1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6471 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who was pursuing D.Ed. course, appeared for First Year D.Ed. course, but never returned back to the college. No intimation was received about his intention whether to continue the course further or not. The petitioner remained absent between October – November, 2006 onwards till June 2009 i.e. for a period of more than two years without any sufficient cause made known to the college or the University. After June 2009, the petitioner approached for permitting him to continue the course from Second Year onwards and to 2 condone his absence during the relevant period. That request has been rejected with reference to the requirement of Rule 15(B) of the Admission Rules. Indeed, Rule 15-B authorizes the appropriate authority to condone delay of less than one year on account of medical reasons or unavoidable circumstances, but the same Rule provides that absence for more than year and up to two years can be condoned only by the Director of the Board. There is no provision in the entire Rules which permits condonation of absence beyond period of two years. It is in that context, the request of the petitioner came to be rejected. In absence of such a provision, no fault can be found with the decision of the authorities. Argument canvassed before us is that the petitioner has right to education, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of India as one of the fundamental rights. This argument clearly overlooks that such a fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions. In the present case, the restrictions can be carved 3 out from the Rules, which are relied upon by the authorities. Rule 15-B envisages that absence beyond period of two years is not condonable. Thus, having understood the grievance of the petitioner, it can not be redressed even if the petitioner has eventually got acquittal in the criminal case, which was instituted against him for offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The decision of the authorities would not preclude the petitioner to pursue education by taking admission once again in First Year D.Ed. Course if he is so keen to effective his fundamental right to education. The petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) Dt/- 04.03.2010 ndk/c43102