1 ASWP8241.10 srp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8241 OF 2010 1. Prashant Prakash Nikam & 5 Ors. ... Petitioners Vs 1. State of Maharashtra & 2 Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.V. Deo for Petitioners. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. THURSDAY, 03RD MARCH, 2011. P.C. : 1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the order passed by the respondent – Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai, taking disciplinary action against the petitioners, six in number, for misconduct at the examination in the sixth semester for the course of diploma in computer engineering. 2 ASWP8241.10 2. Since the impugned order is passed by the respondent-board after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and the decision of the disciplinary authority is based on factual findings, it is ordinarily not open to this Court to sit in appeal over such decision. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty of not declaring the results to the last examination and debarring the petitioners for two further examinations is too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would, therefore, like to make a representation to the respondent-authorities for reconsidering the quantum of penalty and for requesting the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear at the next examination to be held in April/May, 2011. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of quantum of 3 ASWP8241.10 penalty, we leave it open to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent for reducing the quantum of penalty and for permitting the petitioners to appear at the next examination. 6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make such a representation. The respondent shall consider such representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.