Allowed

Chanchal Daulal Bhandari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Apr 2010WP/1951/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a medical student's transfer application due to lack of medical certificates and non-consideration of a subsequent representation. The Court directed the respondents to consider the fresh application with submitted documents.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 23.10.2009 is quashed; the petitioner is directed to submit certificates within two weeks, and the application is to be treated as fresh.

Chanchal Daulal Bhandari Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1951 OF 2010

¶4

Chanchal d/o Daulal Bhandari, Age 19 years, Occu.Student, R/o Chikaldara, Taluka Chikaldara, District Amrawati, at present M.B.B.S.Girls Hostel in front of Medical Gate, Panchakki Road, Government Medical College, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad .. PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

The Director, Medical Education and Research Mumbai, Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai Stipan George Hospital Compound, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mrs.Manjusha A.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents

¶9

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND

¶10

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ

¶11

DATE : 28^th April, 2010

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶13

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

¶14

¶15

By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing the communication dated 23.10.2009 issued by the respondent No.2 rejecting the transfer application of the petitioner dated 5.9.2009.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for transfer on medical ground from the Government Medical College, Aurangabad to the Nagpur Medical College.

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is suffering from migrain and myopia. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no medical certificates were attached and the illness was not such that it leads to disability.

¶18

The petitioner has thereafter made a representation on 18.1.2010 along with the documents. The said representation dated 18.1.2010 has not been considered by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that other students who were suffering from diseases which did not lead to legal disability were considered for transfer.

¶19

In view of the fact that the representation dated 18.1.2010 has not yet been considered by the respondents, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the communication dated

¶20

¶21

23.10.2009 rejecting the application for transfer of the petitioner and give opportunity to the petitioner to submit all the requisite certificates within a period of two weeks from today and further direct the respondents to decide the said representation along with all the requisite certificates that would be submitted by the petitioner, within a further period of two weeks. We further direct that the application dated 18.1.2010 and the requisite documents that would be submitted should be treated as fresh application for transfer.

¶22

Rule made absolute on above terms with no orders as to costs.

¶23

¶24

( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

(vvr/1951.10wp)

Chanchal Daulal Bhandari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanchal Daulal Bhandari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Deotala through President B a Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suraj Surendra Udan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Adhunik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Suresh Macchindra Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharif Khan Insmail Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.