Teacher filed writ challenging award of Adarsh Shikshak Puraskar to another teacher claiming false information in proposal. Court held lack of prima facie case and dismissed petition without exercising writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed; no extraordinary writ jurisdiction exercised.
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.
wp6217.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6217 OF 2012
Suresh s/o Sitaram Ahire,
R/o-Ganraya Viharf, Kanhala Road,
Bhusawal, Tq-Bhusawal,
Dist-Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,2) The Director of Education, Pune,3) The Education Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist-Jalgaon,4) The President of District Selection Committee For the Scrutiny of Adarsh Shikshak Puraskar, for State Level, At Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,5) The President of State Selection Committee For the Scrutiny of Adarsh Shikshak Puraskar, for State Level, At The Director of Education, (Secondary & Higher Secondary),Pune,wp6217.12
2
6) Shri. Purushottam s/o Sitaram Lokhande,
R/o- K. Narkhede Vidyalaya & Junior
College, Bhusawal, Dist-Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.A.K. Tiwari Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 5.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 1ST AUGUST, 2012.
PER COURT :
1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2.The Petitioner, a teacher, who filed
application for getting certificate as " Adarsh
Shikshak Puraskar ", challenges selection of
Respondent No.6 teacher for getting the said
Puraskar . It is Petitioner's contention that the
State has declared on 26th January, 2012, that the
Respondent No.6 would be getting the said
wp6217.12
3
Puraskar . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent No.6 has provided certain information which is not in accordance with record and on certain issues, the information is false. The Petitioner had made representations to various Authorities, but so far the Authorities did not communicate the Petitioner
about the decision taken by them, hence the
Petitioner has approached this Court. It is
further submitted that in the month of September,
2012, it is very likely that certificate would be
handed over by the State Authorities, to
Respondent No.6.
3.We have considered the submissions
advanced. The Petitioner had already made
representation/complaint to the Authorities
concerned. In Para-4 of the Petition, the
Petitioner contends that under the scheme framed
for submitting proposal, it is indicated that any
information in the proposal submitted, if found to
wp6217.12
4
be incorrect or false, the Education Officer would
be held responsible.
4.In the facts of the case, we are not
inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
[S.B. DESHMUKH, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
asb/AUG12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the award of the Adarsh Shikshak Puraskar to a selected teacher allegedly on false grounds.
Whether the allegations of misinformation in the selection proposal warrant judicial intervention at this stage.
Whether the petition challenging the selection process should be dismissed for lack of prima facie case for writ jurisdiction.
Suresh s/o Sitaram Ahire
The State of Maharashtra
Shri. Purushottam s/o Sitaram Lokhande
NARESH H. PATIL
S.B. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court