Dismissed

Pankaj S/O Gangadhar Wahane v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Director of Technical Edun. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2012WP/420/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed two writ petitions filed by students challenging the cancellation of their admissions on the ground that they secured below 45% marks. The court held that the grievance is unsustainable as it is undisputed that the petitioners scored below the required threshold, applying the Supreme Court decision in Orissa Public Service Commission.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed, rule discharged.

Pankaj S/O Gangadhar Wahane Vs the State of Mah… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

2102wp419.12.odt

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.419 OF 2012.

¶6

Swapnil Bhimrao Kamble ..vs..State of Mah. and others.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2012.

¶8

Pankaj G.Wahane ..vs..State of Mah. and others.

¶9

=-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Court's or Judges Order Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶11

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶12

Mr. A.S.Dhore, Adv. for the petitioners. Mrs.B.Dangre, AGP for resp.1 and 2.

¶13

 C ORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND

¶14

 P.B.VARALE, JJ.
DATED:21st FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients have not given him any instructions nor they have come to collect the copy of the Hamdast.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioners is that their admission is likely to be cancelled, as it was given in a wrong manner even the petitioners have secured below 45% marks.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners requests that court may pass an appropriate order.

¶18

The grievance made by the petitioners in our view is not sustainable, as it is not in dispute that the petitioners have secured below 45% marks. In view of the decision rendered by the Apex court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission and

¶19

¶20

2102wp419.12.odt

¶21

anr. ..vs.. Rupashree Chowdhary and anr. reported in (2011) 8 SCC 108 , no relief can be given to the petitioners. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶23

chute

Pankaj S/O Gangadhar Wahane v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Director of Technical Edun. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj S/O Gangadhar Wahane v. the State of Mah. Thr. Its Director of Technical Edun. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Preety W/O Shri Vijay Chattani Earlier Known as P Poptani Vs Nagpur University Thr. Its Registrar and Anr.

Shri Shivaji Education Society, through Its Secretary and Another Vs the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board,Thr. Divisional Secretary and

Dr. Sayyad Numan S/O Sayyad Khudaddad Hussaini Vs the Member, Maharashtra Administrative Court, Nagpur and 3 Others

Swapnil S/O Bhimrao Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Director of Technical Education and 2 Others

Tejsingh Shyamraoji Saoji Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Pr. Secty. and Anr.

Kisan S/O Gulab Ade Vs State of Mah Thr. Its Secty., and 3 Ors.