In this PIL concerning sports certificates benefits, the petitioner challenged the cut-off date for a new Government resolution applicable from the academic year 2012-13. The bench held that an authority's power to determine a cut-off date was valid and not arbitrary, and rejected the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PIL 7/12
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.7/2012 Dr.Santosh Sudhakarrao Kulkarni V/s The State & others.
|
Office Notes, Office
||_________________
|
|---|---|
|Memoranda of Coram,
|
appearances, Court's
||
Court's or Judge's orders
|
|orders or directions
|||
|and Registrar's orders
|||
Shri R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, G.P. for respondent nos.1 & 2.
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI &
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Date: 08.02.2012
Heard learned counsel for the
respective parties.
Though the petitioner is satisfied with the steps taken by the Government in issuing the resolution dated 30.11.2011, the petitioner is aggrieved with a cut-off date from the applicability of the said resolution i.e. from the academic year 2012-13.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government accepting the grievances of various parents like the present
PIL 7/12
2
petitioner that various bogus sportsmen were taking undue advantage of the certificates, which were issued by various organizations, has now modified the policy by the Government resolution dated 30.11.2011 and has now provided that the benefit of such students, on the basis of being a sportsman, would only be applicable for passing in the examination. He submits that the Government having changed the policy, there is no reason as to why the same is not made applicable from the present year and is being implemented from the academic year 2012-13.
By now it is a settled position of law that it is permissible for an authority to determine a particular cut-off date. The only requirement in law is that such a cut-off date should not be arbitrary one.
The purpose behind making the policy applicable from the academic year 2012-13 appears that the students, who have already undergone their studies for the present
PIL 7/12
3
academic year and are likely to appear in the ensuing examinations, are not taken by surprise.
In that view of the matter, we do not find that the cut-off so determined can be called as arbitrary or discriminatory to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 08.02.2012 ndk/c821214
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cut-off date set by the Government for a new sportsmanship policy applicable to academic year 2012-13 is arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Government's determination of the cut-off date for the implementation of a modified policy.
Dr. Santosh Sudhakarrao Kulkarni
The State
B.R. Gavai
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
