Dismissed

Sikandar Yusuf Parack and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2012WP/610/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged denial of admission. While the individual grievance of the son subsided as he completed studies, the father sought directions based on Deputy Director of Education's findings that the college lacked transparency and destroyed records. The Court directed an inspection to verify compliance rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Director of Education to inspect college for compliance with admission rules.

Sikandar Yusuf Parack and Anr. Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 of 3 WP.610.2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.610 OF 2011

¶4

Sikandar Yusuf Parack and another versus

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents

¶7

Mr.Sikandar Yusuf Parack, Petitioner No.1 present in person. Ms.Anjali Helekar, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Rajesh Singh for Respondent no.3.

¶8

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND RAJESH G. KETKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 29 October 2012

¶10

PC :

¶11

The grievance of the Petitioners relates to the denial of admission to the Second Petitioner (the son of the First Petitioner) to the junior college by the Third Respondent in the year 2006. The petition was instituted on 7 October 2011 nearly five years thereafter. The Deputy Director of Education heard the parties on the basis of a complaint of the Petitioners and passed an order dated 29 June 2010. The Deputy Director of Education noted that the college had not maintained transparency in the admissions process while carrying out admissions during academic year 2006-2007 and though a complaint had been received in the year 2006, the college had not made its records available on the ground that it had destroyed them. Consequently, the Deputy Director of Education has directed that

¶12

2 of 3 WP.610.2011

¶13

hereinafter the college shall maintain records and carry out admissions in accordance with the prevailing rules and regulations.

¶14

The Second Petitioner, the Court is informed, has since completed his junior college as well as the Bachelor of Engineering degree from the Saboo Siddique College of Engineering and is presently pursuing his Masters degree in United States. The individual grievance in regard to the Second Petitioner does not now survive. However, the First Petitioner, who appears in person, has urged the Court to issue appropriate directions having regard to the findings arrived at by the Deputy Director of Education. The finding of the Deputy Director of Education is that the college had not maintained transparency in admissions and had not produced the records during the course of an inquiry. The learned counsel for the Third Respondent states that as a matter of fact, the college has now started complying with all the rules and regulations after the order of the Deputy Director of Education.

¶15

Having regard to the limited nature of the controversy that now survives, we have taken up the petition, by consent, for hearing. The First Petitioner has been pressing for early hearing of the petition, since Rule was issued on 28 November 2011.

¶16

The Deputy Director of Education shall cause an inspection to be carried out by a competent officer to ensure that the directions which were issued in his order dated 29 June 2010 for compliance of all the rules and regulations have been duly met. We clarify that we

¶17

3 of 3 WP.610.2011

¶18

have not expressed any opinion on the present state of compliance by the college since it would be appropriate to leave that issue open to be determined by the competent authority. In the event it is found that there has been any breach on the part of the college in complying with the rules and regulations governing admissions, the Deputy Director of Education shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

(RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.)

¶21

MST

Sikandar Yusuf Parack and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikandar Yusuf Parack and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

M/s. Chunilal Khumaji and Company and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Boardand Mbr and R

M/s. Chunilal Khumaji and Company and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Boardand Mbr and R

Nenshi Monji and 3 Others. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others.

Builders Association of India Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Builders Association of India Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharashtra Chambers of Housing and Industry and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.