Allowed

Senapati Tatya Tope Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2015WP/1279/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding school grants. The court modified previous directions, setting a 6-week timeline for the Director of Education to decide on grant releases and clarifying that past reservation policy non-compliance cannot deny future eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Directives issued to the Director of Education to decide on salary grant applications within 6 weeks and clarified that prior reservation policy non-compliance precludes rejection of applications unde

Senapati Tatya Tope Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 1279 OF 2015

¶3

Senapati Tatya Tope Shikshan

¶4

Prasarak Mandal and Another

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 1280 OF 2015

¶11

Maharashtra Arogya Mandal and Another

¶12

..Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶15

..Respondents

¶16

Mr. Saurabh Pakale a/w Mr. S. S. Pakale i/b Avinash Belge,for the Petitioners.

¶17

Mr. A. B. Vgyani, G. P.,for the Respondent State.

¶18

CORAM :- MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶19

DATE :- FEBRUARY 9, 2015.

Aswale 1/3

19.20.wp.1279.15

P. C.:

These writ petitions raise similar issues as were raised in Writ Petition No. 8478 of 2013 which was disposed of by our order dated 16 July 2014 read with order dated 6 August 2014. The said orders have been subsequently modified by our order passed on 7 January 2015 in Civil Application No.2367 of 2014. Following the aforesaid orders read with aforesaid modification, we dispose of these writ petitions in the same terms, that is to say in terms of the following directions/clarifications:-

¶24

(i) The directions contained in para 6(iii) and (v) for releasing the salary grant under the Government Resolution dated 15 November 2011 shall not apply till the Director of Education takes a decision in the matter which shall be done within 6 weeks from today.

¶25

(ii) It is clarified that if an institution is found to be eligible to receive grant under the Government Resolution dated 15 November 2011, it shall not be denied the grant on the ground of not following the reservation policy prior to the date of making the application for the grant under the Government Resolution dated 15 November 2011.

¶26

Aswale 2/3

¶27

19.20.wp.1279.15

¶28

(iii) If in light of the above directions and clarifications the authorities take any tentative decision to issue a show cause notice for rejecting the application of the concerned school managements, the show cause notice shall be issued within 3 weeks from today giving an opportunity to the school managements to reply and to file documentary evidence after receipt of the show cause notice and the Director of Education shall give them personal hearing and take a decision within 3 weeks thereafter.

¶29

(iv) If no show cause notice is issued to the school management within 3 weeks from today, the authorities shall release the grant in their favour within 6 weeks from today.

¶30

(v) Liberty to apply in case of difficulty.

¶31

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

(B. P. COLABAWALLA , J.)

¶33

Aswale 3/3

Senapati Tatya Tope Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senapati Tatya Tope Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 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

Sea Eagle Dredging Marine Infrastructure Private Limited (Cin U74990MH200 Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Ketan Tirodkar Vs Reserve Bank of India and and Ors.

Hbs View Private Limited and 2 Ors. Vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and 5 Ors.

The Asian Development Society Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra Arogya Mandal, Hadapsar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Education and Sports and Ors.

Shri. Satish Bhaurao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rural Development and Irrigation and Ors.