LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MANUBHAI PRAGAJI VASHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... STATE OF MAHARASHTRA A v. MANUBHAI PRAGAJI VASHI AND ORS. ' ' AUGUST 16, 1995 B [KULDIP SINGH AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 14-State-Grants-in-aid--benefits under-Affording to non- c Govemment professional colleges of Arts. Science, Commerce, Enginee1ing and medicine faculties-Denial to non-Govemmental Law Colleges-Held violative of Article 14-Paucity of funds held no ground for discrimina- tion-Held burden to prove that there was no discrimination was on the State-On facts held that the State has not discharged such a proof-Direc- tions issued to State to extend the grants-in-aid scheme to non-Government D "' private law colleges. A1ticles 21 and 39-A~ombined effect of-Legal education-Legal aid-Held State is obliged to afford grants-in-aid to recognised private law colleges-Need for continuing and well organised legal education em- E phasised-Standard of legal education should not suffer for want of funds. Part IV-Directive Principles-State inaction-Held Cowt can issue directions to Executive to carry out the Directive Principles. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Bombay High F Court dated 19.8.1988 rendered in two writ petitions. the first writ petition was filed in public interest by a practising advocate and a member of the Bar Council of Maharashtra for a direction to the Government of Maharashtra to extend the grant-in-aid scheme to the non-Government Law Colleges in the State of Maharashtra as afforded to other faculties G viz. Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicine etc. In the other connected petition the prayer was that the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity ....... scheme introduced by the Government for all teaching and non-teaching staff in colleges with faculties in Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicines as per GR. No. NCC-1983 (865)-IN-4 dated 21.7.83 should be made applicable to the staff of non-Government Law Colleges. H 733 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the State's plea B that the petitioner has no right to seek a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 basing his relief on a Directive Principle contained in Part IV of the Constitution and held that (i) the action of the Government in non-extend- ing the grants-in- aid to non-Government recognised Law Colleges was discriminatory; (ii) paucity of funds can be no reason for discrimination. Accordingly, it directed the Respondent-State to extend the grant-in-aid scheme to all Government recognised private law colleges on the same criteria as such grants were given to other faculties viz. Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Medicine commencing from academic year June, 1988. The State was also directed to implement the pension-cum- C gratuity scheme in favour of the staff of non-Government law colleges with effect from 1.10.1982 on such staff exercising their option in writing within four weeks from Government's declaration to implement Grants-in-aid scheme to non-Government law colleges. D In appeals preferred by the State before this' Court it was contended that (i) the High Court erred in assuming that other non-Government private professional colleges like Engineering Colleges, Medical Colleges etc. were given the benefit of grants-in-aid scheme and on this basis, it was discriminatory in not extending the benefit of the scheme to non-Govern- ment Law Colleges; and (ii) it is primarily for the Government to decide, E taking into account the total financial commitments and constraints whether to extend the benefit of grants-in-aid scheme to all or any private professional colleges. The decision on the score was not justiciable. Dismissing the appeals, this Court F HELD : .1. The High Court was right in holding that recognised G private law colleges have been singled out for hostile discriminatory treat- ment in withholding grant-in-aid and so interference in the nature of affirmative action or direction in the form of remedial measure was called for. (751-G] 2. The facts amply bring out the fact that recognised private law colleges alone were singled out for hostile discriminatory treatments. The State has not discharged the burden of proof cast on it to sustain the differential treatment meted out to one of the Goveniment recognised professional colleges (private) law colleges. It is patent that likes have been H treated unlike;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.