Disposed

Maroti S/O. Biraji Arewar, and Others v. the Yashwantrao Chavan Maha. Open University, through Its Registrar, Dnyangangotri, and Others

Bombay HC15 Jul 2016WP/4935/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to decide the petitioners' eligibility for B.Ed. Course admission on merits. Instead, it directed the respondents and the National Council for Teachers Education to examine the equivalence of correspondence and face-to-face D.Ed. courses after receiving a detailed representation within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to submit a detailed representation to the NCTE and respondent No. 3; such authorities directed to examine the equivalence of D.Ed. courses and decide within eight weeks.

Maroti S/O. Biraji Arewar, and Others Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

Order

1507wp4935.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 4935/2015.

¶6

Maroti Biraji Arewar and others.

¶7

VERSUS-

¶8

The Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik and others.

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶11

DATE : JULY 15, 2016.

¶12

Heard Shri N.S. Khandewale, learned

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners. His effort is to demonstrate that contents of Correspondence D.Ed. course undergone by the petitioners match with D.Ed. face to face course, as such they are eligible for admission to B.Ed. Course. Denial of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to admit them is, therefore, arbitrary.

¶14

Civil Application No. 1367/2016 has been taken out by the petitioners for seeking leave to join National Council for Teachers Education, through its Director, Bhopal as party respondent no.4.

¶15

Considering the nature of controversy and

Order

1507wp4935.15

the fact that the petitioners now cannot be admitted to B.Ed. Course in current academic course, we find it appropriate to grant an opportunity to them to submit a representation in detail to the proposed respondent no.4, as also respondent no.3. If such representation is made by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, the respondent no.3 as also the NCTE, Bhopal shall take suitable decision independently on that representation within next eight weeks. The Authorities shall examine the contention about equivalence of D.Ed. correspondence Course with D.Ed. face to face course during the said period.

¶20

If necessary, opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the petitioners or their representative/s. With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the Writ Petition. All pending Civil Applications are disposed of. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

Rgd.

Order

1507wp4935.15

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order.

¶28

Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 16.07.2016

Maroti S/O. Biraji Arewar, and Others v. the Yashwantrao Chavan Maha. Open University, through Its Registrar, Dnyangangotri, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maroti S/O. Biraji Arewar, and Others v. the Yashwantrao Chavan Maha. Open University, through Its Registrar, Dnyangangotri, and Others

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

Shri. Gopal S/O. Shriram Singh Vs Chief Managing Director, Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur and Others

Shaikh Irfan Sahikh Israeel Vs the State of Maha., Thro. Its Secretary, Dept. of Tribal Welfare and Others

Pravin Rameshrao Parate Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of Power of Energy, Mumbai and 2 Others

Bhuwaneshwar Bhauchand Pardhi and Another Vs Union of India through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Smt. Ratnamala Wd/O. Dilip Harde, and Others Vs the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, West Zone Maha. Circle, Mumbai, and Others

M/S Jyoti and Surendra Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director, Shri Surendra Mohan Khurana Vs the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, Ahmedabad and Others