Allowed

Ketan Sunil Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Deputy Secretary and Others

Bombay HC27 Jun 2024WP/1297/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a ward of a secondary teacher, sought free ship under 1995 Government Resolution after completing MBBS despite withheld documents. Court found administrative inaction and directed the Dean of the Medical College to issue certificates and return documents pending final decision by higher authority. Petitioner to furnish undertaking to pay fees if entitlement is not confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted to petitioner by directing respondent No.9 to immediately issue all certificates and return all documents, subject to petitioner furnishing an undertaking to pay fees if entitlement is

Ketan Sunil Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:12368-DB

¶2

948-wp-1297-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1297 OF 2024

¶5

Ketan s/o Sunil Sanap

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through its Deputy Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-400032.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

¶11

The Director, Medical Education and Research, Government Dental College and Hospital Building, Sant Jorge Hospital Compound Mumbai-001.

¶12

The Director of Higher Education, Central Building3, B J Medical Road, Agarkar Nagar, Pune-411 001, Maharashtra.

¶13

The Director of Education (Planning), Maharashtra State, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Street, Pune 400 001, Tq. And Dist. Pune.

¶14

The Divisional Deputy Director of Educational (Higher Education) Nanded,

¶15

[1]

¶16

948-wp-1297-2024.odt

¶17

Division Nanded, Near Govt. Polytechnic Area Nanded, 431602.

¶18

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur.

¶19

The Dean Vilasrao Deshmukh, Government Institute, Medical Science, Civil Hospital Campus Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur. .. Respondents

¶20

Mr. S. K. Mathpati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for respondents – State.

¶21

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND

¶22

SHAILESH P BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 27 JUNE 2024

¶23

ORDER :-

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The inaction on the part of administration is the cause for the petitioner to approach this Court. Being a ward of a secondary teacher, he has been seeking freeship in the light of Government Resolution dated 19.08.1995. He could complete the M.B.B.S. course from the respondent No.9 Government Medical College and still his documents have been withheld in spite of having completed the course, for the only reason that no appropriate decision by the competent authority regarding his entitlement has ever been taken.

¶26

[2]

¶27

948-wp-1297-2024.odt

¶28

It is being pointed out that the respondent No.9 has already granted approval to his entitlement and even issued a certificate dated 15.02.2019 (Exhibit-B) to that effect for all the five academic years.

¶29

In the circumstances, if for whatever reasons, the things are not being taken further so as to take a final decision in the light of this certificate, the petitioner cannot be blamed. It would be a matter between the respondent No.5 Director of Higher Education and the respondent No.9 the Dean of the Medical College. If at all any further process was required

¶30

to be undertaken for ultimately holding the petitioner entitled to the freeship and the respondent No.9 getting reimbursement, it was for them to take appropriate steps.

¶31

The writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent No.9 to immediately issue all the certificates and return all the documents to the petitioner on his furnishing an undertaking that in case so ordered by this Court, he would pay the fees.

¶32

It is made clear that independently the respondent No.9 may take further steps by approaching respondent No.5, who, we are told, is the competent authority to take a final decision.

¶33

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

scm

¶35

[3]

Ketan Sunil Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Deputy Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketan Sunil Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Deputy Secretary 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

Farooque Khan Ajmal Khan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Ansh Gokul Thakur through His Father Gokul Chandrakant Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Tribal Department and Others

Alpana Prakash Gurutwad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Saudagar Farheen Alim and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Swarupa Sanjay Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Abuj Appasaheb Kashinath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others