JUDGMENT
B.N. DESHMUKH, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. These writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve, for decision, substantially the same points.
3. The petitioners are claiming seats for D.Ed. admission this year on the basis of reservation of 20 per cent for the hilly area. It was argued on behalf of the State Government by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the matters are from Beed District and for the purposes of considering the reservation for D.Ed. Course, the Government of Maharashtra in Education Department has passed a resolution dated 30th April, 1992. On the basis of that resolution, there cannot be any reservation in favour of hilly area candidates in the District of Beed. The Counsel for petitioners, however, invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 7th September, 1994 issued by the Planning Department of the State Government in which the District of Beed is included.
4. We were confronted with the serious situation in respect of identifying the hilly areas of the State. By resolution dated 30th April, 1992, the Education Department identified certain areas as hilly areas. While the Planning Department by resolution dated 7th September, 1994 had provided for and identified different hilly areas.
5. Because of the controversy arising out of two Government Resolutions, one issued in the Education Department and one issued in the Planning Department, we thought it fit to get the clarity in the matter and, therefore, we advised, Shri Kanade, learned Government Pleader, to keep the Secretary of the Education Department present in the Court today to enable us to decide the matter in its right perspective. The Secretary was kind enough to be present in this Court.
6. At one point of time, it was argued that for the purposes of development by the planning authorities, the hilly area is identified as notified by the resolution dated 7th September, 1994. The hilly area so identified was said to be relating to the developmental activities other than the education and for the purposes of development of hilly areas, the areas identified by the Government Resolution dated 30th April, 1992 will only apply.
7. We were surprised to find that the two wings of the same State Government were identifying the hilly areas differently. The hilly areas were differently identified by the Planning Department by the resolution dated 7th September, 1994. It may be noted that before identifying the hilly areas, the Government has appointed a Committee as far back in the year 1988 under the chairmanship of the concerned Minister and the Committee had identified those areas and accordingly a decision is taken by the Government by resolution dated 7th September, 1994. We wanted to know as to whether there was a Committee appointed for identifying the hilly area before the decision is taken by resolution dated 30th April, 1992.
8. It seems that the authorities of the Government also were facing the difficulties and a decision is taken to bring the hilly track area in conformity with the areas identified by the Government Resolution dated 7th September, 1994 issued in the Planning Department. The decision enumerated in the Government Notification issued by the Desk Officer on 18th July, 1995 indicates that the Government in Education Department has accepted the identification of the areas made by the Planning Department by resolution dated 7th September, 1994. This decision was taken and communicated in July, 1995. In that communication itself, it is mentioned that the reservation in favour of candidates belonging to hilly area will be made available in the Districts of Beed, Ahmednagar, Sangli, Aurangabad and Satara from the year 1995-96. It was further enumerated that the policy decision taken by the State Government to provide 20 per cent reservation for D.Ed. candidates in hilly area will be implemented from July, 1995.
9. Last year, the same problem was raised before this Court in Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 3677/1995, 3678/1995 and 3680/1995. In those Writ Petitions also, the petitioners were claiming 20 per cent seats by way of reservation meant for hilly area. These petitions were also from Beed District. These petitions were decided by the common order on 21st August, 1995. We had granted admission to those candidates and directed creation of additional seats to accommodate those candidates from hilly area. At that time also, there was no reservation provided for such candidates in the District of Beed.
10. In fact, as per the communication made available to us, issued in July, 1995, it is categorically stated, that such reservation will be provided for the admission to D.Ed. Course for the year 1995-96 in five Districts including the District of Beed. Our attention was never invited to the policy decision taken by the State Government as enumerated in the Notification issued in July, 1995. We are surprised to find the lack of co-ordination between the different Departments of the State Government. Inspite of the policy decision taken prior to July, 1995 and issued in writing to different Departments including the Directorate of Education, Pune, in July, 1995, when the matters were decided on 21st August, 1995 in this Court, our attention was not invited at all to the policy laid down by the State Government as per the notification issued in July, 1995. The students were required to approach this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction when by way of ordinary course they would have obtained admission to this course had the reservation been provided by the authorities in the year 1995-96. Now we are told that inspite of a policy decision and instructions of the Government, no such reservation was provided for last year in those Districts, namely, Beed, Ahmednagar, Sangli, Aurangabad and Satara. The entire matter indicates the callous approach taken by the authorities in the matter of education of students belonging to hilly area. A Committee was formulated as far back in the year 1988 to identify the hilly areas and to rectify the difficulties in the developmental activities in those areas. Those areas were identified, decisions were taken and circulars were issued. Inspite of that, no effort was made to implement the policy in its right perspective. When the attention of the Directorate of Education, Pune, was invited by the communication in July, 1995 to make provision for reservation to the extent of 20 per cent in favour of hilly area candidates in the year 1995-96, no efforts seem to have been made to provide the reservation in favour of hilly area candidates in those Districts. Very few candidates approached this Court and obtained reliefs on the equitable principles when a right was created by a policy laid down by the State Government as per the decision taken by the Government prior to July, 1995.
