Partly allowed

Vivek S/O Tulshiram Maske and Anr. v. University Grants Commission Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2011WP/1272/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the University to examine the petitioners' proposal for exemption from the National Eligibility Test (NET) as specified by law within eight weeks, while dismissing the request for an extension to file a reply.

What did the court decide?

Director to look into the University proposal for exemption from NET examination within eight weeks from 06.07.2011.

Vivek S/O Tulshiram Maske and Anr. Vs University… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1272 OF 2011.

¶4

Vivek s/o Tulshiram Maske and another.

¶5

.Vrs.

¶6

University Grant Commission, thr. its Secretary and Others.

¶7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶8

(Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioners.)

¶9

-0-0-

¶10

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J.

¶11

DATED : 06th July, 2011

¶12

Heard Mr. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for

¶13

petitioners, Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel states that proposal of petitioners for exemption from NET examination is already forwarded by respondent No.2 University to respondent No.1 and grievance of the petitioners will be satisfied if it is directed to be disposed of in time bound manner.

¶15

¶16

Our attention is invited to orders passed on 28.10.2010 in Writ Petition No 2722 of 2010 and connected matters.

¶17

Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 points out that up to 30^th April, 2010 the UGC could have looked into such grievance but on that day Central Government has not deleted the provision which enable respondent No.1 to examine such proposal. According to them, respondent No.1, therefore can not now process that proposal. We find that this issue can be looked into by respondent No.1 while scrutinizing the proposal.

¶18

Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel is seeking time to file appropriate reply/affidavit. As the prayer is only to direct respondent No.1 to consider the proposal, it is apparent that no prejudice will be caused to respondent No.1 and 2 in any way. Hence we rejected the request of Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

¶19

The proposal of University dated

¶20

¶21

17.04.2009 shall be looked into in accordance with

¶22

law by respondent No.1 as early as possible and within a period of eight weeks' from today. Petition

¶23

is thus partly allowed. No costs.

¶24

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties, to act upon.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

scd//

Vivek S/O Tulshiram Maske and Anr. v. University Grants Commission Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek S/O Tulshiram Maske and Anr. v. University Grants Commission Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburao S/O Sambhaji Surve Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secty., and Ors.

Suresh Bhayyalal Daharwal Vs Smt. Pushpa Shamsundar Daharwal

Chandrashekhar S/O Parrappa Mali Vs Smt. Sunita Wd/O Shrishail Mali

Mrs. Shamsunisha Vs Bank of India, Nagpur and Ors.

Pramod S/O Gulab Mhaiskar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Mahadeo S/O Rajaram Wadaskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.