ORDER C.A. 4903/90 1. The intervention applications are rejected. 2. Taking note of the growing need of trained teachers in the State of Maharashtra in general and in the Marathwada region in particular, the Government of Maharashtra granted approval to about 16 institutions to be affiliated to the Marathwada University under the Marathwada University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Executive Council of the Marathwada University considered the matter in its meeting and through a resolution, prescribed certain conditions for granting recognition to the management of the institutions. That resolution was, later on, modified and eventually the University granted recognition to all the institutions in question on certain conditions. 3. Respondent No. 1 claiming to be the President of the students association, filed a Writ Petition in public interest. The challenge primarily was to the conditions upon which permission to start the B.Ed. Colleges (non-grant) was accorded. The grievance projected by respondent No. 1 in his writ petition in the High Court revolved around the right of the management of the institutions to allocate 20% of the seats to the candidates of their choice-popularly known as against the management quota. The other ground on which the Writ Petition was based was on allegation that the grant of permission by the State Government in favour of the institutions in question was illegal on the ground that the applications of the institutions had not been routed through the University as required by Section 43 of the Act. The other issues raised in the Writ Petition do not appear to have been canvassed and the order of the learned Division Bench of the High Court specifically records that respondent No. 1 had restricted the scope of the Writ Petition as against those institutions only whose applications were considered by the State Government, without having been routed through the Marathwada University. The writ petition was resisted. The stand of the State Government was that no illegality had been committed in granting permission to the 16 institutions to open new B.Ed. Colleges in Marathwada area. The State Government relied upon the recommendations of the Expert Committee of the University which had found the need for starting such institutions in support of its stand. The High Court, however, after a detailed discussion, by its judgment and order dated 20th/21st September, 1990 allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1. Colleges in Marathwada area. The State Government relied upon the recommendations of the Expert Committee of the University which had found the need for starting such institutions in support of its stand. The High Court, however, after a detailed discussion, by its judgment and order dated 20th/21st September, 1990 allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1. The High Court quashed and set aside the permission granted by the State Government to new B.Ed. Colleges for the year 1990-91 on non-grant basis. The High Court restrained the institutions from conducting classes of B.Ed. Courses. The High Court also held that the allocation of 20% seats to the management for admitting students of its choice was violative of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution as it amounted to reservation in favour of the management. The High Court then directed the refund of the entire amount of fees recovered from the students of those institutions and opined that in case any of the students is not refunded the fees in its entirety, he would be at liberty to approach Joint Charity Commissioner or Deputy Charity Commissioner or Assistant Charity Commissioner or any other competent authority in the Charity Organisation to get back the entire amount paid by him from the concerned management. The institutions have filed this appeal by special leave against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. 4. On 12th October, 1990, while granting leave in the Special Leave Petitions, interim stay of the operation of the judgment of the High Court was granted. 5. While respondent No. 1 though served has remained absent throughout, respondents 2 and 3 are represented and their counsel are present before us. 6. The State of Maharashtra has also put in issue the impugned judgment through Civil Appeal No. 4902 of 1990 and is, thus, in a way supporting the institutions. 7. Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that insofar as the question of reservation of 20% seats for the management quota is concerned, that issue is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by this Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.1 and that the law laid down in that case would govern these institutions also. It is further submitted by him that since he Marathwada University Act, 1974 has since been replaced by the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994 ) w.e.f. 22nd July, 1994, the second issue also, at this point of time, becomes only of academic interest and does not merit any adjudication. It is, however, submitted by him that insofar as the direction of the High Court to refund the entire fees to the students is concerned, that direction is not sustainable and requires to be upset because in view of the stay order granted by this Court at the time of granting leave, all the students have continued to study in the institutions and have completed their studies. Since they have completed their studies, the question, of refund of fees to them from the institutions would be most inequitable and that the position would have been different if the students had been ousted and not continued with their studies. 8. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the University - respondent No. 3 fairly submits that they have no objection to the non-refund of fees to the students who have studied in the institutions but that the University reserves its right to consider the question of continuation of affiliation/recognition to the concerned institutions in the light of the provisions of the Act of 1994 unless that recognition/affiliation has already been granted to any of the institutions under the 1994 Act. 9. On behalf of the State of Maharashtra also there is no objection to the quashing of the direction of the High Court with regard to the refund of fees to the students in view of the changed circumstances. The State of Maharashtra has supported the cause as put forward on behalf of the institutions as well as the right of the University to consider the question of continued affiliation or recognition under the provisions of the Act of 1994. 10. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the University assures the Court that the University shall examine the issue with regard to the continuation or otherwise of the grant of affiliation/recognition of the respective institutions on the respective institutions approaching the University in that behalf. It is submitted that the institutions are obliged under the 1994 Act to seek affiliation from the University. Mr. Khanwilkar does not dispute this position. 11. It is submitted that the institutions are obliged under the 1994 Act to seek affiliation from the University. Mr. Khanwilkar does not dispute this position. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the fair stand taken by the University, nothing further survives in this appeal and that it may now be consigned to record. We agree and make an order accordingly. The appellants shall take appropriate steps as suggested by Mr. Vasdev. C.A. 4902 of 1990 12. In view of the order made in Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 1990, no further orders are required to be made in Appeal No. 4902/90. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of. SLP (C) No. 2604 of 1991 13. Leave granted. 14. Mr. S.C. Birla, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in view of the fact that the Marathwada University Act, 1974 has been repealed and Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has come into force w.e.f. 22nd July, 1994, the appellant shall approach the University for consideration of its application for grant of affiliation afresh under the 1994 Act and in that view of the matter nothing further is required to be considered in this appeal. 15. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for the University submits that as and when such an application is filed by the appellant, the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Act uninfluenced by the earlier order made by the High Court which was based on the provisions of the 1974 Act. We record the statement of the learned counsel for the parties and dispose of the appeal as settled and requiring no further action. No costs. (C.R.) Appeals disposed of accordingly. ************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Shramjvi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Vishnu Laxmanrao Dhole & Ors., 2000(5) Supreme 59 : 2000 (4) JT 224 00047