- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Government of Maharashtra, anticipating a future need for trained primary school teachers, invited applications from educational institutions to start Diploma in Education (D.Ed) courses on a “no-grant basis” for the academic year 1984-85. By an order dated September 9, 1984, permission was granted to 47 institutions in Nagpur district and 17 in Bhandara district, all subject to conditions and expressly limited to the 1984-85 academic year.
On May 21, 1985, the Director of Education advised these institutions to prepare for student admissions for 1985-86. However, a subsequent Government policy decision dated May 31, 1985 led the Education Officer, Zillah Parishad, Nagpur, to issue an order on June 14, 1985 refusing permission to 36 of the 47 Nagpur institutions (members of the appellant society) to conduct first-year D.Ed classes for 1985-86, though they could continue second-year classes. Eleven institutions were permitted to admit first-year students.
The appellant society filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) challenging the Government’s refusal. The High Court dismissed the petition, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court of India by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Government’s refusal to permit 36 institutions to conduct first-year D.Ed classes for 1985-86 was arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of the fundamental right to education.
- Whether permitting only 11 similarly situated institutions while denying permission to the remaining 36 constituted unconstitutional discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable, lacking any rational basis.
- The refusal interferes with citizens’ right to education.
- Allowing 11 institutions while denying 36 others that are similarly situated amounts to discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Nagpur and Bhandara districts already have an oversupply of D.Ed colleges—about five times the projected need—creating an excessive intake capacity of roughly 3000 students for only 616 available teaching positions each year.
- Unrestricted admissions would result in large-scale unemployment among D.Ed graduates, who become ineligible for primary-teacher posts once they exceed 28 years of age.
- The 11 institutions were selected on a “need-cum-performance” basis; therefore, no discrimination occurred.
- The policy decision is a reasonable measure aimed at preventing exploitation of students and safeguarding future employment prospects.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the detailed affidavit filed by the Education Officer, which quantified the mismatch between training capacity and employment opportunities in Nagpur and Bhandara districts. Accepting these figures, the Court held that:
- The Government’s policy sought to prevent an influx of unemployed D.Ed graduates and was therefore rational, not arbitrary or unreasonable.
- No fundamental right to education of prospective students was infringed; rather, the policy protected them from likely exploitation and futile expenditure of time and resources.
- The alleged discrimination argument failed: (a) the 11 favoured institutions had not been impleaded, and (b) their selection was based on objective “need-cum-performance” criteria, negating any breach of Article 14.
Having found the Government’s action reasonable and nondiscriminatory, the Court rejected all of the appellant’s contentions.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED – The civil appeal, connected writ petitions, civil appeals, and special-leave petitions were all dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Implications: The Government of Maharashtra’s policy decision remains intact, preventing 36 institutions from admitting first-year D.Ed students for 1985-86. The ruling affirms the State’s authority to regulate educational institutions based on projected employment needs, but it does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the case-specific validation of that policy.
M.M Dutt, J.— This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, assailing the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the Government of Maharashtra dated May 31, 1985 refusing to grant permission to the member institutions of the appellant to hold the first year classes in Diploma in Education (D.Ed) in the academic year 1985-86.
2. Considering that in course of time there would be acute need of trained primary teachers, the Government of Maharashtra invited applications from educational institutions for conducting D.Ed course classes on “no grant basis” in academic year 1984-85. A large number of applications were received by the Government from different institutions of the districts of the State. It appears that by an order dated September 9, 1984 of the Education and Employment Department of the Maharashtra Government, permission was granted to 47 institutions in Nagpur district and to 17 institutions in Bhandara district. These 47 institutions of the Nagpur district are members of the appellant Society. The permission was granted on certain conditions and it was made clear that the order granting permission would be applicable only for Academic Year 1984-85. The Director of Education, State of Maharashtra by his letter dated May 21, 1985 instructed the institutions that they should be prepared to admit students for Academic Year 1985-86 and also prepare a programme for facilitating admission. It is the case of the appellant that while the institutions had been going on with the preparation for admission of students for the next academic year, the members of the appellant Society received an order from the Education Officer, Zillah Parishad, Nagpur, dated June 14, 1985 that the Government had not granted permission to 36 member institutions of the appellant Society to hold first year classes for the year 1985-86 except that they would be entitled to hold the second year classes. In other words, as per the said order these 36 institutions have been directed not to admit students in Academic Year 1985-86. This order was made by the Education Officer, Zillah Parishad, Nagpur, pursuant to the policy decision of the Government dated May 31, 1985.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant moved the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the propriety and validity of the same. The High Court, as stated already, dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal by special leave.
