{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3641 OF 2009 Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Kedgaon, Ahmednagar, Through its President, Shri Prabhakar Marotirao Gund PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary to Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Directorate Maharashtra State, Pune-1 3. The Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune 4. The Member Secretary and the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] {2} DATE : 11th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order / communication dated 07.10.2008 issued by respondent No.4 rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for opening of a junior college (Arts) at Kedgaon, Ahmednagar. 3. We need not dilate much on the factual aspect of the case as it would be suffice to say that the proposal submitted by the petitioner, accompanying with the requisite deposit, was favourably recommended by the District Level Selection Committee to the State Government for consideration. The respondents, by the impugned order, rejected the said proposal on various grounds, amongst which the principal ground is that while recommending the proposal of the petitioner, the district level committee had not filled in certain columns of the recommendation proforma. The second reason which was stated was that, in the proposal there was no specific request in respect of faculty in which the petitioner proposed to open the junior college. The third reason was that the {3} strength of the students was inadequate for starting of the institute of the petitioner as another junior college is already existing in the said locality. 4. According to us, the aforesaid first two reasons are not germane for rejection of the proposal of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be faulted for the incomplete proforma submitted by the District Level Committee, while recommending the proposal of the petitioner. The second reason that there was no specific mention of the faculty, again is incorrect statement as perusal of the proposal submitted by the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner had indicated the faculty as “Arts faculty”. In respect of third reason, the petitioner had submitted rejoinder and along with the rejoinder a chart is submitted at Exhibit-P-1, which shows that apart from the 5 schools, referred to by the petitioner in the proposal, there are other schools and the strength of the students appearing in the 10th standard was far greater and certainly would cater the need of two junior colleges. In any event, this material was not available before the State Level Selection Committee while rejecting the proposal. 5. Since we have come to the conclusion that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind in respect of first two grounds which were stated for rejection of the proposal of the petitioner, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents State {4} Level Committee to consider the proposal of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. We grant liberty to the petitioner to produce on record the copies of the document at Exhibit-P1 and such other documents which would justify the availability of the students for taking admission in the institute of the petitioner, if the proposal of the petitioner is accepted. 6. In the light of that, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back for decision afresh, in accordance with law as indicated above, granting liberty to the petitioner to place on record additional documents within four weeks from today. Since the impugned order was passed in the year 2008, we expect the State level committee to expeditiously decide the proposal of the petitioner in accordance with law and communicate decision to the petitioner. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp3641-09