On the high court directions, the PHO had amended the PILs to include its objection to Maharashtra government ordinance on the Maratha-Muslim reservations.
Unhappy with Maharashtra government's lackadaisical approach towards reservations in medical admissions by not filing a reply to a bunch of PILs on the issue, the Bombay High Court has given a last chance to the state to respond.
At a recent hearing of the PILs, justices V M Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere directed the Maharashtra government to file a reply by February 5, when the matter would be heard.
The bench had observed that as a last chance, time is being given to the Maharashtra government to file its reply. If no reply is filed before the next date (February 5), the PILs will be heard and disposed of on the uncontroverted averments made therein, the judges noted.
Through these PILs, the Peoples Health Organisation (PHO) has challenged the reservations, both constitutional as well as extra-constitutional, leaving less than 15 per cent and 20 per cent seats to open general category in MBBS and Post- Graduate Medical admissions respectively, according to PHO secretary Dr I S Gilada.
On the high court directions, the PHO had amended the PILs to include its objection to Maharashtra government ordinance on the Maratha-Muslim reservations. On November 14, 2014, the then Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sonak had stayed Maratha reservations in employment and admissions in educations institutions and had directed the petitioner to also include the challenge to Maharashtra government's ordinance on Maratha-Muslim reservations in both the PHO PILs.
Earlier, Gilada, arguing in person, contended that the draconian 'earmarking' system amounting to double reservations should be scrapped forthwith. He said Maharashtra is the only state to have surreptitiously introduced a clause of 'earmarking in constitutional reservations'.
The reserved category candidates in merit list are given open category seats, even though they apply from the respective reserved category and thus take away another 20 per cent of open seats, leaving less than 30 per cent to the open category, he argued.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bombay High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}