HC extends fee reimbursement benefit to backward category students of minority institutes

A three-judge bench of the Bombay high court on Friday struck down a government resolution (GR) issued by the social welfare and special assistance department in

A three-judge bench of the Bombay high court on Friday struck down a government resolution (GR) issued by the social welfare and special assistance department in February 2013 that restricted the benefit of fee reimbursement to backwards category students admitted to professional courses through common admission process (CAP) conducted by the state government.

HT Image

The bench comprising justice Amjad Sayed, justice Dama Sheshadri Naidu and justice Prakash Naik heard a petition filed by 26 students, belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class (OBC), who are pursuing engineering courses at DJ Sanghavi College of Engineering at Vile Parle.

The petitioners, like thousands of others, were denied the benefit of the fee reimbursement scheme for backward category students, as they were not admitted through CAP conducted by the government. Being a linguistic minority institution, Sanghavi college admits students from the pool of common entrance test (CET) conducted by the government, but by conducting its admission process - as is done by several other linguistic and religious minority institutions. The deemed universities conduct their own CET and own admission process.

They had challenged the GR primarily on the ground that the distinction made between CAP and non-CAP students for fee reimbursement was not based on reasonable classification and had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and therefore, it was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They argued myths that there was no reason to deny the benefit to backward category students admitted to unaided minority institutions.

The state government responded to the petition stating their CAP was transparent, well-documented and well-regulated.

Besides the policy decision involved financial implications and therefore beyond the scope of judicial review.

The bench, however, rejected the government’s stand. It said both admission processes were legal and permissible. “Both the admission processes have judicial imprimatur and statutory sanction,” said the court. “The CAP colleges and the non-CAP colleges take the students from the common merit pool of CET. A method of admission cannot be treated as legal for one purpose and illegal for another purpose.”

“Here, the students legitimately, lawfully get admitted through the institutional method (non-CAP) of admission. They suffer no discrimination otherwise on that count. Then, we fail to understand how the Government can brand non-CAP admission as deficient for extending a beneficial scheme,” the bench said while striking down the GR.

Moreover, the bench said, the decision contained in the GR was not merit-based. “It is simply disability-based—the social disability of caste,” said the bench - indicating that there was no distinguishing factor between admitted the CAP and non-CAP CAP students to extend the benefit.