THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus ADMANE ANITA MOTI AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 31-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
v. 
ADMANE ANITA MOTi AND ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 1994 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Education : Admission to Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) Course-Ad· 
mission in µcess of sanctioned strength-Accommodating the extra students 
in proper colleges-Only for academic year 199 l-92-Directio11s issued. 
Practice & Procedure : Issue of interim orders-One Bench rejecting the 
application on the ground that the dispute was not decided-<:oordinate 
Bench allowing the claim after deciding disputes on merits-Reason for 
rejecting the application by the earlier Bench having disappeared there is no 
D 
question of legality of propriety of the subsequent Bench disagreeing with the 
Coordinate Bench. 
· 
E 
F 
G 
Observation of High Court Judge-Likely to be misunderstood or mis· 
construetl-To be avoided in the interest of the institution-Refraining from 
making such observation-Necessi1y of 
The main issue in this appeal preferred by the State Government, 
was whether . the High Court mos justified in directing the Education 
Officer by way of an interim order to ensure that 112 students, all girls, · 
admitted by a christian Minori~y Institution to Diploma in Education 
(D.Ed.) course for academic year 1991·92 against the sanctioned strength 
of 80, should be accommodated and admitted in proper colleges. The 
incidental issue was as regards tlte legality and proprierty of one Bench 
disagreeing with the Coordinate Bench of the same court on grant of 
Interim order. 
Disposing of the appeal, thi• Court 
HELD : 1. Interim orders i1re granted by the Court. as they are 
necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner till the rights are finally 
adjudicated upon. Even where it is not provided in the statute this Court 
has held that the Courts have inberent power to grant it. In admission 
H matters, however, such orders once obtained create vested interest of 
816 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRAv. AA MOTI 
817 
avoiding final adjudication to enable the stud~nt to complete the course A 
.and then the invoke sympathy of the Court. No further need be said as the 
cin:umstances in which the impugned order was passed were entirely 
different. Earlier interim orders were not granted, as the claim of the 
management that it was not under regulatory supervision of Education 
Department and was entitled to admit students even more than the sanc-
tioned strength, was pending and had not been decided. But on the date B 
the impugned·order had been passed writ petition No. 1703 of 1990 had 
been decided by a Bench on merits and one of the Judges who granted the 
interim order was party to the decision. The petition was allowed in part 
and the management was permitted to admit eighty students, the strength 
which was sanctioned by the Department. The decision, it is not disputed, C 
has been accepted by the department. No appeal has been filed against it. 
The order, thus, passed by the High Court, even though interim, bas been 
passed after the dispute pending between management and the department 
had been decided on merits. The reason for rejecting the application filed 
by the Management for interim order and by the writ petition filed by the D 
students, earlier, disappeared. The department cannot assail the correct· 
ness of the order passed by the High Court to the extent of the sanctioned 
strength. [823-E to H, 824-A, Bl 
2.1. Normally this Court does not interfere with consent order. B11t 
in the present case, it was made against law. It was in teeth or even the · E 
decision given in W.P.(C) No. 1703 or 1990. The order was passed, 
presumably, because the eligibility criteria of D.Ed. had been changed by 
the Government and it would have adversely affected the stndents who 
were all girls. The High Court in the circumstances thought it proper that . 
since such stndents will be nowhere and if the Government in earlier years 
p 
had accommodated similar students who were admitted by colleges which 
were not recognised then it would be in fitness of things that the stndents 
who were admitted by an instltntion which was recognised at the time of 
admission were entitled to indulgence by directing the students to be 
accommodated in other colleges. This was not proper. One illegally cannot 
justify the other. [825-B to DJ 
G 
2.2. The utmost that.the High Court could have done was to record 
the consent and to ask the Government to consider the matter and raise 
the strength in the special circumstances 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.