Dismissed

Shakeel Siddique Reshamwala v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2012WP/634/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition seeking permission for a petitioners daughter to appear in XIIth standard science examinations despite lack of requisite secondary school science marks. The court held that pursuing college admissions without qualifying marks cannot create entitlement to examination eligibility.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shakeel Siddique Reshamwala Vs Maharashtra State… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

wp68.12

rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

O.O.C.J.

¶6

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 68 OF 2012

¶7

Shakeel S.Reshamwala ..Petitioner

¶8

vs

¶9

Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary & Higher Seco.Education & Ors..Respondents

¶10

Mr.P.M.Khankar for Petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Kiran Gandhi a/w Ms Shayamali Gadre i.b Little & Co for
Respondent no.1

¶12

Ms.Sindha Sridharan AGP for Respt no.3

¶13

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR &
N.M.JAMDAR, JJ

¶14

 15th February, 2012

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶17

The grievance in this Petition is about the wrongful denial of permission to the Petitioner's daughter to appear

¶18

for XIIth standard science examination for academic year
2011-2012 by the Respondents. It is not in dispute that
Petitioner's daughter passed Xth standard without taking
science subjects. Clause 16 of Regulation No.79 mandates

¶19

that for securing admission to XIth standard in science

¶20

stream of the junior college, the candidate must have
secured 40% marks in science subject at secondary school

wp68.12

rng

certificate examination of the Board or equivalent
examination. Inspite of this mandate, Petitioner's daughter
was admitted to Science faculty by the college for reason
best known to the Respondent no.2-college and Petitioner
herself. Realising this position Petitioner consented for
shifting her daughter to commerce faculty vide letter dt
16.1.2012 and on the basis of the said request the college
shifted Petitioner's daughter to commerce faculty which
fact was brought to the notice of the board by the college
vide its letter dt 31.1.2010. This factual position is not
stated in the Petition at all. That is the relevant fact
which ought to have been disclosed in the Writ Petition
itself.

¶25

2. Be that as it may, question is whether Petitioner's
daughter was eligible to pursue science course. The answer

¶26

is an emphatic �no.� If the candidate did not possess
essential qualifications to pursue the said course, merely
because Petitioner's daughter has pursued her college for
last two years, cannot be the basis to show any indulgence
to the incumbent who is otherwise not qualified to pursue
the same. In our opinion, appeal made by the Petitioner if
accepted would be a case of misplaced sympathy shown to a
candidate who is otherwise not qualified to pursue the said
course. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.

wp68.12

rng

3. If the Petitioner's daughter can pursue her

¶31

examination in Commerce faculty as private student, it is
open to her to take recourse to that option. That proposal
will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance
with law.

¶32

4. Counsel for the Petitioner relying on an unreported
decision of the Division bench of this Court inDR.NUPUR

¶33

VISHNUJ DHANKANI VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS (W.P.No.1895 of

¶34

2011)was at pains to point out that at least the Court may
issue directions to the college to refund the tuition fees.
That is not the relief claimed in the Petition. The only
relief is to issue directions to the Board to accept
application of the Petitioner's daughter and issue
examination hall ticket.

¶35

5. In the circumstances, this Petition is dismissed with
above observations.

¶36

(N.M.JAMDAR, J)

¶37

rng 4 wp68.12

Shakeel Siddique Reshamwala v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shakeel Siddique Reshamwala v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Uttam Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Municipal Administration Dept and Ors.

Barku Bau Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shankar Govindram Lund and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Shriniwas Bhausaheb Kulkarni Vs Solapur University and Ors.

Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, Kolindra, through Secretary, Shri. Shivaji Babu Powar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Usha Pandurang Dhakate Vs State of Mahrashtra and Anr.