(1) WP 7464.2005+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7464 OF 2005 Daiwashala D/o Martandappa Khot PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7311 OF 2005 Mahadeo S/o Sakharam Sangule PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7462 OF 2005 Shivaji S/o Radhakisan Kadam PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7463 OF 2005 Shrimant S/o Jotiram Satpute PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3972 OF 2006 IN W.P.7311 OF 2005 Shri Chakradhar Shikshan Va Samaj Prabodhan Mandal, Beed and anr. APPLICANTS VERSUS Mahadeo S/o Sakharam Sangule and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3973 OF 2006 IN W.P.7463 OF 2005 Shri Chakradhar Shikshan Va Samaj Prabodhan Mandal, Beed and anr. APPLICANTS VERSUS Shrimant S/o Jotiram Satpute and ors. RESPONDENTS (2) WP 7464.2005+ AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3971 OF 2006 IN W.P.7462 OF 2005 Shri Chakradhar Shikshan Va Samaj Prabodhan Mandal, Beed and anr. APPLICANTS VERSUS Shivaji S/o Radhakisan Kadam and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate h/f. Mr. Y.R. Barhate, Advocate for the Petitioners in 3 W.P.s. [except WP 7311.2005] Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate h/f. Mr. J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner (WP 7311.2005) Ms. Kalpana Navale, Advocate h/f. Ms. Asha Rasal, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6 (WP 7311.2005, WP 7462.2005, WP 7463.2005) Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. T.B. Bhosale, Advocate for the respondent no.3 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts in the present case are identical with the facts in bunch of Writ Petitions decided by this Court on 07.12.2010 (Writ Petition no. 610 of 2006-Uddhav S/o Bapurao Baswade Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) (3) WP 7464.2005+ 3. Rule is made absolute in the following terms:- (I) In the result, Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities cancelling the admissions of the petitioners are quashed and set aside. Needless to state that all the consequences shall follow. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. 4. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petitions, nothing survives in Civil Application nos. 3971 of 2006, 3972 of 2006 and 3973 of 2006; the same are also disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/