Disposed

Little Flower English Convent Thr. Its President v. the State Govt. Secondary Edun. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2012WP/754/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought directions from the Board of Secondary Education to accept examination forms for three students of the petitioner school. The High Court granted the prayers conditionally, directing the petitioner to submit an undertaking ensuring future compliance with registration norms, along with late fees, by a specified deadline.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Institution directed to submit an undertaking restricting future regular admissions without Board registration and paying late fees by 27.02.2012; upon compliance, students allowed to appea

Little Flower English Convent Thr. Its President Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

W.P.NO.754/12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 754 of 2012

¶5

LITTLE FLOWER ENGLISH CONVENT VERSUS

¶6

STATE OF MAH. , SECONDARY EDU. DEPTT., MUMBAI AND OTHERS

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

- - - - Mr. A. V. Gawande, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tajwar Khan, Asst. Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos.1,3&4 Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶10

CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 22^nd FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to respondent no.2-Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Shikshan Mandal, Amravati Division, Amravati to accept the examination forms of three students of the petitioner school and allow said students to appear for 10^th standard examination, scheduled on 01.03.2012 for the academic year 2011-12 ; with other ancillary prayers.

¶13

Mr. P.B. Patil, the learned counsel for respondent no.2-Board states that he has received instructions that respondent no.2-Board has no objection for allowing the concerned students from appearing for the 10^th standard examination, ensuing from 01^st March, 2012, provided the petitionerinstitution gives an undertaking that in future, they will not enroll fresh students unless registration is received from the Board. The learned counsel for

¶14

W.P.NO.754/12

¶15

¶16

respondent no.2 states that the Board has taken a particular stand keeping in mind the benefit of the students.

¶17

Mr. Gawande, the learned counsel for the petitioner-institution states that the appropriate undertaking will be submitted before respondent no.2-Board along with the examination forms. He further submits that the examination forms will be submitted with the late fees as required.

¶18

It is clarified that the petitioner-institution shall pay the late fees for submitting the examination forms from its own, without insisting and charging it from the students.

¶19

On petitioner submitting appropriate undertaking along with the examination forms of the students with late fees as required, the respondent no.2-Board shall permit those students to appear for the examination by giving them roll numbers.

¶20

The appropriate undertaking along with the examination forms as afore-stated, to be submitted to respondent no.2-Board by 27.02.2012 by the petitioner-Institution.

¶21

Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

Steno copy of the order, duly authenticated is granted to the parties on request.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Diwale

Little Flower English Convent Thr. Its President v. the State Govt. Secondary Edun. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Little Flower English Convent Thr. Its President v. the State Govt. Secondary Edun. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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.

Noble Explochem Limited, through Its Chairman and Executive Director Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation, through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur and Ano

Bharat Nagar Nagrik Mandal Thr. Its Secty Vs the N.M.C. Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Mrs. Bhawna Prabodh Ukey Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Public Works Deparment and Another