Disposed

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2012WP/1754/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought an additional division (10th standard) for its school by way of natural growth. The High Court directed the State Government to consider the entire record, relevant Government Resolutions, and State policy within ten weeks before communicating a decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to take a decision on the petition within ten weeks and communicate it.

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

WP1754-12

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1754 OF 2012

¶6

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha, Nanded

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

***

¶10

Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. D. R. Kale, A. G. P. for the
Respondent/ State Authorities.

¶12

***

¶13

CORAM:NARESH H. PATIL &
U. D. SALVI, JJ.
DATED: 25th JULY, 2012.

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

1. Heard.

¶16

2. Petitioner claims additional division

¶17

of 10th standard by virtue of natural

¶18

growth. According to the Petitioner, the
Education Officer has recommended case of

¶19

the petitioner to the Deputy Director of
Education. The proposal has been forwarded

¶20

WP1754-12

¶21

-:(2):-

¶22

to the State Government.

¶23

3.Affidavit in reply has been filed by
Superintendent in the office of Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Nanded. The deponent contends in para 4
and 5 as under:

¶24

petitioner No.2 school is having
additional division of 8th and 9th

¶25

standards. It is submitted that
the office of the answering
respondent have carried out the
"Patpadtalni" and inspection of
the school and found less strength
ofstudentsforgrantof

¶26

permission to the additional
division of standard 10th and
recommended to the Respondent No.

¶27

2. The copies of the staff
approval showing the strength of

¶28

the students in 10th standard are
already annexed with the original
petition as Exhibit "B" colly.

¶29

WP1754-12

¶30

-:(3):-

¶31

5. It is submitted that the

¶32

Petitioner no.2 school is liable

¶33

to get additional division of
standard 10th and the answering
respondent also recommended to the

¶34

Respondent No.2, for the same.

¶35

But it is pertinent to note here
that it is not permissible to the
petitioners to start additional
divisionwithoutordersof

¶36

Government and to appoint any
staff. The appointment of Shri.

¶37

Jadhav Dilip Tukaram and Shri
Pawar Tukaram Manik are totally
illegal and the responsibility of
salary goes upon the petitioners."

¶38

4.We direct the State Government to take
decision in respect of the claim of
petitionersforgrantingadditional
division of 10th standard by way of natural
growth after considering the entire record,
relevant Government Resolutions, Policy of
the State, within ten weeks and communicate

¶39

-:(4):-

¶40

WP1754-12

¶41

its decision to the petitioner.

¶42

5. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

[U. D. SALVI, J.]
Dt.25/07/2012
ans/WP1754-12

¶44

[NARESH H.PATIL J.]

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mauli Doodh Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pandharechi Wadi Thr Chairman Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ashok Sudhakar Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt Kamalbai Radhakisan Gite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Savita Dattatraya Malunjkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.