Allowed

Tejpal Subhash Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2012WP/407/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the denial of admission to a postal D.Ed. course due to the absence of a caste validity certificate. The court observed that the petitioner was factually eligible. It directed the scrutiny committee to decide the claim within six months, allowing the petitioner to continue the course pending that outcome.

What did the court decide?

Director to decide claim within six months; petitioner permitted to continue course and appear for exams subject to committee's decision on claim validity.

Tejpal Subhash Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP 407/12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.407/2012

¶6

Tejpal Subhash Thakur V/s The State & others.

¶7

¶8

Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner. Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 5. Shri S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Shri D.B. Bhange, Advocate for respondent no.4. Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.6.

¶9

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI &

¶10

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶11

Date: 06.02.2012

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has approached this

¶14

Court for admission to postal D.Ed. course.

¶15

The petitioner was not granted admission to the postal D.Ed. course though his proposal was forwarded since he did not possess the caste validity certificate.

¶16

WP 407/12

¶17

¶18

It is not in the hands of the petitioner

¶19

as to within how much time the claim of the petitioner should be validated by the committee.

¶20

By an ad interim order, we had directed the respondent no.5 to admit the petitioner if he was otherwise entitled to. Undisputedly, the petitioner having found to be eligible, has been admitted to the D.Ed. course.

¶21

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in the following terms.

¶22

The respondent - scrutiny committee is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today.

¶23

The petitioner, who is already admitted for Postal D.Ed. course, would be permitted to continue the Postal D.Ed. course, appear for the examinations and his result should also be declared. However, the result shall be subject to the decision of the committee regarding validity of his claim.

¶24

WP 407/12

¶25

¶26

Rule is made absolute in above terms

¶27

with no order as to costs.

¶28

(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 06.02.2012 ndk/c621216

Tejpal Subhash Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal Subhash Thakur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Asaram Gunjal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Madhur Courier Services Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Abdul Kadar Sk. Amir Kadri Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Venkat Bhagwanrao Patil Vs the State of Mah Thr. Asst. Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad

Bharashtachar Virodhi Manch (Akhil Bhartiya) Thr City President Vs the State Election Commission New Adm Bldg Mumbai and Ors.

Amar Vasantrao Kothimbare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.