentification.38.We would not go into this aspect because this is not ankhs/April 2024/14475 - 26 -issue that is addressed to us. The Petitioner is before us and on merits,the Petition has been dismissed. Nevertheless, in the interest of theeducation of students, we can only observe that these cases may beconsidered by the State CET Cell in accordance with the prescribedRules and the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NationalCommission (supra) and if there is no other legal impediment, anappropriate decision may be arrived at since we are informed that apost reserved for EWS in-service category, falling vacant, will have to betransferred to the open category. ( R.M.JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)khs/April 2024/14475
Arguments
- 3 -3.On 27.03.2024, after extensively hearing the learnedAdvocates and after considering their lengthy submissions, wehad passed the following order :“1.Leave to add the Common Entrance Test Cellthrough the Commissioner, Maharashtra State,Mumbai, as Respondent No. 7.2.Issue notice to the added Respondent,returnable on 22nd April, 2024. Mr. S.G. Karlekar,learned Advocate, waives service of notice on behalfof Respondent No. 7.3.On the aspect of eligibility of the Petitioner, tobe declared as a person belonging to theEconomically Weaker Section Category (EWS), in thelight of clause ‘c’ (1 and 2) of the GovernmentResolution dated 12.02.2019, prima facie, we findthat the petitioner, whose salary per month is Rs.1,00,000/-, cannot be included in the category ofEWS. The EWS certificate, which his mother hasreceived indicating her income to be below Rs.4,00,000/- per annum, is de-hors the rules anddiscounting the income of the Petitioner, who is amedical officer in the Government service andkhs/April 2024/14475 - 4 -draws around Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Theceiling on the EWS family income is Rs. 8,00,000/-and the entire family income has to be taken intoaccount. On these premises, the Petitioner’s income,coupled with his mother’s income, would be aroundRs. 16,00,000/- per annum.4.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner raisesan issue which cannot be ignored. He contendsthat there are 25 seats available for the in-servicecandidates in the Medical Service for the purpose ofof the PG admissions. All these 25 reserved seatsfor EWS have been occupied by the in-servicecandidates, including the Petitioner. Each one ofthem is a medical officer as like the Petitioner. Eachof these 25 candidates earns Rs. 1,00,000/- permonth as salary. The learned Advocate, therefore,raises an issue that the Petitioner alone cannot besingled out for cancellation of his EWS certificate,when all other identically placed 24 candidates arestill admitted in their PG courses as in-servicecandidates.5.We are, therefore, directing the Petitioner to filehis additional affidavit to give us the list of those 24candidates, their designation and their gross salaryin order to enable us to come to a conclusion as tokhs/April 2024/14475 - 5 -whether it is the Petitioner alone who is disqualifiedor whether it is all these 25 candidates who aresailing in the same boat. Let suchaffidavit/undertaking be filed on or before 15thApril, 2024.6.The learned AGP & the learned Advocate Mr.S. G. Karlekar, would also enter an affidavit-in-replyto clarify their position by taking instructions fromthe CET Cell, Respondent No. 7 herein.7.List this Petition on 22nd April, 2024 in the “urgent orders” category. Needless to state, the ad-interim relief granted to the Petitioner by the learned Vacation Court, on 20.11.2023, would continue till the next date.”4. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause B, C, D and E asunder :-“B. This Hon’ble Court may pleased to hold and declare that theproceedings initiated against the petitioner by Respondent No.3-Sub-Divisional Officer, Paithan, in respect of cancellation of EWS certificateissued in favour of the petitioner, are unjust, arbitrary, illegal andwithout any jurisdiction.C. By issuing an appropriate writ, order, or directions, the impugnednotice dated 27th October, 2023 issued by Respondent No.3 – SubDivisional Officer, Paithan, may kindly be quashed and set aside.khs/April 2024/14475 - 6 -D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the furtherproceedings before the Respondent No.3 – Sub Divisional Officer,Paithan, initiated by impugned notice dated 27th October, 2023 maykindly be stayed, and for that purpose, issue necessary orders.E. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, RespondentNo.3 – Sub Divisional Officer, Paithan may kindly be restrained fromcancelling the EWS Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, and forthat purpose, issue necessary orders.”5. With the aid of the amendment, the Petitioner has put forthamended prayer clauses B-1, C-1, D-1 and D-2, which read as under :-“B-1. By issuing a writ of mandamus / certiorari, orders, directions orany other appropriate writ in like nature, the impugned order dated20.11.2023 passed by Respondent No.3, thereby cancelling the EWScertificate granted in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be quashedand set aside and dismiss the appeal filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6;C-1. By issuing a writ of mandamus, orders, directions or any otherappropriate writ in like nature, Respondent No. 7 – CET Cell maykindly be restrained from cancelling the PG admission which has beengranted in favour of the petitioner with further directions to allow thepetitioner to complete the PG course for which he has been admittedfrom EWS in-service category candidate;D-1. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the effect,operation and implementation of the impugned order dated20.11.2023 passed by Respondent No.3, thereby cancelling the EWSCertificate granted in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be stayed,khs/April 2024/14475 - 7 -and for that purpose, issue necessary orders. D-2. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, therespondent No.7-CET Cell may kindly be restrained from cancelling thePG admission which has been granted in favour of the petitioner withfurther directions to allow the petitioner to complete the PG course forwhich he has been admitted from EWS in-service category candidate;”SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES6.The Petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of villageVihamandwa, Taluka Paithan, District – Aurangabad. He claims to beresiding with his mother and wife. An agricultural land admeasuring 4Acres is in the name of his mother, as per the 7/12 extract. 8 Acres ofland is jointly owned in the name of the Petitioner and his brotherVikram Raghunath Dukare, as per the 7/12 extract. It is contended thatthere is an oral partition between the Petitioner and his brother Vikram,the latter residing separately with his family. It is stated that Vikramdoes not reside along with the Petitioner and his mother.7.The Petitioner completed MBBS before joining the PGcourse. Before joining the PG medical course, he was a medical officerat the Primary Health Centre at Borsar, Taluka Vaijapur,Dist.Aurangabad. Admittedly, his selection to the PG medical coursehas been on the basis of the reservation for the Economically Weakerkhs/April 2024/14475 - 8 -Section (EWS) category. In order to get the EWS certificate, the motherof the Petitioner applied to the Tahsildar. The income certificate dated11.09.2023, was issued to the mother of the petitioner by the saidTahsildar. For 3 financial years, the income of the mother is shown tobe exactly Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs Four Lakhs) per year.8.The Petitioner claims that he falls under the EWS category.The ceiling for the EWS certificate, is Rs.8,00,000/- per annum. Heapplied to the Tahsildar for securing such certificate. The Tahsildarissued the EWS certificate dated 13.09.2023, within 2 days of themother getting the income certificate.9.The Petitioner’s photograph is affixed on the EWScertificate, dated 13.09.2023. It is mentioned in the certificate that, “asper norms prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra, GeneralAdministration Department and GR No.jkvks/kks 4019/ iz-dz-31/16&v dated12.02.2019”, his/her gross family annual income for the year 2022-23from all sources, is Rs. 4,00,000/- which is less than Rs. 8,00,000/-.Therefore, it is certified that he/she is within the category ofeconomically weaker section.khs/April 2024/14475