wp10249.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10249 OF 2010 Late Tanaji Patil Sevabhavi Sanstha, Mangal Sangwi, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded, Through it's President, Balasaheb s/o Tanaji Kadam, R/o-Mangal Sangwi, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of School Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The Director of Education, (Higher Secondary Education), Central Building, Maharashtra State, Pune-1, 3) The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Region, Latur, District-Latur, 4) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Dist-Nanded, wp10249.10 2 5) The Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State, Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Latur Division Board, Latur, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.R. Suryawanshi Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.B.V. Wagh A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri.V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner applied for starting a secondary school on 'permanent no grant' basis. It is the contention of the Petitioner that under the Government Resolution dated 19th October 2007, permission was granted to the Petitioner to run a school. Clause 2) of the said Government wp10249.10 3 Resolution states that if the school is not started by the Petitioner in the next academic year, then the proposal forwarded by the Petitioner would not be considered and their permission would stand cancelled automatically. The Petitioner claims to have started the school in the academic year 2008-2009. In the academic year 2009-2010, 16 students of the Petitioner school were allowed to appear in 12th standard examination through Shree Shivaji Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Barul, Tq-Kandhar, Dist- Nanded, according to the Education Officer (Secondary). The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of the fact that they started school in accordance with the order passed by the State Government, the Education Officer is not accepting the examination forms of the students studying in the Petitioner school. 3. On behalf of the Education Officer, it is submitted that though 16 students who were said to wp10249.10 4 be studying with the Petitioner school were allowed to appear for examination, they were shown students of Shree Shivaji Secondary and Higher Secondary School and therefore the Authorities permitted the said students to appear in the examination. The Education Officer maintains a stand that the Petitioner is not entitled to run school, as the Petitioner claims to have started a school in the academic year 2009-2010, which violates the basic conditions of the Government Resolution dated 19th October, 2007. 4. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that as of now, there are 10 students who have filled in forms for 12th standard examination as the students of the Petitioner school. The Respondent Board is not accepting forms of the said students for 12th standard examination. The counsel prays that the forms of the said students be accepted for 12th standard examination, which is to commence from 22nd February, 2011. wp10249.10 5 5. Shri. Sonwalkar, learned counsel has taken instructions from the Respondent Board. The counsel submits that in view of the Regulation No. 93 of the Regulations and in view of the facts of the case, it will not be possible now to accept the examination forms. The question papers are set and they are kept confidentially in a sealed cover. The counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.966 of 2010 with Writ Petition No.1159 of 2010, dated 18th February, 2010. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel, perused the documents placed on record and the order passed by this Court, cited supra. The original record was also placed before us in presence of the Education Officer. wp10249.10 6 7. As regards the issue, as to whether the Petitioner started a school in the academic year 2008-2009 or 2009-2010, the controversy will have to be decided by the competent Authority. We find it appropriate that the Deputy Director, Education, Latur to hear the concerned parties, verify the record and thereafter pass brief reasoned order, in respect of issue involved, as to whether the Petitioner started a secondary school in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 19th October, 2007. 8. The second request of the Petitioner is that the Respondent Board be directed to accept examination forms of the students. In the facts of the case, we are not convinced to issue such directions to the Respondent Board. We find that in the facts of the case, acceptance of the prayer of the Petitioner will violate the essential requirement of Regulation No.93 of the Regulations. Even otherwise, unless status of the wp10249.10 7 Petitioner school is decided by the competent Authority, no such directions could be issued. We direct the Deputy Director, Education, Latur to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders, within THREE MONTHS from today. The Petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry officer. All issues are kept open. 9. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. . Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the learned A.G.P. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/FEB11/wp10249.10