FYJC admissions: Consider withdrawing decision on quota in minority institutions, HC tells Maharashtra govt
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday told the Maharashtra government to consider withdrawing the portion in its decision that applied SC/ST/OBC reservation in minority trust-run junior colleges for First Year Junior College (FYJC) or Class 11 admissions.
After the court's query, the state government lawyer submitted that it may be possible to withdraw the clause in the impugned May 6 Government Resolution (GR) and that she would take instructions from higher authorities and inform the court about the same on Thursday.
A bench of Justices Makarand S Karnik and Nitin R Borkar was hearing batch of by the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions, two minority colleges in Solapur and those from South Mumbai, including Jai Hind, KC, HR and St Xavier's colleges, challenging the GRs concerned and terming them 'arbitrary' and 'imposed without any authority of law'.
The association cited various past judgements in similar cases and argued that the minority institutions are not required to maintain social reservations.
According to the established practice followed until the previous academic year, 45 per cent of the total intake in minority institutions was kept open to all students, regardless of category, after allocating 50 per cent for the respective minority community and 5 per cent for the management quota. However, from this year, the FYJC admission portal showed that SC/ST/OBC reservations are being applied to those 45 per cent seats, which led to confusion and controversy in FYJC admissions for the academic year 2025-26.
After Government Pleader Neha Bhide submitted that the GR was issued to bring uniformity in online FYJC admissions, the bench said that in 2019 similar GR was withdrawn by the government.
'Why did you (state government) bring minority institutions? It should not be difficult to withdraw. Why do you not talk to officers and withdraw this. Every time you do not need order from us when things are so apparent. It can be a bona fide mistake. Issue a corrigendum. Solve the problem. If not, we are here (to hear pleas and pass order),' Justice Karnik orally remarked.
Bhide said that while withdrawing the entire GR was not possible, 'it is possible that clause 11 can be removed'. The court asked her to take instructions from high-level officials and inform the decision on Thursday, when the matter will be heard next.
Clause 11 in the May 6 GR issued by state's school education department stated, 'If admissions are lower than the intake capacity in minority quota, admissions can be given as per interchanging between linguistic and religious minority groups. Even after that, if seats remain vacant, those surrendered vacant seats will be filled based on the centralised admission process where all social and parallel reservations are applicable.'
While colleges claimed that the GR pertained to left-over seats in minority quota, government officials said it implied that social reservation will be applicable to all open (non-minority) seats in minority-trust run colleges. Thereafter, as per state government, it issued corrective GR on June 2, which implied social reservation to all open seats in minority colleges.
The Association, through its writ plea, sought court's directive to authorities to take immediate steps to correct/update the online admission portal for class 11 admissions for the member institutions in Maharashtra. It said the same should be done by deleting/removing the social reservation quota (SC/ST/OBC Reservation quota) and updating/rectifying the in-house and management quota as per the May 6 Government Resolution (GR) like quota and seat distribution followed in Academic Year 2024-25. It sought that the concerned clause be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same be set aside.
On June 10, the government issued a new corrective GR which brought back the same sentence along with additional inputs from the May 6 GR.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Judiciary shouldn't override public policy: Court backs slum rehab on open land
The Bombay High Court has refused to strike down a provision under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which allows the use of public open spaces for slum redevelopment projects. The court said that decisions related to urban planning should be left to the authorities and not the judiciary unless there is a clear violation of legal or constitutional bench of Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sunderasan delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by an alliance of NGOs in 2002. The petition challenged the use of open spaces, meant for parks, gardens, and playgrounds, for slum rehabilitation schemes. The petitioners argued that the policy went against the principles of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine, which protects public assets from private court examined regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the DCPR 2034, which permits reserved open spaces above 500 square metres to be used for slum redevelopment. The policy requires that at least 35 per cent of the ground area be left vacant and continue to serve public purposes. The bench said, "The regulation shows a sincere attempt to balance two competing rights, exactly as the Constitution requires. It supports a vision of environmental well-being that also respects human dignity, and promotes a model of urban growth that includes the poor, rather than pushing them to the city's margins."advertisementIt also said that courts must respect the limits of judicial review. "This does not mean that courts have no role. As constitutional protectors, courts must step in where a policy violates the law, infringes fundamental rights, or is arbitrary and unfair," the bench added."But, even while doing so, the court must remain within the boundaries of judicial review and avoid functioning as a policymaking authority, particularly when the government has followed due process and attempted to balance competing interests in an open and fair manner," the court further the High Court had passed an ad-interim order restraining the government from approving any new slum rehabilitation schemes on such lands without court permission. The interim order remained in effect for nearly two decades, during which time several developers and housing societies had to approach the court to seek Watch IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
