ORDER
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.
1. Of the two petitions which we are considering today, the first is filed by a citizen of Aurangabad challenging the validity of Rule 4.2 of the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra for admissions to the first year degree course in Engineering and Technology for the year 1998-99. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the said rules on the ground that they were not published in compliance with the requirement of section 65 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and the second petition which is filed by a candidate seeking admission to the first year Engineering, challenges the validity of Rule 4.1.5(d) of the said Rules. As per Admission Rules of 1998-99 30% seats are reserved for State Level Merit Quota and 70% seats are reserved for University area Merit Quota. Every student passing the qualifying examination is entitled to compete for the 30% seats as par his placement in the State Merit List. If all the choices given to him are exhausted and he could not be placed in a seat as per his merit according to the State Merit List, then he is automatically transferred to the University Area Merit List in the respective University area. But if a seat is allotted to him as per his choice and he refuses to accept it, then he practically goes out of the admission process and cannot be further considered. It is not compulsory for a student to compete in the State Merit List and he can very well be contended with his placement in the State Merit List. A student
who finds a place in the State Merit List for the allotment of 30% seats is entitled for consideration to all institutions and all courses available in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, he can exercise the option of any course and institute at any place in the State of Maharashtra. However, a student who finds place in the University Merit List is entitled to compete only for the seats which are available in that University area. We are told that in the last year even the students finding place in the 30% State Merit List Quota were not allowed to compete for all the seats and courses in Maharashtra State. There were some reservations in their favour. However this year the rules provide that students have a choice of any institution and course through out Maharashtra.
2. The first dispute raised before us is in respect of the number of choices. Rule 4.1.5(d) provides that a student is allowed to exercise upto a maximum of three choices and not more than that. It is contended by the petitioners that restriction of these choices has been injurious to the right of the students to have a preference to the course or institution if he is entitled for it on the basis of the merit. It is also pointed out that no such restriction is placed on the number of choices in admissions to the medical courses. We are also told that for admissions to the Indian Institute of Technology there are 100 choices available to the students.
3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader justifying the restriction on the number of choices but we fail to appreciate the justification. It was told to us that more number of choices or unlimited choices are likely to confuse the students. We hardly can appreciate this to be a valid argument. We were also told that the relevant material such as percentage of the last student admitted in each Institute and course is not supplied to the students who apply for the 30% quota. In the absence of such information, giving choices would be shooting in the dark. When a student has to exercise the choice and the choice is limited, then he must have a fair idea about the possibility of his being successful in getting particular seat. We find that the information regarding the last student admitted as against the University Merit Quota of 70% is appended to the application form but no such information is given in respect of 30% State Level Merit Quota.
4. Engineering and Technology are ever advancing subjects for the present generation and every day new specializations are added to the syllabus. We therefore, do not find any justification for restricting the number of the choices to three, though, WE ARE prima fade in favour of giving as many choices as can be, we leave this question open without expressing any final opinion for the present in view of the fact that the admission process is already on and any drastic change is likely to delay the whole admission process for this year.
5. We are of the opinion that the information regarding the merits obtained by the last admitted candidate in each course and institution during the year 1997-98 against 30 per cent State Level Merit list was also necessary. We also feel that as an ad-hoc arrangement for this year, the number of choices will have to be increased reasonably so that the candidates may have a fair chance to continue in 30% Merit list and get a seat to any course of their choice which is available in any part of the State. The differential treatment to the State level merit students and the University area level Merit list students has added importance of the choices. If a student gives three choices and could not find place in the courses or institutions indicated in those three choices in the 30% State Merit list, he is transferred to the 70% University area quota and is not continued in 30% quota. After this transfer, he is entitled for being considered to the course which are available in his University area only, This is how
the boys are affected if the number of choices is limited. Considering this, we propose to give some workable directions for this year.
6. Another submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner is that at least for the boys who are competing for the 70 per cent University area seats on the basis of their ranking in the University Merit list, some courses are just forbidden and they cannot compete for any course which is not available in their University area. It was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that specializations are for meritorious candidates and such candidates would naturally be in the State Merit list. Prima facie, the argument may look attractive but we cannot conceive the denial of an opportunity for the students competing for 70 per cent University area quota who hail from the University areas wherein such specialized courses are not available. Even development of the entire state is an ideal situation but political reality has made us to take a note that all areas of a State are not evenly developed. Therefore, Constitution makers had to make a provision under Article 371 which enables special treatment for such underdeveloped areas.