4. Mr Lalit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable and interferes with the right to education of citizens.
5. In order to consider the said contention of the appellant it is necessary to refer to the case of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit of the respondents affirmed by Mr H.P Horker, Education Officer, Z.P, Nagpur, and filed in the High Court, it has been stated that in Nagpur and Bhandara districts, a large number of applicants applied for starting new D.Ed colleges from time to time during the year 1984-85. 47 new applicants have been granted permission to start new D.Ed colleges in Nagpur district and 17 new applicants were granted permission to start new D.Ed colleges in Bhandara district during the year 1984-85. In addition to this, 5 new D.Ed colleges in Nagpur district and 10 D.Ed colleges in Bhandara district were started unauthorisedly in 1984-85. A scrutiny of a large number of colleges pre-existing up to 1984 and the new D.Ed colleges started during 1984-85, discloses that the number of new D.Ed colleges started in all the districts except Nagpur and Bhandara districts, is approximately equal to the additional need of the districts, while the number of the new D.Ed colleges started in Nagpur and Bhandara districts is proportionately much larger, about five times more than the estimated increased need of the two districts. Further, it is stated that it is not desirable and feasible to permit all the 47 D.Ed colleges to hold first year classes during the year 1985-86. The total capacity of these 47 colleges with 73 divisions, namely, about 3000 students far exceeds the requirement of only 616 students in the first year classes every year. To permit admission of 3000 students every year will result in a serious consequence of a large scale unemployment. It is pointed out in the affidavit that the maximum age of eligibility of a primary school teacher is 28 years. After completion of 28 years of age, a D.Ed trained teacher, if unemployed, can never join the service of a primary teacher. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is all the more necessary to plan the opening of the D.Ed colleges in such a manner that it will not result in large scale unmanageable unemployment among the D.Ed candidates. It is also pointed out that the whole of their training for two years will go to waste in the event they are not employed after completing the age of 28 years.
6. In view of the averments made in the affidavit of the respondents, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the impugned order or the policy decision of the Government is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is also no question of interference with the right to education of any citizen, as contended on behalf of the appellant. On the contrary, the Government, in our opinion, has taken the right decision so as to save the young men from being exploited. There is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the refusal to grant permission to hold D.Ed classes for the year 1985-86 will result in unemployment. As pointed out in the affidavit of the respondents, if the permission is granted, there will be a large scale unemployment inasmuch as 3000 students will be admitted in the first year classes as against the requirement of 616 students.
7. It is complained on behalf of the appellant that by granting permission to the 11 institutions to hold first year classes in Academic Year 1985-86, the respondents have made a discrimination between the said 11 institutions and the remaining 36 institutions, who are similarly situated, without any reasonable basis therefor. This argument is not available to the appellant. In the first place, the appellant did not make the said 11 institutions parties in the writ petition in the High Court nor in the appeal before us. We agree with the High Court that these 11 institutions have been selected on the basis of need-cum-performance and, accordingly, there is no question of any discrimination or of violation of the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contentions of the appellants are rejected.
8. No other point has been urged in this appeal. The appeal being Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 1985 is dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs.
9. The disposal of Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 1985 results in the disposal of Writ Petitions Nos. 11258-62, 12285, 12070, 12078, 12079, 12132 of 1985, Civil Appeals Nos. 5444-46 of 1985 and Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 12446, 12465-66 of 1985, as they involve the same facts and points. Accordingly, these civil appeals, writ petitions and special leave petitions are all dismissed without any order as to costs.
Alert