IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION NO. 35 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 35 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 35 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2008 Sanghamitra Roy ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & 4 ors. ] .. Respondents Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP, for the respondents No.1 and 3. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: 20TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a disabled person suffering from multiple disability. He was taking education in respondent No.5-school. The management of the said school is with the respondent No.4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was being given a regular education by the respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 is recognised by the Government of Maharashtra for regular : 2 : education. They are not recognised by the Government of Maharashtra for imparting education to disabled persons, much more to students which multiple disability. Therefore, the respondents have taken the action of removing such students from the said school. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed. The Petition was considered by this court and rejected. 4. Now, this Review Petition has been filed, contending that there is discrimination inasmuch as some students have been admitted in the said school who were taking education alongwith the petitioner and thus it is alleged that this was a discrimination against the petitioner qua similarly situated persons. 5. The respondents No.1 and 3 have scrutinized all the admissions and also the record has been shown to the petitioner in order to show that no such discrimination has taken place. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that the petitioner can be admitted in the said school as he was taking regular education. The respondents pointed out that the said school, though admitted the petitioner, had not kept the petitioner in a regular stream of education, but they have shown him as a student of the Pre National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) which is : 3 : meant for students with multiple disability. Thus, it is revealed that though respondent No.5 was not recognised to admit the students for Pre-NIOS or NOIS courses, they were unauthorizedly admitting such students for the Pre-NIOS or NIOS courses and, therefore, the action of the respondents No.1 and 3 as against the respondent No.5 as far as the petitioner is concerned, was justified. 6. Apart from that, it is also to be noted that after the petition was removed from the respondent No.5 school, he was given admission at Ali Yavar Jung Institute. In respect of the said institution, when the petitioner made a complaint that it was not running on a day-to-day basis and was also not meant for persons with multiple disability, the respondents have now pointed out to the petitioner the school of Spastics Society of India which is meant for the petitioner. It is, therefore, open for the petitioner to get admission in the said school. 7. The Review Petition is without any merit and it is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [A.A. [A.A. [A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]