Court clears NCP leader's chartered accountant in graft case due to lack of proof
The Bombay High Court on Friday acquitted a 62-year-old chartered accountant, Shyam Malpani, of the money laundering case linked to Maharashtra minister Chhagan Bhujbal and his family. The court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had no substantial evidence to prove Malpani's involvement in the case.A bench of Justice RN Laddha said, 'The (ED's) complaint lacks material to establish a nexus between the applicant and the alleged criminal conspiracy or money laundering activities.' The court noted that the ED's claims were based on 'bare assertions' and lacked proof that Malpani knew about or was negligent regarding the alleged sham served as a statutory auditor for some companies in the Bhujbal Group. The ED had alleged that he played a role in laundering money by failing to report suspicious transactions and arrangements. They claimed his inaction helped the Bhujbals hide and move illicit funds. However, Malpani's lawyers—Senior Counsel Pranav Badheka and advocate Prashant Pawar—argued that Chhagan Bhujbal and his family had already been discharged in related cases by the Special Court in also said Malpani was neither named as an accused nor was he named in any FIRs filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) or Taloja Police, which were the basis of the ED's Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) registered in June advocates Hiten Venegaonkar and Ayush Kedia, representing the ED, claimed Malpani knowingly hid the flow of illicit money. They argued that he was aware of the sham deals and failed to perform his professional duties, thereby assisting in the laundering court reviewed all arguments and concluded that Malpani was not involved in the placement, layering, or integration of the alleged proceeds of crimeMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Nationalist Congress Party
Indian Express
9 hours ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC discharges CA of Chhagan Bhujbal, family in money laundering case by ED
The Bombay High Court Monday discharged the chartered accountant (CA) of NCP leader and minister Chhagan Bhujbal and his family from a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2015. The high court, while hearing the criminal revision application by CA Shyam Radhakrishna Malpani, noted that the special court committed an error in rejecting the discharge plea in March 2021. A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh N Laddha observed that 'mere absence of due diligence by applicant does not amount to the commission or omission of an offence under Section 3 (money laundering) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).' The ED had lodged a case against Chhagan Bhujbal and others based on a complaint filed by the state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 2015. It was alleged that land belonging to the Regional Transport Office (RTO) in Andheri was handed over to a developer firm when Chhagan Bhujbal was the deputy chief minister and the state Public Works Department (PWD) minister of Maharashtra from 2004 to 2014. As per the agency, the said project was awarded to the developer in lieu of the construction of Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi and the RTO building in Tardeo. The ED had arrested Chhagan Bhujbal in 2015 for alleged money laundering, and he remained in custody until 2018, when the Bombay High Court granted him bail. Chhagan Bhujbal, his son Pankaj Bhujbal, nephew and former MP Sameer Bhujbal and five others were discharged by a special court in 2021 from the ACB case. In the case of Malpani, the ED had alleged that he actively participated in the offence of money laundering while serving as the CA for the entities controlled by the Bhujbals. As per the central agency, Malpani was responsible for auditing financial records and was aware of the suspicious transactions and sham arrangements carried out by these entities. Advocate Hiten Venegaonkar for ED argued that the applicant conducted audits of companies controlled by Bhujbals and, in doing so, camouflaged illicit transactions and concealed the unlawful flow of proceeds of crime generated by the Bhujbals. However, senior advocate Pranav Badheka for Malpani submitted that Chhagan Bhujbal and his family members were discharged by the special court in two predicate offences on which ED had lodged its case. Badheka argued that Malpani, who was a statutory auditor, had a limited role to form an opinion on whether company accounts are properly maintained or not and the auditor is not expected to function as an investigator. The plea claimed that Malpani audited financial accounts only for a period from the financial year ending March 2012 to 2015, and alleged proceeds of crime are claimed to have originated around 2007-08. Badheka argued that there was no evidence or material on record or in complaint to show that Malpani failed in his duties as auditor, and so he should be discharged from the case. Justice Laddha, in his order, observed that 'the role of the auditor is inherently distinct from that of the investigating agency.' 'The complaint lacks material to establish a nexus between the applicant and the alleged criminal conspiracy or money laundering activities. Moreover, the applicant has neither been named nor charge-sheeted in the related crimes, which further reinforces the absence of any direct or indirect involvement in the purported criminal conduct,' the high court held and set aside a special court order, discharging Malpani from the money laundering case.
