- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3347/2009 Gunai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kaulkhed Tq.Udgir Dist.Latur, through its President Shri Bapurao s/o Shankarrao Rathod, age 35 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Kaulkhed Tq.Udgir Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Class Welfare Directorate, Maharashtra State, Pune-1. 3. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur Division, Latur. 4. Special District Social Welfare Officer, Latur. Dist.Latur. ...Respondents... ..... Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel with Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. ..... - 2 - CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 27.08.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner takes exception to an order dated 13.3.2003 issued by the respondent no.1 refusing to sanction proposal of the petitioner for attaching V to VII Standards of Ashram School to the Secondary Ashram School run by the petitioner. 4] We need not dilate on the factual aspects of the matter as it would suffice to state that the proposal of the petitioner, earlier submitted by the petitioner, had been turned down by the authorities, which necessitated the petitioner to file writ petition in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 15.9.2008 in Writ Petition No.5453/2008 permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh proposal since the academic year, for which the earlier proposal was submitted, had already commenced. The Division Bench further directed the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six months. Pursuant thereto, the proposal submitted by the petitioner came to be favourably recommended by all the authorities including the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1, by the order impugned in - 3 - the present petition, rejected the proposal on the sole ground that there was no provision for such attachment of V to VII Standards of Ashram School to VIII to X Standards of Secondary Ashram School. 5] We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who has pointed out to us that the respondent – authorities including the respondent no.2 in their recommendations had categorically stated about existence of such a provision. None of the respondents, while recommending the proposal of the petitioner, had ever contended that there was no provision. Apart therefrom, it is urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that if indeed a provision is required to be found, the same can be found in Rule 8.3(iii) of the Secondary Schools Code. According to the learned Senior Counsel, by relying upon the aforesaid provision, the two schools were granted similar permission. The aforesaid permissions have been annexed by the petitioner to this petition and they are dated 27.8.1997 in respect of Tirumala Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Udgir Dist.Latur and Krishna Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Udgir Dist.Latur. 6] The respondents in their affidavit in reply have pointed out that Rule 8.3(iii) does not apply and the permission came to be granted in exceptional circumstances to the two institutions, which are referred above. In any event, since the respondent authorities in their recommendatory letter had uniformly stated that such provision does exist, it would be appropriate if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to point out the relevant provision on the basis of which the permission is sought for by the petitioner. 7] Accordingly, we allow this writ petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to submit his written notes of arguments within four weeks from today and further direct the respondent no.1 to take the aforesaid into consideration and decide the proposal afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months of its submission. - 4 - 8] Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c278091