1 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.10901/2009 Dinkar Ramkrishna Bhise ..Petitioners. And another vs. The Education Officer and ors ..Respondents. Mr H. R. Pawar and M.Y. Dhuri, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr S.N.Patil, A.G.P., for respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 12TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioners, trustees of a public trust, make a grievance against the order dated 23.3.2009. By that order the request made by the petitioners by their application dated 6.3.2009 for regularizing the divisions of 5th, 6th and 7th standards in their school which were discontinued in the 2 year 2008-09 was rejected in view of the Government resolution dated 2.2.2009 and the Corrigendum dated 7.3.2009. An order was made on 17.1.2008. A letter was addressed by the Education Officer in relation to the reduction of certain divisions in the school of the petitioners due to reduction in the strength of students. The sections which were proposed to be reduced were ultimately adjustment by an order dated 25.3.2009. The petitioners, even before the adjustment was made, submitted a representation that the division should be restarted because the Government had issued a resolution dated 2.2.2009 reducing the number of students required to be considered in case of closure of the divisions. A corrigendum to that Government resolution was issued on 7.3.2009 stating therein that if the adjustment of the divisions which are reduced is completed before 2.2.2009, then the Government resolution dated 2.2.2009 will apply from the education year 2008-09. It is the case of the petitioners that as the adjustment of the reduced divisions was not completed till 7.3.2009 when the corrigendum was issued, the petitioners were entitled to have the newly prescribed norms being applied from the educational year 2008-09. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is apparent from the order impugned that the Deputy Director, Education, Kolhapur who has made the order 3 has relied on the Corrigendum dated 7.3.2009 but has not taken into consideration that till 7.3.2009 the adjustment of the reduced divisions was not completed. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the Deputy Director, Kolhapur will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be remitted back to him for de novo consideration. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice. ORDER: The order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Deputy Director,Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Kolhapur impugned in the petition is set aside. He is directed to consider the application dated 6.3.2009 made by the petitioners afresh. For that purpose the petitioners shall appear before the Deputy Director on 1.2.2010 along with a copy of this order and make any additional written submissions that they want to make in support of their application. The Deputy Director shall, thereafter, consider the application in accordance with law in the light of the additional written submissions that the petitioners may make and dispose of the application dated 6.3.2009 by a fresh reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, 4 in any case within a period of six weeks from 1.2.2010. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) Sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J)