2212wp5036.11 1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5036 OF 2011 (Ku. Rakshasingh d/o Jagdishsingh Bais vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 22, 2011 Heard Shri Puri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Khade, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2, and Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. The petition is directed against the communication dated 30/8/2011 issued by the respondent no.1 Board whereby admission of the petitioner in Science stream of XII Standard in the respondent no.3 Junior College came to be declared as invalid. 2212wp5036.11 2/6 Shri Puri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner was admitted in the XI Standard (Science stream) in the respondent no.3 Junior College. The petitioner appeared for final examination of XI Standard and was declared successful on 4/5/2011. The petitioner was thereafter given admission in Science stream of XII Standard by the respondent no.3. The petitioner submitted application for grant of certificate of eligibility so that the petitioner can appear for the XII Standard examination. The respondent no.3 forwarded the said application to the respondent no.1 Board for necessary orders on the said application. It is submitted that respondent no.1 Board after considering the issue came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not have been admitted in XI Standard in Science stream since the petitioner did not secure the minimum percentage of marks in her qualifying examination, i.e. 40%. Shri Puri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further submits that the petitioner was given admission in Science stream of XI Standard by the respondent no.3 without any condition or 2212wp5036.11 3/6 restriction. Similarly, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the XI Standard examination and was also given admission in XII Standard and it is only at the time of seeking permission to appear for the XII Standard examination that the respondent no.1 Board has pointed out that the admission given to the petitioner in Science stream of XI Standard by respondent no.3 was invalid for want of minimum percentage of marks required to get the admission. It is contended that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner nor petitioner has deliberately suppressed any fact from the respondent no.3 and therefore, the petitioner should not suffer for the fault of the respondent no.3 or that of the respondent no.1 Board. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the impugned communication dated 30/8/2011. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another (AIR 1986 SC 1448). It is submitted that the relevant observations of the Apex Court in para (8) 2212wp5036.11 4/6 of the judgment read thus : “The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges, which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these Engineering Colleges. We would, therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission.” Mrs. Khade, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 Board, states that decision to declare the admission of the petitioner as invalid was taken by the respondent no.1 Board since the petitioner did not secure minimum percentage of marks in her qualifying examination, i.e. 40%. Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 Junior College, states that the petitioner was admitted in the Science stream of XI Standard by the respondent no.3 on the basis of Grade Sheet submitted by the petitioner, which did not disclose the marks. 2212wp5036.11 5/6 We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the decision of the Apex Court. In the instant case, the petitioner applied for admission in Science stream of XI Standard, which was granted by the respondent no.3 Junior College and petitioner was permitted to complete XI Standard and also granted admission in XII Standard. At the fag end of XII Standard, the respondent no.1 Board informed the petitioner through respondent no.3 that the admission given to the petitioner is invalid as she did not possess the minimum percentage of marks required for grant of admission in XI Standard. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner needs to be re-considered by the respondent no.1 Board in the light of the decision of the Apex Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 30/8/2011 issued by the respondent no.1 Board. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 Board for re-consideration of the issue in the light of the decision of the Apex Court 2212wp5036.11 6/6 and taking decision on its own merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the meantime, the admission of the petitioner in the Science stream of XII Standard need not be disturbed. With these directions and observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj