Manubhai Pragaji Vashi

vs
State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
on 19 August, 1988
FACTS OF THE CASE
In withholding the Grant-in-Aid Scheme to Government recognised non-
government law colleges in Maharashtra, they have been discriminated
against . Such is the ratio of this judgment.
Maharashtra has the reputation of being the premier State in India.
Education wise it has several faculties, to wit, arts, science, commerce,
engineering and medicine. They are given grant-in-aid by Government.
In the entire State of Maharashtra, there is only one Government run law
college. It is the Government Law College at Bombay.
Quest for legal education in the State has progressively been on the increase
year by year. For that matter, during the academic year 1985-86 the total
number of law students in Maharashtra was about 25,700.
Government's learned counsel Mr. Saldhana with his habitual fairness,
informs us that at present the number of such students would be in the
vicinity of 27,000 to 28,000.
CONT.
This heavy demand for law education could naturally not be met by the
solitary Government-run law college in Bombay.
As a result, private or non-government law colleges came up in Bombay and
other parts of Maharashtra. They are recognised by Government.
There are 38 such law colleges.
The strength of their teaching staff is 544 approximately, comprising about 91
full-timers and the remaining part-timers; the full-time non-teaching staff is
about 400.
These law colleges, though Government recognised and unlike other
faculties, viz., arts, science, commerce, engineering and medcine, do not
receive any grant-in-aid from Government.
It is here that the grievance of discrimination is made, as will presently be
seen.
CONT.
Request to Government to apply the Grant-in-Aid Scheme to such law
colleges was made way back in 1975 by the Marathwada University Law
Teachers Association. On 1-12-1982.
This request was reiterated by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India.
Resolutions were passed, meeting were held, discussions took place,
information was invited and received by Government from the various
principals, data was complied, more meetings more discussions,
correspondence. And so it went on.
The mechanies were gone through. Plenty of activity but no achievement;
for a while Government never actually refused to extend grant-in-aid to
those law colleges, it never got down to the point of actually giving it.
 ISSUE OF THE CASE
. Whether there is any discrimination on behalf of the
government for the establishment of private law
colleges in Maharastra?
OBSERVATION
It was observed that:
Commencing from academic year June 1988, Government is directed to extend the
Grani-in-Aid Scheme to all Government recognised private law colleges on the
same criteria as such grants are given to other 'faculties, viz. Arts, science,
commerce, engineering and medicine.
The Scheme shall be implemented within 12 weeks from today.
Regarding non-government law colleges which have closed down or are about to
close down, their statistics shall be considered by Government as of academic year
1985-86 for the purpose of extending grants.
Government shall implement the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme in favour of the
staff of non-government law colleges with effect from 1-10-1982 on such staff
exercising their option in writing within 4 weeks from Government's declaration to
implement Grant-in-Aid Scheme to non-government law colleges.
JUDGEMENT
No order as to costs of the petitions. Rule is made absolute in terms
above. Order accordingly.