7. President of India has formed 3 Development Boards for 3 different areas of the State and entrusted some responsibilities to Governor. Governor of Maharashtra has given directions in respect of admissions to the professional courses under these powers. It would be in the fairness that the students come from the under developed’ areas of the State are denied consideration for admissions to the institutions and courses which are available in the developed area of University and not available in the under developed areas. This would amount to contravening the principle of equality and opportunity. When each University area will have equal facilities of higher and technical education, such a question will not arise. But till that day drawns, some arrangements will have to be made. As per the chart in the compilation submitted by the Government Pleader, we find that as many as 26 specialities are not available in backward areas like Marathwada and Vidarbha. Therefore, this question also will have to be considered.
8. The last submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is regarding the validity of the admission rules for the year 1998-99 solely on the ground that they have not been published six months prior to the process of admission as envisaged under section 65 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. We are not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel though, it is a statutory duty of the State Government to publish these rules strictly in compliance of section 65 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The prayer of the petitioner if considered for declaring the rules as invalid in toto, would be detrimental to the interest of the students community at large and the whole admission process will be put to nought. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the admission rules in public interest. However, we hope that for the next year onwards the State Government will do well to publish the admission rules strictly in compliance with the requirement of section 65 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
9. Before we proceed to give directions, we wish to make certain observations for consideration of the Governor respondent No. 3 When an area is recognized to be an under-developed area the whole area will have to be considered as a unit and if not considered so, it may give rise to many anomalies. Take for example the case of Vidarbha. The President of; India has formulated a Development Board for this area consisting of 9 districts (Gadchiroli, Bhandara, Chandrapur, Vardha, Nagpur Amravati, Yavatmal, Akola and Buldhana). This area was formerly under the purview of the Nagpur University alone. Few years back, another University namely : Amravati
University was established at Amravati for 4 districts-for Amravati, Akola, Yavatmal and Buldhana. Because of the University area classification, major portion of the students of Amravati University area will not be allowed to compete for institutions and courses which are within the Nagpur University area since the University Merit list for Amravati and Nagpur would be different. Same thing may arise in Marathwada since two separate Universities exist. Therefore, the Governor will have to consider whether these University areas can be clubbed together in view of the recognition of the whole area as a backward area and in view of the uneven development within that area.
10. Though the President of India has established a Development Board for an area, it will not prevent the Governor of Maharashtra in taking a note that some areas within a Board area may be more under-developed and cannot be equated with other developed areas in that Board area and equating them would be furthering the injustice. These are some of the factors which the Governor has to consider. We hope that before the next year admission rules are framed, the Governor will apply his mind to these specific issues.
11. In view of the submissions made before us and in view of the discussion above, we give following directions:-
(i) A sheet (praforma) giving information about the last candidate admitted to various courses and institutions in 30% State Lever Quota for the academic year 1997-98 will be supplied to each of the applicants at the centre where he has submitted the application form.
(ii) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will allow every candidate, who has applied for admission to the Engineering and Technology courses for the year 1998-99 under the aforesaid rules, to exercise in all nine options. A separate sheet/sheets providing space for giving these options will be provided to the candidates at the centres specified by the State Government. Each candidate may exercise these options afresh,. If the candidate has not exercised fresh options, then the choices indicated by him earlier, shall be taken to be valid. It will not be compulsory for each candidate to exercise all nine options but that would be a maximum number which should be considered.
(iii) On consideration of the applicants and the seats available, we give following directions about Chemical Engineering and Architecture courses:
Under Rule 1.5(c) additional 10% seats are to be filled in. We direct that this year i.e academic year 1998-99, these 10% seats over and above the intake capacity of Chemical Engineering and Architecture, shall be given only to the boys who come from the University areas where these courses are not available. In other words for the Chemical Engineering course, the students who are considered for 70% seats in the University area of Pune, Kolhapur, Amravati, Aurangabad and Nanded alone would be considered for these 10% additional seats on the basis of their merit. The merit list of the applicants of all these Universities for these courses shall be a combined merit list. For Architecture, the additional seats, under this Rule, in J.J., College of Architecture, Mumbai, B.K.P.S. College of Architecture at Pune `and V.R.C.E. College at Nagpur shall be given to the candidates who come from Shivaji University Kolhapur, North Maharashtra University-Jalgaon, Amravati University-Amravati, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University-Aurangabad and Swami
Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University-Nanded, on the basis of their merit in the combined list of applicants from these Universities for the 70% University Level Quota, opting for this subject.
(iv) An advertisement should be published in leading dailies in Marathi and English having wide circulation throughout the State, simultaneously on Friday i.e. 3rd July 1998 and the students should be allowed to exercise their options between 6th to 12th July 1998. It shall also be notified in the newspaper that 10% additional seats fn the University level quota in the University areas mentioned above in the subjects of Chemical Engineering and Architecture, are created.
(v) Liberty to the respondents to have the consequential changes in the
calendar for admission process,
With these direction, petition stands disposed. Interim stay vacated,
12. Petition disposed of with directions.