The Bombay High Court has denied relief to one Utsav Sodha, a law student who cleared his first-year examinations from Pravin Gandhi College (unaided) and sought admission to Government Law College (aided) in the second year.
Once the petitioner law student applied for the said transfer to GLC, his application was forwarded to the Directorate of Higher Education. Since the same was pending, the petitioner apprehended that his application will not go through, hence, the petition was filed.
A bench of Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice Bharati Dangre heard the writ petition filed by Utsav challenging the constitutional validity of to Rule 16(2)(c), (d) (e) and (f) of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission to the Full Time Professional Undergraduate Law Courses) Rules 2017.
According to the petitioner, these rules are ultra-vires to Section 4 of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act 2015.
Rule 16(2)(c) reads as: There shall be no transfer of students at any stage in any case from Unaided Institutions to Government or Government Aided, University Departments, University Managed Institutions. However, the Candidate from Government or Government Aided University Departments, University Managed Institution may seek transfer to Unaided Educational Institution.
The court observed: “The plain reading of these Rules show that it deals with the change of institution after first year. We are concerned with the Petitioner, who after passing first year from unaided institution, seeks transfer in Government College/Aided Institution. It makes the position clear that such student shall not be transferred, at any stage, and in any case, from unaided institution to Government and/or Government Aided, Managed college/Institution.
Prima facie, considering the scheme, as well as, the settled principle of law, revolving around Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India, we see no case is made out by the Petitioner for any interim relief so sought by whatsoever nature.”
Appearing for the state and other respondents, LM Acharya argued against the relief sought by the petitioner; however, no reply with regard to validity of the said provisions was given.
The court has now given the state and other respondents, four weeks’ time to file a detailed reply. The matter will now be listed for final disposal on September 27.
Apart from this, notice has also been issued to Advocate General AA Kumbhakoni.