11. We are mentioning all these facts because a great injustice is done to the candidates not only from Beed District but from the Districts of Ahmednagar, Sangli, Aurangabad and Satara, last year. As no reservation was provided for the candidates belonging to hilly areas of these Districts and inspite of the shortfall and lack of educational facilities in hilly area, the candidates were made to compete with the advanced areas of other districts and the benefit of reservation is denied to them in the year 1995-96. If this policy would have been brought to our notice when the matter was decided on 21st August, 1995, we would have probably directed the Government to finalise the admissions by providing 20 per cent reservation in favour of candidates belonging to hilly areas in the Districts of Beed, Ahmednagar, Sangli, Aurangabad and Satara. But this was not brought to the notice at all and we were required to decide the matter on the basis of Government Resolution issued in the Planning Department. Some students who had approached this Court were benefited because of the orders passed by this Court. But large number of students from hilly areas of these five Districts suffered merely because of lack of co-ordination between different Departments of the State Government and inspite of the policy laid down by the State Government and inspite of the instructions to create seats in favour of the candidates belonging to hilly areas by way of reservation in the year 1995-96. The same is overlooked.
12. In this background, we have to consider the claim of the present petitioners who wanted admission to D.Ed. Course last year in the reserved category meant for the candidates belonging to hilly area. As the hilly area reservation was not carved out and was not provided, the candidates could not get admission.
13. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of respondent-State, contended that we need not consider the claim of the petitioners for admission to D.Ed. Course this year. He has further contended that if at all their claim is required to be considered this year as against the reserved seats meant for the candidates belonging to hilly area, then the merit of the petitioners has to be considered on the basis of merit of candidates of this year and if they are included in the merit list of this year, then only they should be given admission.
14. We are unable to accept the contention of Shri Ghatge. Already one year is lost. If 20 per cent seats would have been provided for by way of reservation for candidates belonging to hilly area last year, a separate merit list of the candidates belonging to hilly area would have been prepared last year and the merit of the petitioners would have been considered along with other candidates for admission in the last year’s merit list. But as the same is not done, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the authorities.
15. There is another reason why the submission cannot be accepted. The hilly area candidates have already suffered because of lack of provision of reservation for last year. If such a provision would have been made, not only the petitioners but so many other candidates belonging to hilly area would have been given admission to D.Ed. Course last year. If the petitioners are directed to compete along with the candidates of this year for the consideration of their merit, it will affect adversely to the candidates belonging to hilly area and who have applied for the first time this year. That may result into the denial of admission to the meritorious candidates belonging to hilly area for this year when, in fact, so many meritorious candidates from hilly area were denied admission last year for non-providing reservation in their favour even though they were entitled. If the submission is accepted, it would result in double jeopardy to the candidates belonging to hilly areas.
16. Though the point is not germane to the decision of these petitions, our attention was invited to the decision of the State Government. As per the Government Resolution dated 18th June, 1996 which provides that the candidate who may be resident of hilly area but who is not educated in the school located in hilly area may not be considered as against a reserved quota meant for hilly area candidates.
17. It may be pointed out that while deciding Writ Petition No. 3677/1995 and other two writ petitions, we have already observed :
“This Court has already taken a view in number of cases that if the student is a resident of the hilly area and is required to prosecute his studies for lack of educational facilities in the village located in the hilly area, he does not cease to be a student belonging to hilly area, merely because he had prosecuted his studies in a place which is not located in the hilly region.”
In the present case, the petitioners though educated in hilly area but the same is because of the lack of facilities in that village and in that area. We need not dilate on this aspect any more. As the Government Resolution is issued on 18th June, 1996, it will be prospective in effect and cannot be applied retrospectively. The petitioners had applied for admission in the last year prior to the Resolution dated 18th June, 1996. The admission of the petitioners will not, therefore, be governed by the Resolution dated 18th June, 1996. We make it clear that the true and correct effect of the policy laid down in the Government Resolution dated 18th June, 1996 will be considered at appropriate time.
18. We direct the authorities to admit the petitioners to D.Ed. Course for this year by creating additional seats and without compromising any seat from hilly area region of this year. Petitioners to approach to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, within a period of 15 days from today.
19. We are told at the Bar that there are two Government Colleges, one at Neknoor (Taluka & District : Beed) and another at Ambajogai (District : Beed) and there is one Government aided College at Beed proper. The petitioners to be admitted to any of these three Colleges by the authorities as per directions contained in para 18 above.
20. Rule absolute in Writ Petitions Nos. 5530/1995, 420/1996, 421/1996 and 422/1996, accordingly. Writ Petitions Nos. 5532/1995, 5533/1995, 5534/1995 and 5710/1995 are disposed of as per observations and directions contained in this judgment. No order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
