Disposed

Shreyas Santosh Sonkamble Thr His Father Santosh Madhukar Sonkamble v. the Director of Primary Education and Others

Bombay HC9 Sept 2021WP/2597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought admission in a school (Respondent No. 4) under the RTE Act. Court observed petitioner was on wait-list and directed school limits not exceed prescribed norms. Court allowed consideration for 2nd Std. if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Petitioner case for 2nd Std. may be considered if eligible.

Shreyas Santosh Sonkamble Thr His Father Santosh… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

.. 1 ..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1061 Writ Petition No.2597 Of 2021

¶4

Shreyas Santosh Sonkamble
Thr His Father
Santosh Madhukar Sonkamble

¶5

 .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Director of Primary Education and Others ..Respondents

¶8

Mr Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr S.G. Karlekar, AGP for the Respondent – State
Mr S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
Mr Shreyas Deshpande, Advocate h/f. Mr S.B. Deshpande,
Advocate for Respondent No.4

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA

¶10

 AND
 R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 09-09-2021

¶12

PER COURT : -

¶13

1. Mr Mukhedkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶14

the respondent be directed to scrutinize the documents of the
petitioner pursuant to the selection letter dated 20-01-2021 issued by

¶15

the respondent no.2 for securing admission to 1st Std., with
respondent No.4 - School under Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter ‘Right to Education Act,
2009’).

¶16

2. Mr Mukhedkar, learned Counsel relies upon the letter

¶17

Gajanan

¶18

.. 2 ..

¶19

dated 20-01-2021 to submit that the petitioner was informed that the
petitioner is to be admitted in Respondent No.4 - School. In spite of
the said letter, the respondents were not verifying the documents, as
such the present writ petition is filed.

¶20

3. Even in January – 2021 the admissions are given under the Right to Education Act, 2009 in the 25% category.

¶21

4. According to respondent no.4, the petitioner was at Serial No.23 of the wait list. The last candidate admitted in respondent no.4 - School was at Serial No.16.

¶22

5.The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad submits that the
letter given to the petitioner was that he is in wait list and not in
respect of the confirmation of admission. For a student, whose name
is confirmed in the admission list, different letter of regular selection
is given.

¶23

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner was in the wait list. The last candidate is admitted with respondent no.4 School on 19-01-2021. It is submitted that he was at serial no.16.

¶24

Gajanan

¶25

.. 3 ..

¶26

7.We cannot direct respondent no.4 – School to admit more
students than the prescribed limit. It is submitted that the petitioner
was in the wait list for the admission process of the academic year
2020-21. The seats for the academic year 2021-2022 are also filled
in.

¶27

8.If the petitioner is eligible, then the respondent authority may
consider the petitioner’s case for 2nd Std., of course, subject to the
eligibility and the permissibility as per the statute and the rules.

¶28

9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶29

[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE ...

¶30

Gajanan

Shreyas Santosh Sonkamble Thr His Father Santosh Madhukar Sonkamble v. the Director of Primary Education and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreyas Santosh Sonkamble Thr His Father Santosh Madhukar Sonkamble v. the Director of Primary Education and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abasaheb Eknath Solanke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rukmin Bhagwan Sawargave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asaram Dhansing Umbre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Apang Karmachari Mahasangh through Member Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary

Shaikh Sikandar Shaikh Usman and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rangnath Ramdas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others