Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedPrajwal Tukaram Kasbekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (with Sejal d/o Sandip Bhale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
2026:BHC-AUG:32965-DB
Writ Petition No. 358 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 6715 of 2020
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Date of Decision
- 3 August 2026
- Bench
- Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar (Aurangabad Bench)
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 20.09.2019 (one-time reimbursement of medical fees, 2019-20); Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for Appointments in the Public Services and Posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018
Final Outcome
Petitions allowed, rule absolute: petitioners entitled to reimbursement under the Resolution; claims to the DMER within four weeks, payment within eight weeks with 6% simple interest (9% if delayed); costs of Rs. 50,000 each, recoverable from responsible officers if not deposited; enquiry by the Principal Secretary (para 8).
Source Bombay High Court (bombayhighcourt.gov.in), decided 03.08.2026
Key holdings
- The defence that the petitioners could not have got government or aided seats was factually incorrect, as lower-ranked students received the benefit (para 6).
- 25 of the 106 beneficiaries of the 2019 Resolution ranked below the petitioners (para 6).
- An unsigned, unsealed chart produced by the authorities was discarded as misleading (para 6).
- Seat allocation in 2019-20 was not transparent or strictly by merit; the Principal Secretary must hold an enquiry (paras 6, 8).
- Reimbursement carries 6% simple interest (9% if not paid within eight weeks), with costs of Rs. 50,000 each (para 8).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The Resolution offered students who lost a government or aided medical seat in 2019-20 because of EWS and SEBC reservation reimbursement of the private college fee above the government college fee (para 3). The petitioners, with NEET all-India ranks between 34441 and 36711, studied in private colleges but were left out of the 106 beneficiaries (para 3). The authorities said they could not have secured government or aided seats even without the reservation (para 5). The Court repeatedly directed production of the original file, and initiated suo motu contempt against officers after false statements about the record; it recalled that on their apology, imposing costs of Rs. 10,000 each (para 6).
Court's Findings
The authorities' justification shifted between their reply and later affidavits (para 6(xii)). Two beneficiaries ranked below the first petitioner, which "straightway falsifies the defense" that he could not have got a government or aided seat, so he fell within the Resolution (para 6(xiii)-(xv)). Rejecting the 70:30 regional-quota explanation, the Court said: "Merit can never be compromised nor can be on second pedestal" (para 6(xvii)-(xviii)). In the second petition, 25 of the 106 beneficiaries ranked below the petitioners; an unsigned, unsealed region-wise chart produced in court was misleading, related only to the first round, and was discarded (para 6(xxiv), (xxvii)-(xxviii)). The defence was factually incorrect (para 6(xxix)), and seat allocation at the time was not transparent or strictly by merit (para 6(xx)). Taking serious note that no beneficiary came from Marathwada, the Court said this was not regionalism but asked the authorities to examine whether the list was comprehensive (para 7(iii)). It inferred that the petitions stayed pending until the course ended to keep seat allocation from surfacing, and awarded exemplary costs and interest (para 7(iii)-(iv)).
Legal Principle
When the State extends a one-time benefit to students of lower merit, it cannot deny the same benefit to higher-ranked students on the plea that they would not have secured the seat anyway; a defence contradicted by the State's own records fails, and obstructive delay may attract interest and exemplary costs (paras 6, 7).